WTC dust

[Sabretooth]

The mass composition isn't what I want to talk about at the moment. I want to talk about the macroscopic appearance and structure. The macroscopic structure of the dust (and not the microscopic structure) is what proves that airplane crashes didn't do it. So I want you to focus on the macroscopic structure of the dust.


Also, the appearance in situ is important here. Some of you have already begun to ask questions like, "How do you know it was WTC dust?" and this is a beginning of an answer to that question.

Those are the two images I've shown you. At least it's more than zero.

Alright. I'm done. Dusty the Troll is going on ignore.

 

[WildCat]

Not at all. I've shown you two pictures that are unavailable anywhere else, but you won't comment on those. Why should I give you everything at once?

We all know that blurry pics are all you have. You know it's all you have.

Pathetic.

 

[fess]

WTC Dust

If I may ask, how much of this dust do you have?

 

[phiwum]

Starting Day 3, when I observed it emanating from the WTC site in lower Manhattan. Actually, my questions were raised on the day of 9/11, but I didn't get to the site for almost 3 days because I was off the island, and none of the bridges and tunnels were open until Thursday.

I asked how you studied it. That is, what methods did you use to investigate the dust in the past nine years? You say you collected some dust and you have taken two (or more) photos. What else?

What have you done?

 

[phunk]

He waited less than nine years.

8 1/2 then, the ipad went on sale in april 2010.

 

[phunk]

Her billiard ball example is brilliant. Brilliant billiard balls! Woo. It sets up an artificial condition that could never be achieved in reality in order to isolate one particular value "minumum fall time". Her conclusion is that the actual fall time was much less than could reasonably be expected by a gravity-collapse model. She didn't ever specify how much time a gravity-collapse model would take, but the abstract billiard ball example gave a result greater than a minute...with no resistance from steel beams, which would have slowed any collapse.

And you don't see anything wrong with her billiard ball analysis?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

My best stuff is what I'm showing you right now.

I believe you.

I might actually give up on this forum if I can't even get you to look at my data slides.

Sounds like a plan.

I'm sure you did the best you could. It may not have been entirely your fault that the best evidence you could muster in support of your position was so awful. An actress is only as good as her material.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I might actually give up on this forum if I can't even get you to look at my data slides.

Before you do that, could I suggest a change of strategy? So far, not posting your data slides hasn't been a very successful way of getting us to look at them. Have you considered actually posting them?

Dave

P.S. A poor-quality photograph is not a "data slide".

 

[Dave Rogers]

Her billiard ball example is brilliant.

You mis-spelled "idiotic".

It sets up an artificial condition that could never be achieved in reality in order to isolate one particular value "minumum fall time". Her conclusion is that the actual fall time was much less than could reasonably be expected by a gravity-collapse model. She didn't ever specify how much time a gravity-collapse model would take, but the abstract billiard ball example gave a result greater than a minute...with no resistance from steel beams, which would have slowed any collapse.

Clearly you don't even understand the billiard ball model - which is hardly surprising, because anyone who does understand it knows how idiotic it is. Judy Wood sets up a model that has absolutely nothing to do with any possible collapse mechanism. The minor fact that it's also physically impossible is just a trifling inconvenience; the important point is that it's totally irrelevant. It's a classic example of the GIGO principle. I'd review some of the invalid assumptions she makes, but it's hardly worth the time because she's so utterly confused that she doesn't even know what assumptions she's making. However, at some point the billiard ball model must make one of the two assumptions, that the upper block stops dead at each floor (which Judy Wood actually states, based on her belief that if any of the upper block is turned to debris it then has zero mass), or that the upper block is somehow able to bypass the material of the lower block as it strikes it, allowing the material from the lower block to lag behind and start falling from rest rather than being accelerated by the collision.

It's quite laughable to suggest that you're a research scientist if you're taken in by this absurd rubbish. It could only possibly fool somebody with either no scientific understanding whatsoever, or the ability to achieve a perfect 1984-style doublethink.

Dave

 

[Architect]

Maybe it could lead to widescale collapse. I'm not debating that.

Actually, you'll find that you have stated several times that fire-induced failure of steel structures isn't possible.

I'm telling you that the WTC did not collapse at all and that what really happened is that it got turned into dust while it was standing there.

So, although we know that fire can cause collapse and that an aircraft impact can cause major damage, we are to dismiss the probability that these are the initiating events. We are instead to believe that an a-yet unknown DEW, which you cannot prove exists, in some manor vaporised or dustified the steelwork.

Did any steel building have this happen to it, under any circumstances of fire? Airplanes have crashed into buildings, and nothing like this happened, and plus you could find the airplane after it was all over. Doesn't make sense.

Can you find me an example of a modern wide-bodied passenger jet crashing into the upper stories of a tall (i.e. in excess of, say, 40 storey) steel framed building?

And finally, as others have pointed out, we seem to have some rather largish pieces of aeroplane left over.


I have to agree with the others. You're either yanking our chain, to use an Americanism, or you're seriously ill and simply can't see your delusions for the fantasies that they are. There will be no more from me until you post anything of substance and meaning.

 

[phiwum]

It's impossible to put 9 years of research into a single post on JREF, and I don't plan to anyway. My best stuff is what I'm showing you right now. If you don't like it, fine, but I think it's neat.

Your best stuff consists of two bad photos of dust in some non-disclosed location taken at some non-disclosed time?

This is your best data to convince folks that the great bulk of steel in the WTC towers turned into dust?

 

[Rolls]

Why do you expect me to show you all of it before you've commented reasonably on what I have shown you? I don't think you'd appreciate it. I might actually give up on this forum if I can't even get you to look at my data slides.

WTC Dust,

I'm having a hard time understanding your strategy here. You claim be a scientific researcher, and that you have in your posession, a sample of dust from the WTC collected at some point after the events of 9/11/01. Let's say that your two claims are indeed true. With your scientific background, and the rather rare sample you have in your posession, you have been put into in a unique, and I would think advantageous position. And, you have this thread which has received quite a bit of attention, and thousands of responses.

You have the means and the opportunity to possible prove your case in a forum where you have the attention of a fairly substantial number of people. The stage is set for you to possibly put a stop to the endless debate of the events of 9/11, but you refuse to. Why is that? I for one would be very interested in the results of the content of the dust sample you have. You say you cannot display nine years of your work in just one post. I can accept that. However, there have been literally thousands of posts made in this thread, and a good portion of them are yours. I think you could have explained your findings by now. I was hoping you would do that, but at this point, I think this is all just a put on, a joke. It would seem you are not really a "research scientist", you have no "samples", and you probably don't even live in NYC.

Rolls

 

[aggle-rithm]

Very good question. The answer, I believe, is that an electrical weapon dissolved the steel while it was standing there. I cannot prove this definitively at this point, but what I believe I can prove is that steel was turned into dust.

I don't know...it just seems like it would have been so much easier to hijack some planes and fly them into the buildings.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Very good question. The answer, I believe, is that an electrical weapon dissolved the steel while it was standing there. I cannot prove this definitively at this point, but what I believe I can prove is that steel was turned into dust.

So do it, please.

 

[djlunacee]

Well, technically it can, but the energy required would be astronomical (literally). And it certainly wouldn't selectively dustify steel yet leave everything else intact.

Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. That is the dilemma I do not believe anyone of Wood woo followers understand, there is no source for harnessing that much power, at least that I know of, and surely not to do it instantly.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Not at all. I've shown you two pictures that are unavailable anywhere else,

Here is another picture that is available nowhere else:

Proof positive that my cat is a ghost.

but you won't comment on those.

I'll comment.

They're pictures of...something.

They're proof of...nothing.

Why should I give you everything at once?

How about SOMETHING at once? That would be good, too.

 

[Sabrina]

You know, I don't even have any experience in physics, and even I can tell Judy Wood's "theory" (read: fantasy) is full of bunk that has no basis in reality.

And as for your laughable "evidence" so far, two poorly-lit, badly-focused, horribly blurred photographs are your "best stuff"??? SERIOUSLY????? WTC Dust, do you comprehend the fact that you are on a forum of SKEPTICS, many of whom have insane amounts of experience in the very fields relevant to 9/11, and who require EVIDENCE in order to agree or disagree with a theory? If you ever tried to present this to scientists in the relevant fields in the manner you are progressing at the moment, you'd be laughed out of the room and blacklisted from every major scientific event just so people wouldn't have to suffer your glacially slow, poorly presented tripe.

It's really very simple. You don't have to give every detail of your research in one single post, but you can summarize your main points, present evidence to support those points, and if necessary provide links to the places where the fullness of your research is presented to allow people to peruse it at their leisure in one post. Thus far you are at 414 posts in which you have stated NOTHING definitively, have given only two pieces of so-called "evidence" that show absolutely NOTHING due to the poor quality of the photos (I can't even make out what they're showing, the picture quality is THAT horrendous), and have spent your time defending a woman who has been shown to be an utter lunatic who believes that a weapon which does not exist in reality was used to do something that is currently utterly impossible given today's technology, much less technology of nine years ago. If you want people to discuss your work, you should present what you have, not try to spoon-feed it to us. I can assure you that you would get a much better response if you tried it in this manner.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why do I feel like I'm in the middle of an Amway pitch?

Me: For God's sake, just tell me, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SELL ME?!?
Amway guy: I'm getting to that.
Me: You've been getting to it for 45 minutes!!
Amway guy: Great, now I'm lost. I'll have to start over.
Me: Is this Amway? This is Amway, isn't it?
Amway guy: No, no, not at all! They call it something different now. Quick-something.

 

[Sabretooth]

Why do I feel like I'm in the middle of an Amway pitch?

Me: For God's sake, just tell me, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SELL ME?!?
Amway guy: I'm getting to that.
Me: You've been getting to it for 45 minutes!!
Amway guy: Great, now I'm lost. I'll have to start over.
Me: Is this Amway? This is Amway, isn't it?
Amway guy: No, no, not at all! They call it something different now. Quick-something.

This is exactly why I gave up. 40 some odd pages of nothing. I've had more fun trimming my cats claws.

 

[twinstead]

This is exactly why I gave up. 40 some odd pages of nothing. I've had more fun trimming my cats claws.

I've had more fun watching my cat's claws grow.