• 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.
My patience with this insanity is at an end. WTC Dust, you have five posts in which to provide any evidence what so ever to support your insane ideas. Failing that, I will conclude that you are a liar, a kook and that you have no intention of ever presenting anything at all, and you will go on ignore.

Now, get on with it.
 
Dave Rogers said:
We're waiting for you to refute all the mountain of evidence that clearly shows that the building wasn't turned into dust.



No, we've all pretty much ruled that out.

Dave
Click to expand...

Nobody, least of all me, is refuting or denying the images taken at Ground Zero on 9/11 and after 9/11.

There was some steel left over after the attacks, yes. But it wasn't located within the footprint of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which I find strange. Also, there was an almost incredible amount of dust that came from where the buildings used to be. The fumes were heavy and strong for at least three months, and still noticeable a year later. These are photographs that I didn't take, so I can't be accused of faking them.
 
Oystein said:
I am more waiting for him/her to first define the claim (ballpark figures: How much of the building, and of the steel, was turned into dust, in either % or tons, and the grain size distribution of that dust).

And then provide some evidence as reason for that claim.

So far we have been shown (although I missed it) a picture of some dust. This would indicate at a minimum that at least as much dust as is seen in the image was produced, but would not nearly constitute a satisfying definition of the claim. It wouldn't give us a grain size estimate, its composition, or a total amount. It shows there was dust, which no one denies. That was more than obvious 9 seconds after collapse initiation. After 9 years of research, if all WTC Dust can show is proof that there was dust, he/she must be the slowest research scientist of all times.

We all agree that some fraction of the building turned to dust: Probably estimates of like 50% of the gypsum, 5% of the concrete and 0.005% of the steel would not meet with much opposition.

WTC Dust probably won't claim 100%, 100% and 100%, I think.


So what is WTC Dust's claim?
Click to expand...


I haven't actually made my claim, yet. I just showed you a picture of where I found the dust.
 
WTC Dust said:
Nobody, least of all me, is refuting or denying the images taken at Ground Zero on 9/11 and after 9/11.

There was some steel left over after the attacks, yes. But it wasn't located within the footprint of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which I find strange. Also, there was an almost incredible amount of dust that came from where the buildings used to be. The fumes were heavy and strong for at least three months, and still noticeable a year later. These are photographs that I didn't take, so I can't be accused of faking them.
Click to expand...

That's one.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Then you are no research scientist. Please stop claiming that you are, or that you use science to come to any conclusions. "Science" and "research" are apparently just fancy-sounding words to you; you clearly don't grasp their meaning.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that research scientists follow orders?

"CALCULATE THIS, IMMEDIATELY!!!"
"Yes, sir, stranger, sir. Right away."

Makes me giggle what you seem to expect.
 
WTC Dust said:
Nobody, least of all me, is refuting or denying the images taken at Ground Zero on 9/11 and after 9/11.

There was some steel left over after the attacks, yes. But it wasn't located within the footprint of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which I find strange. Also, there was an almost incredible amount of dust that came from where the buildings used to be. The fumes were heavy and strong for at least three months, and still noticeable a year later. These are photographs that I didn't take, so I can't be accused of faking them.
Click to expand...

Nobody gives a **** about your incredulity. Especially given how completely and totally incompetent you have proven yourself to be.
 
aggle-rithm said:
WHOEVER it is. Why develop such a fearsome weapon and keep it secret? Even using it in such a way that it is indistinguishable from the natural consequences of a disaster?

Many different governments have tried to develop a weapon capable of doing something like this, without success. The physics are mind-boggling. It is far simpler and more cost-effective to just fly over and drop bombs.
Click to expand...

This is a load.

If you don't know about the technology, how do you know how cheap or expensive it is to operate?
 
WTC Dust said:
"Known" by you, you mean.

On 9/11, I knew that something other than planes destroyed the WTC. I also knew that nothing I was aware of at that moment could have done it in the way it happened. Therefore, on the day of 9/11/2001, I already knew I'd have to learn something BEFORE I could understand what happened to the WTC.

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...

Anyone who says that this weapon exists better have some good logic behind it, better than, "I don't know about it, therefore, it exists."
 
djlunacee said:
Oh yes, there was dust, from things like concrete, drywall, and many other office items and building materials, but from steel, hardly. You have already been proven wrong. Your strawman closer is not worthy of a response.
Click to expand...

I have data that no one or almost no one else in the world has.

:-)
 
Originally Posted by WTC Dust
How is it oversimplifying it?

According to the official 9/11 story, the forces acting on the buildings at the moment before the initiation of the final destruction are: gravity, wind, and the fire. Anything else?
Ah. That's different from what you said earlier. Remember?
Originally Posted by WTC Dust
How the steel of the WTC lost its strength is of great importance. You say it was gravity, for the most part. I say gravity isn't strong enough to do it.


You don't read well, or what? The official story isn't my story. The official story says it was gravity, not me.
 
WTC Dust said:
This is a load.

If you don't know about the technology, how do you know how cheap or expensive it is to operate?
Click to expand...

Yeah, a weapon that can turn hundreds of thousands of tons of steel to dust in seconds is cheaper to operate than say, a B-52 Bomber. Sure :rolleyes:
 
The fires weakened the steel? And then gravity took over. Yeah, yeah. I heard that already. Why do you bother telling me the official story over and over again. It should be obvious by now that I know at least what is officially said about 9/11. You don't need to keep telling me. I already know. Thanks.
 
NutCracker said:
OMG, WTC Dust, you are onto something! I just became to realize how extremely lucky and privileged I am to be still alive. You see, as a 3 years old numerous times the towers I built from my blocks set collapsed. The blocks being strewn all over the place! OMG! OMG! Since gravity pulls straight down the velocities of the blocks should have been straight down!!1! They where not!!1! Now, what caused the falling blocks to have sideways motion? Wind? No! That means my blocks set towers where shot down by a DEW weapon from space. OMG, OMG!1!! That means that thousands and thousands of times the DEW beams missed me... only just!! I should not have made it beyond my 4th birthday! :relieved: Thank you, WTC Dust, thank you. I am moved.

NutCracker
Blinking away a tear
Click to expand...

You still didn't say what the horizontal force was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom