• 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.
aggle-rithm said:
I think we're at the point where WTC Dust will show his true colors.

Is he sincerely deluded, or just a common troll trying to get attention? Or is he something entirely unexpected?
Click to expand...

Has any troll come onto the JREF forums claiming to have some WTC dust?
 
WTC Dust said:
Almost all of the WTC got turned into dust.
Click to expand...

Lack of scientific quantifying noted. ETA as well as blatant nonsense. Philips and Jordan give these statistics:

Completion
The last debris was processed on July 26, 2002, day 321 of the project. At the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission:
• 1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed
• 35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero)
• 806,000 tons of debris had been screened, an average of 75 tons per hour
• 14,968 workers had been through the PPE process
• 43,600 people (39,795 NYPD, 6,212 non-NYPD) had been through the Site Specific Indoctrination
• Over 1.7 million man hours had been worked
• Over 55,000 discrete pieces of evidence had been recovered
• 4,257 body parts had been recovered
• 209 victims had been positively identified

When you claim that 'almost all the WTC got turned to dust' you are making a blatantly false, and incredibly stupid, claim. There isn't a shred of science in it to debunk, it's really that dumb and dishonest.

You might as well say 'a whole bunch', and throw out math and science altogether...actually, you have done that:p



I really don't know why most of you are against even discussing the possibility of an electrical weapon destroying the WTC. Steel conducts electricity. You know you can "do things" to metals with electricity.

Don't know what is sooooo outrageous about destroying steel with electricity.
Click to expand...

Ummm, you have no science to back it up? Steel conducts electricity anyway, so if you pass a current thru it nothing happens, unless you happened to add an absolutely staggering amount of energy - but then what is the proposed level of energy, where and how was it generated?

So yes, the complete lack of any science to back up your 'dustification' theory is an outrageous appeal to magic.

One of the reasons you're encountering disdain and ridicule is because you refuse to get serious about it, refuse to discuss the science (if you had any) with anyone who's a skeptic, and have a complete lack of respect for the evidence against your whackadoodle ideas. Case in point is your repeated evasion of the documented amounts of structural steel removed from the WTC: at least 200,000 tons of it.

You really are pretty out-to-lunch. I'm surprised you can begin to take yourself seriously, because what you've offered thus far is a bad joke, and nothing more. You're a very poor scientist, I'm afraid - and I guarantee that you do not hold degrees majoring in chemistry and physics. No way.
I'm guessing biological sciences, perhaps biomed background.

You don't have physics. That's clear.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Hey, I agree with this, too.

The gov't is filled with Satan-worshipping, steel-dustifying rapscallions. And they woulda gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for the WTCDust mystery crew and that meddling dog of theirs.

Seriously, I like the steel-turning-into-dust theory. It's broad, imaginative and big. But I still have to give the competition for wackiest theory to the Let's Roll forum, since it involves purposely building hollow towers with the intention of bringing them down and faking the deaths of thousands some decades later. Mysterious energy weapons are good, but it takes more balls to go through the rolls of the dead and find celebrity lookalikes in order to prove that these victims never actually existed.

To be sure, the "Let's Roll" theories are much, much more offensive to the victims and their survivors.
Click to expand...

Mentioning the phrase "9/11" is enough to get some survivors mad at you, so if you plan to talk about 9/11 at all, be prepared to offend some survivors.
 
WTC Dust said:
Has any troll come onto the JREF forums claiming to have some WTC dust?
Click to expand...

Trolls claim all sorts of things. You must be the first to pretend to have dust, and have analyzed it.
The real scientists, even the flakes, at least publish their analysis for peer review, something you sadly have not done, nor are you likely to do.

If you expect any response beyond laughter, you're going to have to offer a more insightful analysis of your dust than to say it looks 'strange' and is gray or white. A 5 year old child could do as well.

Adults uniformly will see your ideas as without merit. You might find a few kindred spirits out there who will share your adoration of woo, for sure. But no competent scientists.
 
djlunacee said:
Who Cares?



Only in an alternate reality. Among sane and rational people she is still a laughing stock. The punchline of a bad joke.

That is good.



You do realize the judges who threw Judy out of court still feel she has no merit or case, this means no substantiative proof for her case, well done.



You are absolutely correct, science fraud was committed. Shame on Judy, I guess when you refuse to define any aspect or answer any questions regarding said fantasy, oops, I mean theory.
Click to expand...



Oh really? Then you must be able to come up with some legitimate reason that NIST would hire a directed energy weapons manufacturer (ARA) to comment on a plane crash? There was no reason under the official story for ARA to have been contracted to advise on the NIST report.

However, if DEW were used or suspected to have been used, there would be.
They'd do things like make sure that nothing was said that would implicate DEW, like, "The building turned into dust while standing."

Which is what happened. And which implicates DEW.
 
excaza said:
Remember when that actually happened? No? Me neither.


Of course it could have been. Except such technology DOESN'T EXIST.
Click to expand...

Why are you so sure that you'd put it in bold type?

Surely you aren't saying that you know of every single weapon ever devised, are you?

And if not, how do you know that something doesn't exist? You think secrets don't exist, either?
 
WTC Dust said:
Why are you so sure that you'd put it in bold type?

Surely you aren't saying that you know of every single weapon ever devised, are you?

And if not, how do you know that something doesn't exist? You think secrets don't exist, either?
Click to expand...

Unless we're contracting with aliens and/or time travelers, the technology does not exist. The yield of the most advanced DEW today is orders of magnitude less than what would be required to "dustify" a skyscraper. And even if something that powerful did exist, it would melt the structure, not "dustify" it.

Your entire premise is fantasy.
 
bill smith said:
Remember when the top 30-odd floors of WTC2 began to tilt out how the entire building underneath just uniformly collapsed under it in a split second ? Just like somebody had pushed a demolition button ?

Could that still have been an orbital DEW that caused that to happen ?
Click to expand...

I just think the operator didn't get the job done perfectly. Every new technology has some kinks that need to get worked out.

The top of WTC 2 tipped over, about 25 degrees from vertical, but then it dissolved on the way down. I can imagine the operator of the machine going, "OH CRAP!" <zap, zap, zap> manually. Just a guess, though.

The airplane crashers (aka concrete floor crashers) have exactly ZERO explanation as to why we didn't see a big chunk of WTC 2 on the ground. The top of the building was tipping over. No concrete floors were available to crash down on anything, so why didn't we end up with a big chunk of WTC 2 left over?

Because it was an electrical weapon that destroyed the World Trade Center.
 
excaza said:
a.) the amount of electricity required to do it in the timeframe you're proposing.
b.) the fact that it would cause the steel to MELT, not "dustify"
Click to expand...

You don't know everything. Heat isn't the answer to the question, "What destroyed the World Trade Center?"
 
Thunder said:
steel doesn't turn into dust.
Click to expand...

This is untrue, even in your world of yesteryear that doesn't include energy weapons.

You can turn steel into dust by filing it down, silly. That doesn't even take learning on your part, now, does it?
 
WTC Dust said:
You don't know everything. Heat isn't the answer to the question, "What destroyed the World Trade Center?"
Click to expand...

You don't know anything. Electricity melts materials through ohmic losses (a.k.a. HEAT). It's solely a function of the current running through the material and the resistance. There's a reason why high-voltage transmission lines are much, much thicker than the line running to your house. They would melt otherwise.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself instead of going around the internet acting like a buffoon.
 
Courtroom scene (farcical adaptation of WTC Dust's claims, which are already farcical)

Our Case:
The great scientist WTC Dust vs US Government

'Your honour, I will show that the US military used secret and magical technology to turn 'almost all' the WTC into dust. Exhibit A is this bag of dust I collected.

The dust not only looks 'strange', but has two distinct colours, gray and white. This shows that the steel was dustified.

I have not done a chemical analysis of the dust as everyone can see it looks suspicious. There's no need to waste effort in identifying its actual composition.

Exhibit B is this grainy youtube video which proves that the WTC core turned to dust. This video has been peer-reviewed by other youtube viewers, who heartily agree that this proves 9/11 was an inside job.

Thank you, your honour, that is all the evidence we are willing to put forward unless all of you agree that the WTC was dustified. Then we will show you the rest of it.' ;)
 
excaza said:
bzzzzzzzzzt! wrong!

You made the claim that the dust is "strange." It's up to you to explain why. This explanation would include the actual composition of the dust. Something you lack, for some reason, after 9 years.
Click to expand...

You can call me slow, if it really makes you feel better.

How do you know that the dust ISN'T made up of different types?
I'm the one who has the dust. It's not all the same stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom