• 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.
WTC Dust said:
Anyone who says that this weapon doesn't exist better have some good logic behind it, better than, "I don't know about it, therefore, it doesn't exist."
Click to expand...

Your logic is "I know it exists"

Yet you can't provide any reasonable way of powering or deploying it. Nor can you explain (using the laws of this universe, not the dream one you live in) how it works.

This weapon exists only in your head.
 
dtugg said:
It's a picture. So what? Doesn't prove anything at all, certainly not that any steel got dustified.
Click to expand...

Just pay attention, and you'll get there. I plan to prove everything. If it takes a long time to get you to pay attention to what I'm saying, and it takes a long time for my proof to be presented on this forum, that isn't my fault.

I'm presenting my data in the order I want to present it when I start giving talks on the subject. The first data slide in my talk about the dust is the picture of the dust in situ.

What are your comments?
 
WTC Dust said:
Do you have anything to say about it?
Click to expand...

Nobody cares where the dust was found. You said the dust is "strange." This means the composition is not what you believe it should be. This conclusion requires knowledge of the composition. Which you don't have, after 9 years.
 
alienentity said:
WTC Dust said:
I agree that scientific theories can be tested. Let's take the theory that a jet fuel office fire can destroy a steel building.{/quote]

Not a very good description of the process, but...

then you try to parlay into a strawperson argument about a propane grill - btw which is an old truther canard, which you've fallen for.

Yawn..... goto 1:15 in this video, or click on direct link below:rolleyes:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGsOkT__M7Y&t=1m15s

Oh, and for the record, Dusty, EMRTC has proven this canard very wrong, and also by proxy your argument very wrong. Too bad so sad :(
Click to expand...

Does his steel turn into dust or not? If not, then I'm proved right.

I never said a fire couldn't weaken steel. I never said a fire couldn't melt steel (if it was hot enough). I said a normal fire can't turn steel into dust. Get this straight. If his steel sample doesn't turn into dust, then it proves my point convincingly.

You all are arguing that the steel of the WTC wasn't turned into dust. I'm telling you it was, and any model of an airplane crash destroying the towers must also include the dust.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
That can happen by two methods. Either the force can increase, or the strength can decrease.

I say the strength decreased because of some exotic mechanism, maybe DEW, maybe something else.

You say the strength decreased because of an office fire. OK. Sounds implausible to me, but most people agree with you.

GOOD THING SCIENCE ISN'T DONE BY MAJORITY RULE, HUH?

Some science is collaborative, but it's mostly not. It's mostly one scientist alone in a lab doing whatever they do. If the science is controversial, nobody believes it at first, and some fail to convince the scientific community during their entire lifetime of work.

A specific example is Semmelweis. Nobody would believe him that hand washing was a good idea. http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/hand_background.php
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a good thing that science tells me that steel will begin to soften at 425 deg. C, and looses 50% of it's strength at 650 deg. C.

Yeah, handwashing is a good idea. Too bad you still believe you can wipe your ass with you hand, and it's perfectly safe.....
 
alienentity said:
Not a surprise that a person who believes DEW destroyed the WTC is woefully out of touch with the facts. No, it's sadly predictable.
Click to expand...

Don't mistate my opinions.

I do not believe that DEW destroyed the World Trade Center. What I do believe is that I've never seen an effective debunking of the DEW theory, or of any single thing that Dr. Judy Wood has ever proposed scientifically.

If you've got it, show it. Otherwise DEW remains undebunked. DEW isn't my theory. My theory doesn't contradict DEW, but it's not about DEW. You need to clear your heads and understand that you are communicating with an independent researcher, 9/11 survivor, and resident of lower Manhattan, not some lackey of Dr. Wood. I only know her through her work, you understand. Whether or not she is crazy or needs a haircut or might have a crush on John Hutchison is irrelevant.
 
WTC Dust said:
Just pay attention, and you'll get there. I plan to prove everything. If it takes a long time to get you to pay attention to what I'm saying, and it takes a long time for my proof to be presented on this forum, that isn't my fault.

I'm presenting my data in the order I want to present it when I start giving talks on the subject. The first data slide in my talk about the dust is the picture of the dust in situ.

What are your comments?
Click to expand...
Well you lost my interest when you stopped listening to people that were actually there and refused to show any data. The trade center buildings were not turned to dust.

Happy Trails
 
We're 34 pages into this tripe and all WTCdust has managed is "I has dust". Ok, you have some dust. What of it? Can you please get to the point before we all die of old age?
 
WTC Dust said:
I do not believe that DEW destroyed the World Trade Center. What I do believe is that I've never seen an effective debunking of the DEW theory, or of any single thing that Dr. Judy Wood has ever proposed scientifically.
Click to expand...

Judy Wood's 'scientific proposal' is a picture of a hurricane, a picture of a laser pointer, and a bunch of failed high-school level physics equations. They prove absolutely nothing and provide no explanation for whatever technology supposedly "dustified" the towers.

There's nothing TO debunk.
 
WTC Dust said:
You're mean. I put up a picture of my dust. You didn't comment, or maybe even notice.
Click to expand...

What precentage of the dust is iron?

What precentage is sulfer?

How about aluminum?

Barium Nitrate?

How about horse ass?

Can you get me the precentages?


I can post a picture of a bag of **** if you want, doesn't mean a damn thing.
 
WTC Dust said:
You need to clear your heads and understand that you are communicating with an independent researcher, 9/11 survivor, and resident of lower Manhattan
Click to expand...

I don't care if you're the Pope. You make a claim about the composition of something being "strange," and you better have the composition available. I'm not even going to get into your "electricity dustified steel" lunacy. You post nonsense, you get called on your nonsense.
 
alienentity said:
Uh, yeah, you sure are factually wrong, sez at least 200,000 tons of recovered steel and 1.462 million tons of other debris.

You come across as a bit of a fool, really, posting such a stream of arguments from incredulity. Get facts, kid. You don't know the difference between science and science-fiction.
Click to expand...

You might be right because I never read science fiction, or fiction of any sort, except the classics. I never watch dramas or go to any movies that aren't documentaries. I don't like filling my head up with fakery, which is probably why I recognized that something was wrong with the 9/11 story the moment I heard it.

False things don't have a place in my brain, and I include fiction and especially science fiction in this category. I'm very unusual in this regard. For a very highly educated person to avoid fiction of every type is rare. I'd say it's unique. But it lead me to become an excellent researcher, so good for me.


Eventually, you will agree. I'm onto something here. If you pay attention to what I'm actually saying (as opposed to DEW and Dr. Wood and whether or not I need medication), then you will slowly start to see me as a great scientist. I have a world history changing story within my grasp, and I want to get it right.

You'll do me a favor if you weed out the errors, but me having mental illness isn't the truth, so it can't be weeded out. I need you all to weed out the stuff that isn't true. After you see my full presentation, of course.

You've only seen the first data slide, and you haven't even commented directly on it, so it might take a while.
 
WTC Dust said:
I'd say it's unique. But it lead me to become an excellent researcher, so good for me.
Click to expand...
A highly educated excellent researcher who can't find a mass spectrometer. A highly educated excellent researcher who thinks you can pump enough electricity through steel to "dustify" it and not damage anything else. Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh.

You've only seen the first data slide, and you haven't even commented directly on it, so it might take a while.
Click to expand...
excaza said:
Nobody cares where the dust was found. You said the dust is "strange." This means the composition is not what you believe it should be. This conclusion requires knowledge of the composition. Which you don't have, after 9 years.
Click to expand...
Direct comment. Next slide.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom