• 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.

WTC dust

Status
Not open for further replies.
You misrepresent my words and then mock your misrepresentation. Good job.

NoahFence said:
Yea, but it's nowhere near as laughable as a 'scientist' declaring the dust uncontaminated after EIGHT YEARS of sitting in an alley in NYC. I doubt anybody could be that stupid.


:boxedin:
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
Is a big plane made up of any substantially different materials than a smaller plane? No.

Nothing about a plane crash is sufficient to cause the heavy, long term fuming that came from Ground Zero in the aftermath of 9/11.

Airplane crashes cause fires that are containable, as is seen with the Bellaire Apartment example and which was also seen when an airplane crashed into the Empire State Building.

The fire at the Bellaire Apartments in New York City didn't last 100+ days, and neither did the fire at the Empire State Building.

There is no published journal article that meaningfully describes the destruction of the World Trade Center, and only one book "Where Did the Towers Go?"

I'm only studying 9/11 because nobody could explain to me what kind of "fire" burns for 100 days in Lower Manhattan. That boggled the mind. Also, the strange smell. A jet airplane is composed of certain material things. So is a steel skyscraper. Add those two things together, and you don't get the smell that I smelled. There was nothing, really, in the building that was going to burn for that long, and jet fuel burns out quickly.

On December 21, 2001, I'm standing a mile upwind of Ground Zero and get hit by the fumes, yet again, as happened on a daily basis since the attacks.
The fumes were horrible, and had a very distinct quality to them, unknown to me before or since. For one thing, this means that I'll know when I find the weapon because the weapon will make that smell.
Click to expand...

What about all the things inside the buildings huh? All kinds of fabrics, plastics, chemicals... oh and PEOPLE! I think it's reasonable to say it wasn't something most people have ever smelled before but isn't that understandable given the circumstances?

<< You live in BPC it says here. Excellent, perhaps I can arrange for you to meet with my brother-in-law. He was part of the rescue operations, I'm sure he'd be willing to correct you on your delusions.
 
WTC Dust said:
That looks like 2.5-3 stories to me.

The pile from neither 110 story building got as tall as these "candlesticks".

Most of it fell outside the footprints of the buildings, remember?

If gravity alone caused the destruction of the WTC, you'd expect the steel to collapse mostly straight down, or perhaps tip over like a Jenga puzzle falling. Anyway, you'd end up with a big pile, and not 100+ days of fumes.
Click to expand...


Your opinions do not matter. Your arguments do not matter. Your dust does not matter. What matters is the convergence of evidence showing that the normative explanation of 9/11 is the one backed by evidence, and no amount of crazy can overturn that.
 
You bring up a mistake I made.

I've made others. <shrugh>

At least I corrected it when it was pointed out to me, which is, if you can believe it, the reason I came to the James Randy forum. You guys are known for being skeptics, and you found a mistake for me. For this I am sincerely grateful.

It's not a biggie, in the grand scheme of things, and it's about airplanes, anyway. I study buildings. People always want to know about the airplanes, and so I have some thoughts on the topic, but my main research question is "What destroyed the World Trade Center?"

You people want to talk about planes, not me. You people are the ones that think planes crashed into the WTC, not me. Most of you people believe that a plane crash can do that to a building, but not me.

I got some details mixed up about a story that happened 65 years ago. My bad. But can plane crashes cause a steel building to become steel foam? The answer is still, "No they can't."

starri said:
Dr. Blevins, if I'm not mistakened, I believe you were also asserting that when the B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945 that the people aboard the plane merely got off and went about their lives, despite the fact in reality, fourteen people (three on the B-25 and eleven in the building) were killed. Please understand why I find your understanding of the mechanics involved in a jumbo-jet crash into a super-block skyscraper a little less than compelling.

I asked you this once before, and I don't really expect you to answer me this time either, but for the sake of doing it: When you were awarded your Ph.D, I assume you presented your dissertation and had to defend it. So, if you were judging your own data in that kind of environment, do you think the person conducting the research had earned his/her doctorate?
Click to expand...
 
Was there an amazing amount of dusty foam generated? Did the fuming last for 100+ days? The WTC didn't "partially collapse" because it didn't "collapse" at all. It was turned into foam.

Dash80 said:
That is a ridiculous comparison, like comparing a mountain with a mole hill.
If there's any kind of comparison this is it:

747 crash in Amsterdam

The El Al cargo jumbo crashed in to a high rise apartment complex, which partially collapsed in on itself as a result.
Click to expand...
 
I searched for it for 8 years before I found any of my own.

Then, six months later, I was able to examine some more samples. These were some of the Steven Jones samples.

So now I've studied two different finds! Weee! Things are looking great. I'm not lucky, just incredibly patient. I made my own luck by knowing my business inside and out.

Other people passed through the nook occassionally for years, but the first time I went in there, I knew I had found it. It was a joyous and scary day.

Craig4 said:
The dust was all over New York and it took you a while to find some you could collect? Please.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
Was there an amazing amount of dusty foam generated? Did the fuming last for 100+ days? The WTC didn't "partially collapse" because it didn't "collapse" at all. It was turned into foam.
Click to expand...

Your observations and opinions are contrary to the preponderance of evidence. Excuse me if I require a second opinion about this "fuming".
 
WTC Dust said:
Watch any video of the destruction of WTC 1 or WTC 2. The dust cloud (that I discovered to be a foam) goes up. Lots of it fall to the ground, but much of it goes up. Up into the sky, never to be sampled.
Click to expand...
It's called "smoke" Ms. Elite Scientist. Commonly found where things are burning.
 
Quite wrong on this one. For as much time as you presumably have to read JREF forum posts, you could spend some time at Dr. Wood's site. The woman has it going on!

The site is not for the stupid or the lazy. It took me two years of effort before I started to get the gist of what she was saying, but bit by bit it all had an effect.

She's not telling you what destroyed the World Trade Center. She's teaching you what you need to know in order to understand what happened, and then letting you come to your own conclusions.

John Hutchison, a long-famous amateur scientist, has been demonstrating the same "new physics" that were used to destroy the World Trade Center. She's not telling you that John Hutchison destroyed the WTC. She shows many images of his anomalously deformed metal samples that include bending, shattering, fracturing, sizzling, and strange fires and points out that all of these features are seen when examining the photographic forensic evidence of Ground Zero.

John does this by turning on a Tesla coil and bombarding his samples with high intensity X-rays. Kinda strange. These X-rays are, of course, invisible to the naked human eye. A beam zapped the WTC, or so the best theorist on the subject says.



Craig4 said:
Time spent doing almost anything other than studying Judy Wood would be time well spent.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
John Hutchison, a long-famous amateur scientist, has been demonstrating the same "new physics" that were used to destroy the World Trade Center. She's not telling you that John Hutchison destroyed the WTC. She shows many images of his anomalously deformed metal samples that include bending, shattering, fracturing, sizzling, and strange fires and points out that all of these features are seen when examining the photographic forensic evidence of Ground Zero.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of all those idiots looking at the first Mars Rover images and seeing skulls and alien artifacts
 
WTC Dust said:
Is a big plane made up of any substantially different materials than a smaller plane? No.
Click to expand...
I hilited the words that matter. Materials have nothing at all to do with it.

If a Hot Wheels car hit you at 5 mph do you think it would have the same effect as a Lexus hitting you at 60 mph?
 
WTC Dust said:
John does this by turning on a Tesla coil and bombarding his samples with high intensity X-rays. Kinda strange. These X-rays are, of course, invisible to the naked human eye. A beam zapped the WTC, or so the best theorist on the subject says.
Click to expand...
He does it with magnets and trick photography, as simple as turning the camera upside down. The tesla coil is just for show to fool the rubes.
 
Last edited:
I guess that the lack of high heat and the fact that the Towers did not burst open immediately gives Khalezov big problems. In that sense I am with you Dr. Blevins.

But I have my own rheory that places thousands of tons of molten steel in or below the lowest levels of the Towers. What evidence do you have that the enormous heat apparently coming up through the pile (that melted the firemen's shoes' etc was not actually there for up to 100 days ?

I am not trying to pull your chain. I really would like to know.
 
My results compliment the excellent descriptive work of Dr. Judy Wood. She elaborates at great length in her new book, "Where Did the Towers Go?", on the nature of the destruction of the WTC.

I like Judy because her results provide an excellent framework for understanding the context for my independent observations during the aftermath of 9/11. None of my work counters that of Judy Wood, and all of it supports it.

That we are both women is awesome, and perhaps interesting.

Tracy observed: The smell of the WTC.
Judy describes: Fumes emanating from Ground Zero.
Tracy observed: Nothing where WTC 1 and WTC 2 used to stand from above a ten foot fence from ground level on Day 3.
Judy describes: A very short pile of steel, but instead a large amount of dust.
Tracy observed: Dust deposits on concrete ledges near Ground Zero on Day 3.
Judy describes: That the dust cloud rolled down the street and covered many buildings.
Tracy observed: Continued, heavy fuming from Ground Zero for months during many days of rain and constant fire fighting efforts.
Judy describes: A molecular process that does not generate high heat (and therefore cannot be "cooled" by water).
Tracy observed: The smell of the WTC stench, 8+ years later, occasionally while walking my dogs near the Deutsche Bank.
Judy describes: That the Deutsche Bank was partially damaged on 9/11 by the same process that caused the molecular dissociation seen from the WTC buildings.


Essentially, Dr. Wood describes a mechanism that can explain long term fuming that does not depend on high heat, which puts it far ahead of every other theory. Is she right? Probably, but maybe not. Time will tell.
 
You are right that smoke implies burning, which is why you're wrong that the fumes were smoke.

The fire fighters didn't suffocate! The paper didn't burn! There are so many things that distinguish this strange fire from a regular fire, that I'll leave most of it up to you.

Fires go out when you pour water on them. Fires go out if it rains heavily. These "fires" didn't behave like that. And they didn't smell like that, either. Plus there was nothing much to burn inside the building.

Combustion aka fire aka smoke is not what was going on. What was going on was dissociation of dense materials at ambient temperatures.

WildCat said:
It's called "smoke" Ms. Elite Scientist. Commonly found where things are burning.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom