• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Frederic Henry-Couannier? (trying to reproduce Jones' nanothermite analysis)

Hello, everyone? It's me again, and guess where I am? In London! Woot! On my way to Marseilles, France to try and contact Fred in person. He was looking for dust, and I've got dust. Actually, if you remember, it's a foam. Air bubbles and such. Wish me luck!
 
WTC Dust said:
Hello, everyone? It's me again, and guess where I am? In London! Woot! On my way to Marseilles, France to try and contact Fred in person. He was looking for dust, and I've got dust. Actually, if you remember, it's a foam. Air bubbles and such. Wish me luck!
Click to expand...

WOOT! Indeed!

Did you pick the cigarette butts out of your otherwise pristine sample?
 
WTC Dust said:
Hello, everyone? It's me again, and guess where I am? In London! Woot! On my way to Marseilles, France to try and contact Fred in person. He was looking for dust, and I've got dust. Actually, if you remember, it's a foam. Air bubbles and such. Wish me luck!
Click to expand...
Good luck.

Friendly advice. Try to keep your clothes on in public.


;)
 
DGM said:
Good luck.

Friendly advice. Try to keep your clothes on in public.


;)
Click to expand...

Actually the French don't mind nudity, they get offended more by Niqabs (Muslim headcoverings) :p

Y'know, Tracy, it would make sense to send some of your dust to an independent, impartial lab as well. Couannier is as partisan as they come..in favour of the whole 9/11 Conspiracy™ baggage, that is.
 
WTC Dust said:
Hello, everyone? It's me again, and guess where I am? In London! Woot! On my way to Marseilles, France to try and contact Fred in person. He was looking for dust, and I've got dust. Actually, if you remember, it's a foam. Air bubbles and such. Wish me luck!
Click to expand...

I take it there will be a pit stop in Amsterdam? Bring me back some brownies! :D (jk)
 
Some of the dust I discovered had cigarette butts, but I didn't collect that dust. The dust I collected was free of cigarette butts. :-)
 
Frederick Henry-Couannier, Judy Wood, and Tracy Blevins are the three scientists who are proposing a non-thermitic process of WTC destruction that resulted in a cool dust cloud. So there's three of us. :-) I'd say 3 Ph.D.s beats 1,000 architects in this matter, especially since what was seen on 9/11 was advanced, secret technology. In this case, knowing how to build and destroy buildings doesn't help. What was required was research science, not general knowledge of building construction.
 
alienentity said:
Actually the French don't mind nudity, they get offended more by Niqabs (Muslim headcoverings) :p

Y'know, Tracy, it would make sense to send some of your dust to an independent, impartial lab as well. Couannier is as partisan as they come..in favour of the whole 9/11 Conspiracy™ baggage, that is.
Click to expand...

If I sent my dust to an impartial laboratory, and then this laboratory performed the same experiments already performed on the dust, then the science would not be advanced in any way. Just another data point.

So I'm not doing that, yet. I'm working on a new method that will result in a proper analysis of the dust that leads to the real mechanism of destruction.

What does finding silicon in the dust tell you? NOTHING. Because windows are made of glass. Big deal. The real question is how the dust came into existence, and spectral analysis has not provided any real insight into this process to date.
 
WTC Dust said:
If I sent my dust to an impartial laboratory, and then this laboratory performed the same experiments already performed on the dust, then the science would not be advanced in any way. Just another data point.

So I'm not doing that, yet. I'm working on a new method that will result in a proper analysis of the dust that leads to the real mechanism of destruction.

What does finding silicon in the dust tell you? NOTHING. Because windows are made of glass. Big deal. The real question is how the dust came into existence, and spectral analysis has not provided any real insight into this process to date.
Click to expand...

So you are not a fan of the whole scientific method, huh?
 
WTC Dust said:
If I sent my dust to an impartial laboratory, and then this laboratory performed the same experiments already performed on the dust, then the science would not be advanced in any way. Just another data point.

So I'm not doing that, yet. I'm working on a new method that will result in a proper analysis of the dust that leads to the real mechanism of destruction.

What does finding silicon in the dust tell you? NOTHING. Because windows are made of glass. Big deal. The real question is how the dust came into existence, and spectral analysis has not provided any real insight into this process to date.
Click to expand...

Tracy, that excuse is really lame. I'm disappointed at your attempts to dodge good science and pursue pseudo-science well out of your areas of expertise. You're no different and certainly no better than the likes of Steven Jones, for example.

The definitive test for nanothermite has already been explained on this forum several times; if you wanted to really strike a blow to the heart of your competitors you'd perform those tests.

I see that you have no interest in a thorough elimination of the competing theories. I guess you think you already 'know' what happened. ;) That's what makes you a truther.
 
WTC Dust said:
Frederick Henry-Couannier, Judy Wood, and Tracy Blevins are the three scientists who are proposing a non-thermitic process of WTC destruction that resulted in a cool dust cloud. So there's three of us. :-) I'd say 3 Ph.D.s beats 1,000 architects in this matter, especially since what was seen on 9/11 was advanced, secret technology. In this case, knowing how to build and destroy buildings doesn't help. What was required was research science, not general knowledge of building construction.
Click to expand...
AE911T's list of 1500+ architects and engineers includes about 48 PhDs.

Using your own highlighted criterion to choose between those two arguments from specious authority, your argument loses.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
AE911T's list of 1500+ architects and engineers includes about 48 PhDs.

Using your own highlighted criterion to choose between those two arguments from specious authority, your argument loses.
Click to expand...

Tracy's hubris is breathtaking. ETA almost as impressive as her poor logic.
 
Last edited:
Ugh. Not this again.

Dusty, remember your demonstration that conclusively proved your samples aren't magnetic?
 
Last edited:
Big deal. The real question is how the dust came into existence,
Click to expand...

I'm thinking massive collapse of a steel and concrete structure with untold amounts of gypsum wallboard inside may have contributed to it.

Also, thousands of computer keyboards with bits of crackers in between the keys probably contributed. Hope those first responders weren't allergic to peanuts.
 
WTC Dust said:
Frederick Henry-Couannier, Judy Wood, and Tracy Blevins are the three scientists.
Click to expand...
Evidence? I've seen nothing even remotely scientific from any of them. Maybe Judy Wood was at one time, before her unfortunate brain injury.
 
WTC Dust said:
If I sent my dust to an impartial laboratory, and then this laboratory performed the same experiments already performed on the dust, then the science would not be advanced in any way. Just another data point.
Click to expand...
What experiments did you perform on the dust and where are the results?
 
Don't forget her iconic picture of the ceremony a year later at GZ where it was 'still fuming,' even though it's blatantly obvious that the wind just kicked up dust right when the picture was being taken. Can't remember what page that was on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom