WTC dust

[alienentity]

Called it 30 pages ago dude.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6510158&postcount=1201

Yes you did. And so did others, rightly.

 

[leftysergeant]

Jammonious is very clever and a great writer. He has done so much better than you all.

Not a bit.

Nobody touched him. I read that entire thread and was pleased to see that he had made so much progress with SAIC and ARA. Most of the comments directed at him were the sneering type, and not one of you offered anything like a proper debunking.

You mean aside from pointing out that the fact that those corporations have done some work with lasers does not support the theory that they can make a quantum discombobulator ray that has a range of more than one micron? Errrmmm...Interesting position you have taken there.

With me, it's different. I'm not a serious writer. I play the clown, but I'm damn smart. I create hoaxes and scandals for fun and for a purpose.

If what you are doing with the dust samples is not a deliberate hoax, I worry about your not having a court-appointed guardian.

I met Boy George, yes, THE Boy George, when I was doing my thing in London, and he said to me, "You're mad!" Now if Boy George says that you are mad, that really means something.

For once, we agree on something.

On 9/11 I was running for elected office in New York City on the Marijuana Reform Party ballot.

Okay, you have just hurt two of your causes.

It sheds a light on your ideation, in re 9/11. Bad strategy to reveal that.

It says something about what effect weed might or might not have on the mind. There are probably some slightly whacked-out weed fans who think you just busted their groove and thwarted their dreams of some day seeing legal ganja at the local tobaccanist's shop.

 

[Architect]

WTCDust's basic premise is that she first became interested in the underlying "true" cause of the collapse because it was obvious to her that the collapse could not be gravity driven. This includes unrealistic views on the susceptibility of steel to heat-induced failure but, as far as we can see, does not seem underpinned by any consideration of structural analysis or the detail of the NIST report.

What is particularly surprising is that this is then taken forward as (inasmuch as we can tell) a leap to the proposition that an as-yet unknown DEW or similar exotic technique was used to in some way disassociate the steel structure of the towers. Scant hard evidence is provided for this, which is not surprising given photographs of large amounts of collapsing steelwork, and wholly incorrect observations on the size of the debris pile are presented as apparent justification for missing material.

To cap it all, the dust sample now being proposed as further evidence does not appear to have been collected until some considerable time after the collapse and hence is, in all fairness, of very limited value. WTCDust has been "coy" about the extent of testing and appropriate scientific techniques applied to this, which suggests that the results will be far less conclusive than she appears to believe.

The final nail in the coffin is, I think the sognificant reliance on the "findings" of Dr. Judy Wood, a woman who's grasp of reality is highlighted by JREF and attacked by her fellow Truthers. After all, why not fake plane flights and use an unknown DEW when simply crashing a plane into each building would be so much harder.....

Under those circumstances I agree with those above who observe it's either a symptom of illness or an attempt to garner some attention. In either case it's not healthy and I fear that we have done nothing but encourage it. Not even a lurker would fall for WTCDust's insane theory, and nothing we have said has done anything to dissuade her from her adopted position.

It is time, ladies and gentlemen, to let this thread die.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No one who died that day will ever be brought back to us, but we can find the real killers.

Or, at least, some very small bits of them.

Dave

 

[djlunacee]

I hear TAPS playing in the background....

 

[aggle-rithm]

9/11 affected me deeply. This is not an academic subject that is distant to me.

Well, it should be, if you are conducting a truly scientific study. Emotional attachment leads to confirmation bias.

ETA: It's really not that big a deal, though, because your ideas fail in so many other ways that this is the least of your worries.

But it's time to lift the veil. The attacks are over. The buildings are getting rebuilt. It's not time to move on, but it is long past time when 9/11 is a taboo subject. No one who died that day will ever be brought back to us, but we can find the real killers.

You probably have pieces of the real killers in that dust pile.

ETA: Dave beat me to it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The age of the sample is an issue, but it's not the defining issue.

The defining issue is the nature of the dust. No amount of time passing can cause ordinary materials to form into a metallic foam.

Not even my dog buys this argument:

 

[aggle-rithm]

If you were to present this to anyone in academia posessing any shred of scientific ethics, they would throw it in the trash immediately.

If they had any shred of a sense of humor, they would call all their colleagues in to laugh at it first.

 

[jiggeryqua]

It is time, ladies and gentlemen, to let this thread die.

May I take this opportunity to also extend the life of this thread by saying it shouldn't be extended, and hang the paradox...

 

[WTC Dust]

That has already been explained, both in mine and in others' posts.

It's not my fault you either can't or won't (I'm leaning toward the latter, incidentally; the human capacity for self-delusion is utterly astounding to me) comprehend them.

You haven't specifically described what the passage of time would have done to the sample, protected as it was from the weather. So here's your chance.

 

[WTC Dust]

It's not the age. It's that they sat uncontrolled for 9 years. There is absolutely no way to ensure they were not contaminated. It would be incredibly dishonest to use the sample in your possession to make comments about what happened to the WTC.

If you were to present this to anyone in academia posessing any shred of scientific ethics, they would throw it in the trash immediately.

You aren't in academia, so you don't know what they would do.

