WTC dust

[TexasJack]

Sorry, I should have looked longer at the page you linked


Yo, peeps! Did you see that picture at the top right comparing the shape of the dust plumes to Gauss lines?

That's nothing, check out the archive for June.

 

[cntdrv55]

P.S. Anyone who says a plane crash turned a steel building into dust, ever in the history of humankind, is wrong.

Well that's a relief... good thing you are the only one here saying it.

 

[leftysergeant]

Oy!

Somebody's sexual fantasies are getting a little out of hand.

 

[The Big Dog]

Presuming some kind of romantic involvement between Judy and those men is sexist. Judy's main thing is her science, not her vagina.

Hey, we ain't your monkey, we'll argue about Judy Wood how we see fit.

 

[Lyrandar]

Wood is not my mentor. She's barely even a colleague. I'd say that Wood and I have almost no relationship whatsoever. The DEW theory is hers. I would like to see it debunked. If none of you can debunk it, and you are the premier debunkers as I see it, then it remains undebunked, which strengthens the theory even more in my eyes.

Debunk away, just know that an actual debunking requires sophistication more than crude behavior.

Okay, let me turn this one back on you. Is there anything you can think of, any type of evidence or any specific points, which would qualify as proof that the DEW theory is false?

Incidentally, my primary problem with Dr. Wood is that she relies heavily on arguments from incredulity. She posts random observations from 9/11 on her website and claims that there is no way that plane crash and fire could cause them. She offers no conclusive proof of this, though, and she ignores the opinions of many others who believe it is actually possible.

 

[CORed]

What would "my own work" consist of?

Watching youtube videos, most likely.

 

[leftysergeant]

Incidentally, my primary problem with Dr. Wood is that she relies heavily on arguments from incredulity. She posts random observations from 9/11 on her website and claims that there is no way that plane crash and fire could cause them. She offers no conclusive proof of this, though, and she ignores the opinions of many others who believe it is actually possible.

I'm up to about ten examples of this in my review of her work in the thread about "melted" cars at GZ, so far.

 

[triforcharity]

OK. How about a very simple example that is only approximately true, just to get you into the ballpark?

Let's ignore the walls of the WTC and just pretend that the WTC was made up of floors only. 4 inches of concrete. Let's say 8 inches of steel beams. 4+8=12.
12X110=1320 inches, or 110 feet.

Piled up perfectly with no gaps or imperfections, just the flooring would have been 110 feet in the sky. That's 9-10 stories tall, which would have been visible above a ten foot fence from two blocks away 3 days after the attacks.

All this is silly to talk about, because floors didn't fall. Dust that had very recently comprised the material that made up a floor was falling, but nothing like an intact floor was ever falling during the final destruction of WTC 1 and 2. "What used to be a floor" was falling, but so was everything else that used to make up the World Trade Center.

The reason you had such a short pile at Ground Zero is because almost the entire building became dust. No, they didn't sell the steel to China. What used to be steel spread out over lower Manhattan in the form of particles.
Not much was left to pile up (compared to the mass of the buildings).

What INTERSECTION were you at?

Also, case to actually address ANY of the pictures that I have posted?

ANY at all?

 

[triforcharity]

There is absolutely nothing about an airplane crashing into a steel building that can cause all that dust. Fire, ok. Damage, yes. Dust? No.

The airplane did not cause all the dust. The collapse of the building did.

You are no scientist. Hell, you can't even do proper research.

 

[triforcharity]

I told you that NOT ONE TINY BIT of the pile poked up above a ten foot fence from two blocks away. A few parts of the exterior steel were poking up. Don't misquote me and then call me a liar.

Eventually, they built a platform for easy viewing of the entire site, but I'm not talking about when they did that. I'm talking about immediately after the attacks. I expected to see a devastated building, but nope. Nothing to see but a few pieces poking up and some fumes.

I quoted you word for word.

What INTERSECTION were you at? Veasey? Broadway? West? Where?

I have showed you some pictures that prove this 2 stories BS as a lie. Care to actually address them?

 

[triforcharity]

What about the fires burning for six months under the rubble ? Was that just disinfo ?

No, that is just you being wrong.

99 days, NOT 6 months.

 

[Thunder]

I quoted you word for word.

What INTERSECTION were you at? Veasey? Broadway? West? Where?

I have showed you some pictures that prove this 2 stories BS as a lie. Care to actually address them?

