WTC dust

[sylvan8798]

WTC Dust, as far as I can tell no one posting in this thread agrees with you that a plane drags a column of air around with it.

Is there any authority/expert out there in the way of an aerospace engineer, physicist, etc. who you would believe if they were to tell you that, indeed, you are incorrect in your claims that boats and planes drag columns of water or air around behind them?

Or has your position as "best 9/11 researcher" placed you above all others in your knowledge of these various and diverse fields?

 

[dafydd]

Why is it if a plane flies through a cloud it doesn't end up pulling a little cloud along behind it?

They do on the cartoons that Dusty watches on TV.

 

[dafydd]

You apparently have no idea what a wake is.

.

She's probably thinking of Irish wakes.

 

[dafydd]

I'm sure your hairdresser agrees.

I bet she got her money back from him.

 

[alienentity]

.. I'm the best (or among the tippy-top best) 9/11 researcher in the world. ..

Dr Blevins, for once, I agree with you. I really do think you represent the very best of the 9/11 Truth movement.

 

[alienentity]

I just want to make a short list of the top 9/11 Truth researchers, please feel free to add your own suggestions:

Dr Steven Jones
Dr Niels Harrit
Dr Judy Wood
Dr FH Couannier
Dr Tracy Blevins

So far I see these geniuses forming a cohesive, unified theory about 9/11, something that is immediately obvious to any layman who watched the collapses, but remained off-limits in the mainstream scientific community.

Thank heavens these learned scholars are applying sound science and reason to come up with a consensus opinion. I'm sure that their work will soon appear in science publications like Nature, Scientific American and so forth. I look forward to reading their carefully researched (ie 'that doesn't smell right to me so no planes hit the towers') hypotheses and find out how a combination of never-before-seen processes brought about the 'inside job' - how the towers were turned to dust by a combination of molecular dissociation, nanothermite explosives and thermite, along with mini-nuclear weapons.

Then I'm going to slit my throat with Occam's Razor and end the madness....

 

[alienentity]

btw, it is eery how the 2011 collapse of this 30 story building in Belem, Brazil, resulted in a tiny amount of debris, but large amounts of dust. (BBC: 'the area was covered by a plume of white dust.') I'm fairly certain that the same combination of molecular dissociation and nanothermite did the job again, probably the same contractors working secretly.

10 to 1 that there was a Jewish contractor or owner somewhere in the mix. This just reeks of Israel and Mossad.




Stay tuned for my new video about this collapse titled "Where did the building go?" (just kidding)

 

[alienentity]

Here's another picture of the Belem collapse. There is no way a natural collapse would result in such a small debris pile. You can see this pile is not even 1 story high...

Clearly a combination of nanothermite and DEW destroyed the building. Why else would there be the same kind of dust as found after the WTC towers? Apparently the debris was still 'fuming' the next day. Conclusive proof of controlled demolition.

Thanks to Steven Jones and Judy Wood for opening my eyes to the 'truth'. ETA, most of this building turned to dust and floated into the upper atmosphere - it didn't actually collapse, per se.

ps, further reflection, based on the wisdom of leading 9/11 Truth researchers like Steven Jones and Judy Wood, confirms that this 30 story building could not have collapsed almost perfectly into its own footprint unless there was a controlled demolition. If there had been a natural collapse it would have simply toppled over like a tree - everybody knows this.
The most revealing evidence is that, unlike WTC 7, which had only a few small fires, THERE WERE NO FIRES!!! Any questions?

 

[alienentity]

Further evidence of a massive media coverup of the Belem controlled demolition was the fact that the news stories can't even get the lie straight!

Some say 5 workers are missing, others say its only 3 workers. Some say it was a 25 story building, while others claim 30 stories and still others 20 stories!!!

Obviously, someone wants to cover up the true size of the tower - how better to explain why the debris pile is so impossibly small? This is exactly the same kind of slip-up that revealed the conspiracy in the media during 9/11 - WTC 7 was reported to have collapsed BEFORE IT HAPPENED!!! And it collapsed INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT!!! JUST LIKE THE BELEM TOWER!!

OMG OMG OMG!!

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...&stormfile=five_missing_after_25story__290111

http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=385500&CategoryId=14090

 

[beren]

Actually it won't even collapse until tomorrow.

 

[tsig]

Look it up. Dead human beings smell of a certain chemical called "cadaverene". I smelled these dead people. It was a trauma for me. But, at the very same time that I smelled the dead people, I smelled this other curious and unique smell.

This latter smell is what lasted for months. Not the smell of dead bodies. That went away after a few days.

Burnt plastic stinks.

 

[dafydd]

That plane is a hologram. Look at the clouds. Combined with the eight year old dust,it clinches it. Dusty,we salute you.

 

[tfk]

Dusty, I don’t want to drag this wake thing back into the fray, but as I touched down today, a thought entered my mind. I’m sure you have seen aircraft touchdown during landing, or at least a video of it; so, if what you say is true (the aircraft drags a wake behind it), then why doesn’t the aircraft drag the smoke from the tires contacting the runway behind it?

Fess,

A different, and compelling & well studied, example: wake turbulence behind airplanes on take-off.

Info here: Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Chap 4

See page 4-8

If Dusty's claim that wakes are dragged thru the air with the planes were true, then wake turbulence wouldn't be a problem for the next plane taking off. The wake would leave the vicinity along with the plane that created it.

But this just ain't the case.

Wake turbulence is a huge problem (especially for light planes taking off after big, heavy planes) precisely because the wakes are left behind over the runway.

To be complete, there is a tiny amount of air that is dragged along with the plane: a boundary layer measured in fractions of an inch from all surfaces of the plane. Unfortunately for Dusty's thesis, this boundary layer entered the tower with the plane.

tom

 

[Regnad Kcin]

So what are you saying destroyed the WTC? Office fires?

Don't forget that jet fuel burns out quickly. No amount of jet fuel could exist in the WTC (even if your 19 Arab conspiracy is true) after about 5 minutes, maximum.

Then what did you have? A regular office fire.Again, according to your view point. The normal, regular things that make up an office caught fire, and an hour later or more, the buildings just went up POOOOF like that.

I disagree. Not that the buildings went POOF> Of course, they did. I disagree with the commonly accecpted explanation of a regular, normal office fire, plus a bit of damage from a plane crash, that caused the buildings to do that.

Planes have crashed into buildings more than once in history, and that stuff didn't happen. None of the buildings went POOF! None of the buildings left behind metallic foam, similar to the stuff I found in my home near Ground Zero.

Something else did it.

Comedy gold.

Seriously, friend...you're embarrassing yourself. It would be difficult to be more wrong than what you've written above.

 

[dafydd]

Comedy gold.

Seriously, friend...you're embarrassing yourself. It would be difficult to be more wrong than what you've written above.

Scientist? Don't make me laugh. An impostor,she has no Phd. I will never believe that

 

[tfk]

Why is it if a plane flies through a cloud it doesn't end up pulling a little cloud along behind it?

Are you claiming that an airplane doesn't produce a wake?

Dusty,

Airplanes produce wakes.

The wakes do not move as you think they do.

Your understanding of aerodynamics is a poor as, well, just about everything else.

From a stationary point of view (i.e., from the ground), the wind generated by the wings of a level, passing plane is deflected almost straight downward.

As shown in this image of a plane flying directly over a cloud.

Flight 175 was banked towards Tower 1, meaning that the downwash from the plane's wings was directed downward & at an oblique angle away from Tower 1. The motion of the air particles was normal to the wings. They had no significant component of velocity in the direction of flight, and therefore would not "over run" the impact and then influence the smoke emerging from WTC 1.

Similarly, as noted in the post above, the wingtip vortices are left behind the plane. The air molecules in the vortices also have no component of velocity in the direction of flight. They also never over-run the plane generating them.

More patent nonsense.

 

[dafydd]

Dusty,

Airplanes produce wakes.

The wakes do not move as you think they do.

Your understanding of aerodynamics is a poor as, well, just about everything else.

From a stationary point of view (i.e., from the ground), the wind generated by the wings of a level, passing plane is deflected almost straight downward.

As shown in this image of a plane flying directly over a cloud.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?pictureid=4807&albumid=638&dl=1312419945&thumb=1[/qimg]

Flight 175 was banked towards Tower 1, meaning that the downwash from the plane's wings was directed downward & at an oblique angle away from Tower 1. The motion of the air particles was normal to the wings. They had no significant component of velocity in the direction of flight, and therefore would not "over run" the impact and then influence the smoke emerging from WTC 1.

Similarly, as noted in the post above, the wingtip vortices are left behind the plane. The air molecules in the vortices also have no component of velocity in the direction of flight. They also never over-run the plane generating them.

More patent nonsense.

Tut tut,showing facts to Dusty. It upsets her.

 

[The Platypus]

I've made a fantastic discovery.

If that's the case, what are you doing here? Why is it that all you are doing with this great discovery of yours is trolling the internet acting like an arrogant weirdo to people?

 

[WTC Dust]

Confirmation bias is the natural enemy of every scientist. One of the strategies I've been using to fight this is presenting my ideas on this forum.

I'm not "making the case" because I'm not trying to convince anyone. I merely want my work debunked as thoroughly as possible.

Sadly, most of what I've gotten from so-called skeptics is just an attitude. It's isn't a serious examination of my ideas, so the experience has left me wanting something better.

Specific, skeptical discussions are what I'd like to have. I found some very strange material in a little nook in my apartments close to Ground Zero.

This dust has the appearance of WTC dust. It is located in a place that would have admitted the dust cloud on 9/11 and which is strangely protected from the environment, despite being open to the outside.

The nook is actually a ventilation shaft, with a ventilation duct at the bottom. There is a concrete ledge protecting the shaft at the bottom that inadvertently also protects a few concrete ledges.

On these ledges I found the dust deposits, and retrieved some of the dust. When I began to examine the dust, I discovered a couple of things immediately.

First, and most notably, I discovered that the dust is not monotypical. There is more than one type of dust, each with distinct characteristics. My conclusion is that the different types of dust came from different parts of the WTC. The central core columns of the buildings were fabricated from almost nothing but steel and empty space (for the elevator shafts to go up and down in). This area of the building produced the darker dust. The perimeter of the WTC was fabricated of steel but also many other materials, concrete, glass, aluminum, ceramics, wood, etc., each of which is lighter in color than steel. This part of the building produced the lighter colored dust.

Would you like to take this time to debunk my major finding?

Here's a pic of what I'm talking about. Notice the darker dust is shooting up from the middle of the building, and the lighter dust is around the perimeter?

Dusty, you really should worry about Confirmation Bias. You say you're the "best 9/11 researcher," but you aren't winning lots of converts with your posts, are you?

I consider myself a serious 9/11 researcher, having debated Richard Gage twice, recently published a major article on 9/11 truth in the Skeptical Inquirer, etc.

You are not convincing me, nor are you winning any other converts, because you are simply not making the case for your arguments. You SAY that planes will have wakes that follow them with considerable force, yet you haven't been able to confirm any such thing. You SAY that your dust is from the Towers, yet you haven't provided material analyses of your foam, submitted it to independent testing, or -- in general -- helped support any of your claims very well at all.

People here have pointed you to real physical evidence that directly contradicts your claims (such as ATC tapes that do prove the planes were hijacked, something you insist did not happen; there have also been several eyewitness reports from posters here, or their friends/family). You have not 'dealt' with that evidence in any substantive way whatsoever.

You may think you're 'hot stuff', Dusty, but your efforts are simply more and more servings of UTTER FAIL.

You are no more persuasive that 9/11 was an inside jobbity-job than Death Dart and his street theatre, or Clayton Moore with his non-sequiturs, or ergo with his Stundies.

Sorry, but this is the plain truth - if you were such a perfect exponent of your theories, if you're so 'great' at 9/11, why isn't anyone here agreeing with you?

It's because you are not the "best 9/11 researcher" that you think you are.

 

[Kid Eager]

Confirmation bias is the natural enemy of every scientist. One of the strategies I've been using to fight this is presenting my ideas on this forum.

I'm not "making the case" because I'm not trying to convince anyone. I merely want my work debunked as thoroughly as possible.

Sadly, most of what I've gotten from so-called skeptics is just an attitude. It's isn't a serious examination of my ideas, so the experience has left me wanting something better.

Specific, skeptical discussions are what I'd like to have. I found some very strange material in a little nook in my apartments close to Ground Zero.

This dust has the appearance of WTC dust. It is located in a place that would have admitted the dust cloud on 9/11 and which is strangely protected from the environment, despite being open to the outside.

The nook is actually a ventilation shaft, with a ventilation duct at the bottom. There is a concrete ledge protecting the shaft at the bottom that inadvertently also protects a few concrete ledges.

On these ledges I found the dust deposits, and retrieved some of the dust. When I began to examine the dust, I discovered a couple of things immediately.

First, and most notably, I discovered that the dust is not monotypical. There is more than one type of dust, each with distinct characteristics. My conclusion is that the different types of dust came from different parts of the WTC. The central core columns of the buildings were fabricated from almost nothing but steel and empty space (for the elevator shafts to go up and down in). This area of the building produced the darker dust. The perimeter of the WTC was fabricated of steel but also many other materials, concrete, glass, aluminum, ceramics, wood, etc., each of which is lighter in color than steel. This part of the building produced the lighter colored dust.

Would you like to take this time to debunk my major finding?

Here's a pic of what I'm talking about. Notice the darker dust is shooting up from the middle of the building, and the lighter dust is around the perimeter?

You forgot step 1 - establishing that the dust came from the WTC and if it came from the WTC, the same vector that permitted its ingress magically prevented the ingress of other dust both before and after the event.

Scientific method is over there in the corner with a tear trickling down its cheek...