Academics will not touch 9/11 research. That's the current state of things.

If I were to LIE about anything, my standing in academia would be trash. That's pretty much the only thing that could get me, and I haven't done that.

 

[WTC Dust]

Yup. Exploiting 9/11, one of the greatest American tragedies, as a vehicle for personal recognition. That's what she is doing. She will trample on any truth in order to promote herself as the #2 (and I'm sure she means to be #1) 9/11 researcher - at least in her mind.

Those of us who are disgusted with her antics have every reason to be - she has no shame, and no scruples. She has glibly excused the actual terrorists because it helps her self-promotion. Probably isn't even self-aware enough to comprehend that motivation...

I waited 9 years to exploit 9/11? Seems like a long time.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You can't be saying sublimation is an imaginary process. Are you?

Sublimation is the transition of a substance from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase.

Two seconds of wiki-searching...!

Wikipedia searching is all you have? Oh dear, you missed the point darling!

 

[WTC Dust]

Okay, you have just hurt two of your causes.

It sheds a light on your ideation, in re 9/11. Bad strategy to reveal that.

It says something about what effect weed might or might not have on the mind. There are probably some slightly whacked-out weed fans who think you just busted their groove and thwarted their dreams of some day seeing legal ganja at the local tobaccanist's shop.

My cause in life was anti-war activism. In the few years before 9/11, that included anti-drug war activism. It's been a slow grind to convince my fellow weed activists that this is an important issue. They regard me as tiresome, going on and on about 9/11 dust.

I'm against a war on Arabs, because Arabs didn't hijack any planes on 9/11. This is entirely consistent with my previous cause of being anti-war. If someone were attacking us, yes, fight them.

Find the real perpetrators of 9/11, capture them, and bring them to trial. A criminal act does not merit a war.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

After one minute, all the samples that landed on the ground were contaminated. My samples cannot be disqualified on the basis of contamination, unless you also disqualify all the other research performed on dust that was scooped up from where it landed.

That is to say, all the other research on the dust has the same problem.

Actually your samples don't matter anymore. 8 yrs. of contamination is something you have to prove to everyone else here.

Either prove your sample has been contaminated or disprove that it has.

 

[WTC Dust]

Well, it should be, if you are conducting a truly scientific study. Emotional attachment leads to confirmation bias.

ETA: It's really not that big a deal, though, because your ideas fail in so many other ways that this is the least of your worries.


You probably have pieces of the real killers in that dust pile.

ETA: Dave beat me to it.

The person who controlled the energy weapon was not located inside the WTC, so not true.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

That your family was involved in steelwork means that you know very well how heavy metals can be heated until they are melted.

We didn't see very much (or any) melted steel at Ground Zero, so you must admit that melting heavy metals did not play a role in the destruction of the WTC towers.

I'm telling you, that based on the work of Dr. Judy Wood, the best theory about what actually did destroy the WTC is directed energy weapons. This is exotic technology. It might not be right, although I think it is.

Even if Dr. Wood is wrong about DEW, that doesn't change the fact that the WTC was largely turned into dust. Something did this, and it wasn't heat.

Actually, to prove your loony theory about a DEW being used, & since a DEW would be a high energy laser, it would have to melt the steel first.

Judy Wood is a nutcase, people here have been pointing that out to you. But you'd rather remain the fool who follows the foolish.

Wood's wrong about DEW, they don't exist!

 

[WTC Dust]

Actually your samples don't matter anymore. 8 yrs. of contamination is something you have to prove to everyone else here.

Either prove your sample has been contaminated or disprove that it has.

I have to suspect that my samples are contaminated: with cigarette debris.
I'm not worried about that, but it is a source of contamination.

If you think "something" happened to contaminate my samples, what would it be? Humidity, perhaps. Not rain or snow (because of the concrete roof). Rain doesn't fall on the little nook where I found the samples. Some cigarettes did, so I'll have to account for that in my discussion of them.

Cigarettes can't produce metallic foam, and neither can humidity or a plane crash.

 

[WTC Dust]

Actually, to prove your loony theory about a DEW being used, & since a DEW would be a high energy laser, it would have to melt the steel first.

Judy Wood is a nutcase, people here have been pointing that out to you. But you'd rather remain the fool who follows the foolish.

Wood's wrong about DEW, they don't exist!

How are you so sure that DEW doesn't exist?

A laser is a DEW, and lasers exist. There are so many weapons out there, fully admitted to and documented, that use directed beams of energy, that I can't really even fathom why you'd say that DEW doesn't exist.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I have to suspect that my samples are contaminated: with cigarette debris.
I'm not worried about that, but it is a source of contamination.

If you think "something" happened to contaminate my samples, what would it be? Humidity, perhaps. Not rain or snow (because of the concrete roof). Rain doesn't fall on the little nook where I found the samples. Some cigarettes did, so I'll have to account for that in my discussion of them.

Cigarettes can't produce metallic foam, and neither can humidity or a plane crash.

So you're an avid smoker, right?

Conspiracy Theories that don't have evidence, can't be supported by repeating the same thing over & over, ya know!

Either prove that the WTC Steel was magically turned to dust or don't prove anything at all.