I know I said I would not get involved in this thread again, but I will again for this crap.

As I NYC govt. employee, I was able to get past some of the blockades and barriers that civilians could not. I was one block away from the rubble of WTC 7.

The pile, was at least 40-50 feet high. A good 4 stories. I did not take a picture, cause I was not a tourist when I went down there. I was doing my job.

10 foot high pile? Give me a break. This is a joke.

 

[kookbreaker]

This is not the first internet group I've participated in, and there are always folks that insist that I'm not a scientist. <shrug>

Maybe that is because you act in a manner completely contradictory to a scientist.

Persistent denial is fine for keeping your ego intact, I suppose.

It has nothing to do with my ego. It has everything to do with your laughable assertions and idiotic conclusions.

Oh, and the out and out lying you keep doing.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

WTC Dust --
I am truly and utterly fascinated by the ideas you are presenting. It seems that everyone here has jumped on you with derision and insults, before you've even presented your information. So unfair. Personally, I'd be interested in learning more about your position or methodology. Would it be ok to ask you a few questions with that in mind?

1. As a research scientist, what is your primary field of research? Are you independent, or part of a think tank?
2. Have you met Dr. Wood?
3. How long have you been interested in her work?
4. Do you plan on publishing your work?
5. Have you considered the debris pile below street level?
6. Have you considered the debris that fell outside the footprint?
7. Assuming for a moment that gravity was wholly responsible, how big would you expect the pile to be? Could you justify your answer mathematically?
8. Under the same assumption, how much dust would you expect to see? Again, could you please justify it mathematically?

Thank you so much. I apologize if any of these are too intrusive.

 

[Jono]

The reason you had such a short pile at Ground Zero is because almost the entire building became dust. No, they didn't sell the steel to China. What used to be steel spread out over lower Manhattan in the form of particles.
Not much was left to pile up (compared to the mass of the buildings).

I just showed you how demonstrably incorrect your "take" on this matter is. There can be no "reason you such a short pile" when that is not in any way reflective of what was. And there can be no "what used to be steel-became particles" when reality contradicts that with the hundreds of thousands of tons of huge steel members and debris that created the enormous piles.

Why do you assume the exact opposite of what is reality to be true?

 

[bill smith]

Heck no. Steven Jones is a stupid jerk, in my opinion. I need to add that to my signature.

An old Truther once said that the best way to destroy a Truth Movement is to lead it. So do you think that Steven Jones and his colleagues could actually be Shills whose task it is to distract people from the Truth ?

 

[Oystein]

You still haven't mentioned why Dr. Wood talks about John Hutchison.

Oh ok.

Judy Wood talks about John Hutchinson because he is the only one who has ideas as bat-crap-crazy as she has.

 

[Oystein]

I never read science fiction, or actually any fiction other than the classics.

You have read some of Judy Wood's works., That's science fiction. I hope you don't categorize her as "classic" yet?

 

[Oystein]

I've read the papers that you refer to. I do not dispute any of their results. I presume that the data they've collected is perfectly good. Their analysis universally sucks, but that's a part of science.

Why do you think their analysis universally sucks? Can you point out one flaw, by way of example, in the RJ Lee Group report, for starters?

Nobody gets it right until one person gets it right. Often, that person is ridiculed. Then, eventually, everyone gets it right. It takes a lot of guts to tell the entire world that they are wrong.

How do you decide who gets it right?
We at JREF generally want to see evidence.
We haven't seen any presented by you.
So excuse us if we remain highly dobtful.

P.S. Anyone who says a plane crash turned a steel building into dust, ever in the history of humankind, is wrong.

Strawman. Nobody says that.

Wood is not my mentor. She's barely even a colleague. I'd say that Wood and I have almost no relationship whatsoever. The DEW theory is hers. I would like to see it debunked. If none of you can debunk it, and you are the premier debunkers as I see it, then it remains undebunked, which strengthens the theory even more in my eyes.

It is not a theory. Judy Wood makes no claim whatsoever about her imagined DEW! There is nothing to be debunked!

Debunk away, just know that an actual debunking requires sophistication more than crude behavior.

Actual debunking requires an actual theory first!

 

[Oystein]

That's nothing, check out the archive for June.

I'll call my lawyer to sue you for damages!! Just fell off my chair laughing!!



Now where is Attorney Leaphart's number.....