Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

[jammonius]

Nobody got a suntan at WTC on 9/11. This by itself is sufficient evidence to conclude that no "Directed Energy Weapons" were in use. I didn't get one. Nobody did.

The amount of science education and intellectual curiosity you display declines every time you post this stupidity.

Be careful with yor absolutes. You probably did not see everyone and thus do not know what sort of skin indicators of DEW they may have had. Here's one example for consideration. I can tell you, in case you're interested, there are many others:

 

[Hokulele]

Be careful with yor absolutes. You probably did not see everyone and thus do not know what sort of skin indicators of DEW they may have had. Here's one example for consideration. I can tell you, in case you're interested, there are many others.

How does someone get hit by a DEW and not become "dustified"?

 

[R.Mackey]

For those of you who are beam-weapon fans, last week the ABL carried out its most ambitious test to date. This involved engaging two whole targets, at ranges unspecified but thought to be ~ 100 miles, while only requiring about an hour to recharge / reload / cool down.

The ABL is approximately four orders of magnitude weaker than the WKBWD-sat I specified in my 2006 post, and even that study is probably at least three orders of magnitude optimistic for reasons detailed in that writeup. Also, the ABL is carried on an aircraft where it experiences a much more benign power, thermal, pressure, and radiation environment; it's accessible for maintenance and continual monitoring by actual people; and it doesn't have to be launched months or years in advance.

Anyone who still believes in DEW at the World Trade Center is demonstrably insane. Please stop poking fun at them. You have absolutely nothing to fear from them, and you have nothing to gain by engaging them further. You cannot help them.

 

[jammonius]

First of all, if you had bothered to read for comprehension, you'd understand that those tests were conducted on steel components at the periphery of the fire zone, and not in the hottest areas. They come out and note this. Heck, they openly talk about "perimeter columns" and "exterior panels" - go reread what you yourself posted - yet you think that somehow is representative of the entire fire? No. What those did were match the fire models; the models predicted temperatures in the areas were the steel was recovered to be within a certain range. And those recovered steel pieces matched that prediction. The models went on to predict the temperature ranges farther in, where the fires were the hottest, and other experiments written up in NCSTAR 1-5 matched that. You are showing a complete and utter misunderstanding of the NIST information when you try to say that NIST claimed none of the steel exceeded 600^oC. That is not what they said; rather, they were saying that those samples matched what their model predicted the fire would burn at in the areas in the towers those samples had come from. And had you had bothered to read NCSTAR 1-5 and the subreports, you'd see that their model predicted far higher temperatures farther in the towers.

Furthermore, the steel you showed was already studied by the Worcester Polytechnic group; google the forum for "eutectic". That was not done by an energy weapon. An examination of the corrosion clearly established that the steel underwent a sulfidation attack.

Two strikes in one swing. Takes a truther to pull that off.

Greetings elmondo,

And thank you for responding to my post directly. Your research into the NIST report is greatly appreciated for its contribution to this group effort in seeking to understand what destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11. Of course, the conclusion is already apparent: NIST did not determine what destroyed the WTC complex. In terms of official reporting, there is no valid determination of what happened. Your post, for whatever it may be said to stand for, certainly does not stand for the proposition that NIST explained what destroyed the WTC. They did no such thing.

I reply to your post, in detail, as follows:

First of all, if you had bothered to read for comprehension, you'd understand that those tests were conducted on steel components at the periphery of the fire zone, and not in the hottest areas.

Shame on you elmondo for trying to get away with an unproven assumption. Neither NIST nor anyone else has proven what zones were hot and/or what areas were hottest. You are making an unsubstantiated assumption. Furthermore, the claim "hottest" is inapporpriate in this context; namely, a discussion of what temperature was reached by the steel samples that NIST had. NIST was clear in stating no steel it had exceeded 600degreesC. That temperature is not high enough to deform, warp or in any other way cause any serious damage to steel.

They come out and note this. Heck, they openly talk about "perimeter columns" and "exterior panels" - go reread what you yourself posted - yet you think that somehow is representative of the entire fire? No. What those did were match the fire models; the models predicted temperatures in the areas were the steel was recovered to be within a certain range. And those recovered steel pieces matched that prediction. The models went on to predict the temperature ranges farther in, where the fires were the hottest, and other experiments written up in NCSTAR 1-5 matched that.

I am going to have to call on you to cite the portions of NCSTAR1-5 you are referencing and ask that you put what you are claiming it says into an understandable context. Surely you ARE NOT saying that NIST made a determination, based on the steel that it tested, that it reached a high enough temperature, are you?

As I recall, NIST had to make assumptions about both temperature and the complete and total loss of the fire protection from steel and then only under the worst of the three assumption-riddled "cases" that it postulated could its computer come up with a "probable initiation of collapse" scenario. Note that phrasing: "probable initiation of collapse" thus having nothing whatever to do with the actual destruction that resulted in the turning of the WTC complex into dust as shown here:

You are showing a complete and utter misunderstanding of the NIST information when you try to say that NIST claimed none of the steel exceeded 600^oC. That is not what they said; rather, they were saying that those samples matched what their model predicted the fire would burn at in the areas in the towers those samples had come from. And had you had bothered to read NCSTAR 1-5 and the subreports, you'd see that their model predicted far higher temperatures farther in the towers.

elmondo, what is the highest temperature NIST found any of the steel it tested to have been exposed to? Please state the temperature in degrees, either C or F and provide a source. I'm not sure what difference you're trying to make with the distinctions you try so mightily to put forward in the above quote. NIST's models can predict whatever NIST wants its models to predict. The information I am here referencing is what temperature did the 236 sample pieces they had show they had been exposed to.

Furthermore, in modeling temperatures, while not taking into consideration that the dust cloud was not very hot, NIST has engaged in fraud.

Do posters remember this iconic photo? The person seen in the foreground was interviewed. That cloud caught up with him and completely enveloped him. It wasn't hot. Thus, by what claim of evidence does NIST justify making assumptions about temperature that it did not obtain in the samples it actually tested?

Furthermore, the steel you showed was already studied by the Worcester Polytechnic group; google the forum for "eutectic". That was not done by an energy weapon. An examination of the corrosion clearly established that the steel underwent a sulfidation attack.

Your declaration about what was not done by an energy weapon is your conjecture. And, what is equally obvious, the declaration that the steel "underwent a sulfidation attack" does not address how on earth that could have occurred, let alone what caused it.

We're actually making progress here because we are, at long last, focusing on the information that confirms how little has been officially determined about what happened to the WTC complex and how it was destroyed.

Thanks, elmondo, for your contributions in that respect.

 

[switchpoint]

600degreesC. That temperature is not high enough to deform, warp or in any other way cause any serious damage to steel.

Really? So there is no such thing as the coefficient for thermal expansion, huh? Better start rewriting some of those text and reference books. That's going to come as a big shock and suprise to a lot of people who have been counting on stuff changing volume and length as it gets hotter. But you learn something new everytime you talk to a truther.

 

[jay howard]

I think these photos will breathe life back into the ' dustifiction' argument if that's what you mean. You surely didn't think it had gone away did you ?

Tell me bill or jamonius, is it possible at all to devise a test for any part of the DEW theory?

If not, then it's not a scientific theory. End of discussion. Anything beyond that is pure salesmanship.



.

 

[bill smith]

That photo looks like a set piece JAM. Not bad for a snap shot.

 

[bill smith]

"NIST used two methods to estimate the maximum temperatures that the steel members had reached:
- Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, ONLY THREE columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 C.... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures DID NOT reach 250 C....
- Observations of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to a fire, can alter the basic structure of the steel and its mechanical properties. Using metallographic analysis, NIST DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE SAMPLES HAD REACHED TEMPERATURES ABOVE 600 C."

 

[WildCat]

"NIST used two methods to estimate the maximum temperatures that the steel members had reached:
- Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, ONLY THREE columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 C.... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures DID NOT reach 250 C....
- Observations of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to a fire, can alter the basic structure of the steel and its mechanical properties. Using metallographic analysis, NIST DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE SAMPLES HAD REACHED TEMPERATURES ABOVE 600 C."

So we can rule out any flavor of thermite, right bill?

 

[jammonius]

That photo looks like a set piece JAM. Not bad for a snap shot.

Hi bill,

Which one are you referring to,

this:

or this:

 

[GlennB]

To be fair, the photos you and Parky posted show steel in the process of dustification. Most folks would call it "rust" and it takes a while to rustify all of the steel, but it can be dusty.

Careful, dropzone, or some dolt will pick up your comment and turn it into the ERR (Enhanced Rapid Rustification) theory of WTC collapse.

 

[bill smith]

So we can rule out any flavor of thermite, right bill?

Not at all. The 25 or so melted columns were already in the basements. Most of the other remaining steel was untouched by nanothermite.

 

[bill smith]

Hi bill,

Which one are you referring to,

this:
[qimg]http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image190.jpg[/qimg]

or this:
[qimg]http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image249.jpg[/qimg]

The running man. I picture a photographer maybe on one knee in the middle of the road. It's just too chocolate-boxy if you know what I mean. Where are all the other people running ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Careful, dropzone, or some dolt will pick up your comment and turn it into the ERR (Enhanced Rapid Rustification) theory of WTC collapse.

Already done by Professor Jones & Co.

 

[jammonius]

Going back to the original question, we know that Leaphart claimed he wished to have the word 'anti-semite' removed from the dictionary because he felt its true meaning to be misleading. However, at the same time, he was happy to use the word 'flammable', despite the fact that he was deliberately using it so as to benefit from the fact that its technical, as opposed to common, meaning was itself misleading; the common interpretation of 'not flammable' would be a substance that does not burn at all, rather than a substance whose flashpoint is at or above 100ºF. Clearly, then, his motivation for removing the word 'anti-semite' cannot have truly been a desire to abolish all words whose common meaning is misleading. It must, rather, have been to abolish this specific word because of some specific meaning it possessed. That doesn't necessarily prove that he is an antisemite, only that he's a liar. It just strongly suggests that he's an anti-semite, and wants to avoide the accusation by abolishing the word and giving the impression that the concept is invalid.

Dave

Dave,

I thought we had dealt with crazy quilt, false choice syllogisms on page 1 of this thread. Your post does not make any sense whatsoever. You give both conspiracy theory and crazy quilt logic a bad name in the example you've constructed.
http://www.vintagevogue.com/assets/images/jancrmin.jpg

Do not hotlink images.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[aggle-rithm]

Tell me bill or jamonius, is it possible at all to devise a test for any part of the DEW theory?

If not, then it's not a scientific theory. End of discussion. Anything beyond that is pure salesmanship.



.

Take it easy, jay. You NEED the really crazy theories to make your own crazy theories seem less crazy.

 

[Loss Leader]

That photo looks like a set piece JAM. Not bad for a snap shot.

Do you have any idea how many pictures were taken on September 11, 2001? Some of them, by sheer force of probability, were going to turn out okay.

 

[jay howard]

Take it easy, jay. You NEED the really crazy theories to make your own crazy theories seem less crazy.

The claims I'm defending are testable, verifiable claims.

DEW's and "no-planers" have no testable theories. They are therefore, outside the realm of the scientific.

Show me a testable claim and I'll show you a scientific theory. It may be an incorrect scientific theory, but a scientific one nonetheless.

Do you understand the difference? If you know a damned thing about what science is, you'd better.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Not at all. The 25 or so melted columns were already in the basements. Most of the other remaining steel was untouched by nanothermite.

then why was the collapse from the top? And correct me if I'm wrong, but are you now saying space beams AND thermite brought down the towers, and not just planes filled with people you don't think existed?

 

[bill smith]

As bad a letter as I have ever read. The whole point of a cease and desist letter is to shock and terrify the other side. That's really not possible if your letter is incomprehensible.

Also, it's a pretty bad lawyer who actually identifies with his clients. Claiming not to believe everything one's client believes allows for one to identify with and gain the cooperation of the courts and one's opponents. It's an important bit of leverage and it makes no sense to surrender it.

Note the difference: "We have the right to see documents that prove the murder of our comrades by the jackbooted ..."

And: "Look, your honor, I know my client's position is out of the mainstream. If we get these documents, I can show him how wrong he is and we can all go home."

Forget the fact that he's a no-planer; he's just not a good lawyer.

I think you are right in many resoects. He would do better to stay more dead pan. He is being too idealistic and would do better for his clients (and himself) if he played the establishment game a little more.