Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

WTC Dust said:
Just the idea of digging down there and finding treasure. Ridiculous, even if true.
Click to expand...

They didn't find treasure. They found bedrock.

It is pretty common, Tracy.

Couple bucks and you can see part of it yourself in Central Park.

You have a couple bucks don't you?
 
WTC Dust said:
Just the idea of digging down there and finding treasure. Ridiculous, even if true.
Click to expand...

Happens quite a lot. Like uncovering roman villas and viking villages here in the U.K. Why is it ridiculous?

Archaeology is very interesting.
 
WTC Dust said:
Do you think the following two types of WTC dust arose from different events?
Click to expand...


This is a picture of a piece of something. I cannot possibly tell what it arose from just from looking at it and certainly not if it's "two types of WTC dust", so what's the point of that question?

WTC Dust said:
The energy weapon theory isn't mine. I'd drop the theory in a heartbeat and never look back if someone effectively debunked it. As things stand today, though, it's the best theory out there. It is not my theory. ... I don't like it when the work of other people is incorrectly attributed to me.
Click to expand...


a) That theory has hardly enough substance to even start "debunking" it. You cannot even say what exactly this "energy weapon" supposedly does and how.

b) It is a theory that you have been representing for quite some time now, but I will gladly refer to it as "the" energy weapon theory instead of "your" energy weapon theory, if you are bothered by the latter for whatever reason.

WTC Dust said:
You're right. The writers of the article couldn't figure out how bedrock could possibly exist in the basement of the WTC. I hope you catch my drift. The photo captions were pretty incredulous, so I give the journalist an A for noticing the wee-oo wee-oo factor in that story.:boggled:
Click to expand...


Apparently the people from the geology department at Hofstra University are too stupid to recognize WTC foam, too. This Charles Merguerian is a Ph.D., like you, but probably not as brilliant. Go ahead and educate that dunderhead. He's got an email address.
 
Originally Posted by WTC Dust
The energy weapon theory isn't mine. I'd drop the theory in a heartbeat and never look back if someone effectively debunked it.
Click to expand...

It has never been demonstrated as being possible to devise an energy weapon that can 'dustify' solid steel nor has any specific physical mechanism by which a form of energy would 'dustify' steel ever been outlined, so it barely meets the definition of a 'theory' in the first place. "Dark Energy/DarkMatter" has more circumstantial evidence to back the theory of its existence, than does a steel dustification energy weapon.

You might as well believe in the existence of pixie dust or any other form of magic and claim you will drop that belief if anyone can debunk it
 
Last edited:
So basically here's where we are:

bedrock underneath the WTC--absurd and laughable

dustifyng energy weapons and hologram planes--well obviously, duh!
 
brazenlilraisin said:
So basically here's where we are:

bedrock underneath the WTC--absurd and laughable

dustifyng energy weapons and hologram planes--well obviously, duh!
Click to expand...

Finding a ship under the WTC was what I thought was funny. Finding WTC foam and calling it bedrock is wee-oo wee-oo! Read the captions. The journalist knew it was strange.
 
WTC Dust said:
Finding a ship under the WTC was what I thought was funny. Finding WTC foam and calling it bedrock is wee-oo wee-oo! Read the captions. The journalist knew it was strange.
Click to expand...

You were able to read the scientific paper that was posted, right Tracy?

/the hilarious thing is Tracy does not know that the area shown in those pictures was never previously excavated. WTC DUST under 50,000 year old till! LOLZ!
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
Finding a ship under the WTC was what I thought was funny. Finding WTC foam and calling it bedrock is wee-oo wee-oo! Read the captions. The journalist knew it was strange.
Click to expand...

Oh man, I guess all those construction workers had a real hard time with all this foam right?
 
WTC Dust said:
Engineering is somewhat relevant, but not if you understand that what happened was advanced weaponry and if what was needed to figure all that out was research science. Engineers are not research scientists, unless they have additional training in research science.
Click to expand...

See the hilited part Tracy? What kind of weaponry are you talking about? Are you an expert in advanced weaponry? Can you prove that you have experience in advanced weaponry to back up that claim?
 
WTC Dust said:
...Finding WTC foam and calling it bedrock is wee-oo wee-oo! Read the captions. The journalist knew it was strange.
Click to expand...

I read the captions. The journalist thought it was strange to imagine an ice age landscape being uncovered in the midst of a modern city. But that is very clearly what it is and the journalist was right; the juxtaposition of an ancient rock feature and a modern skyscraper is very curious. The photograph you called "WTC dust" was very clearly geological and now that I've see where that picture came from and seen the pictures of the whole plunge pool it's extremely clear that this is rock carved smooth by water.

Have you registered the information that people have been giving you about where this plunge pool is? It's not under where the WTC towers were. It's not previously been excavated. It's a new excavation and a new discovery. It does not and it could not contain material from the collapsed WTC.

So I feel I need to say how very much I do not appreciate your responding to my post with a picture of Manhattan bedrock and proclaiming it as "WTC dust". That is a ridiculous falsehood. I am left only to wonder whether you deliberately lied to me or whether you are so obsessed by your fantasies that you are fooling yourself. Neither option is impressive.
 
WTC Dust said:
Yeah. Manhattan Island is an island. The rock down there is part of the Earth's crust. But it's bedrock. Mmm hmm. They apparently discovered an ancient ship down there, too. It's hilarious.
Click to expand...

Um... islands don't float.
Reminds me of this:

lol
 
WTC Dust said:
It couldn't tell you anything, affirmatively. You could rule things about planes, but not say much at all about them.
Click to expand...

So why bother with it? If it doesn't tell you about plane crashes it could hardly be of any value in studying what happened at the WTC.
 
WTC Dust said:
Finding a ship under the WTC was what I thought was funny. Finding WTC foam and calling it bedrock is wee-oo wee-oo! Read the captions. The journalist knew it was strange.
Click to expand...

You don't pay close attention to the material you're reading...that's a fact. Go ahead and read those articles again; Read them articles a bit more s-l-o-w-l-y and allow the explanations to sink in...they explain the area shown in those pictures was never previously excavated. Did you miss that?
 
Last edited:
MIKILLINI said:
You don't pay close attention to the material you're reading...that's a fact. Go ahead and read those articles again; Read them articles a bit more s-l-o-w-l-y and allow the explanations to sink in...they explain the area shown in those pictures was never previously excavated. Did you miss that?
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, her reading comprehension sucks. I totally understand how she cannot find a job in her chosen field.
 
WTC Dust said:
Yeah. Manhattan Island is an island. The rock down there is part of the Earth's crust. But it's bedrock. Mmm hmm.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to glean whatever the sarcastic "Mmm hmm" means, but I must admit it's a struggle. Do you have a different definition of "bedrock" to everyone else? Do you think that bedrock is something only ever found deep underground? Can any scientifically-minded New Yorker be unaware that shallow lying, hard bedrock is precisely why Manhattan was a good place to build very tall buildings, or that bedrock is exposed in parts of Central Park? (I'm not even American and I knew that.)

We're all now very much aware that the picture you posted is not of the "basement" of the WTC. It's not under the former WTC towers at all. it's a new excavation uncovering a bedrock surface which hasn't seen the light of day for over 40,000 years.

So would you now like to revise your "Mmm hmm" assessment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom