• 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:
Yeah, but what we are talking about is AMPLIFIED radiation, and that can hurt. Microwave weapons are used as area denial devices, and are quite painful.
Click to expand...

Yes, and airliners can knock buildings down if crashed into them at high speed.

Of the two phenomena -- Microwave weapons and airliners -- which were observed to be present on 9/11?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Depends on what you mean by "did it". If you mean "made the buildings fall down", I think it was impact damage plus fire weakening the steel around the crash sites until a collapse began (which inevitably produced vast clouds of dust). If you mean "caused thousands of tons of solid steel to turn to dust in the space of a few seconds" then nothing did, because that did not happen.
Click to expand...

Then don't ask me "how" something happened, because that is the work of Dr. Judy Wood.

I'm busy showing "that" it did, in fact, happen. Steel got turned into dust/foam.
 
WTC Dust said:
Then don't ask me "how" something happened, because that is the work of Dr. Judy Wood.

I'm busy showing "that" it did, in fact, happen. Steel got turned into dust/foam.
Click to expand...

No it didn't,that is the basic flaw in your theory.Judy Wood is a grade A nutcase.
 
aggle-rithm said:
That's right. It's your baffling lack of basic scientific understanding, in light of your impressive academic credentials, that invalidates your research.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal: I've got the right answer. Because it is the right answer, more and more of you will start to understand it and see it for the right answer. Eventually, you'll be claiming it as something you "knew all along". That's the way revolutions happen in science.

A trained biologist and dedicated political activist, living in lower Manhattan when all hell breaks loose. I smelled the buildings as they burned, and I smelled something that isn't a part of a normal building fire, and it wasn't the smell of dead bodies I'm referring to. That smell went away after a few days. The other smell lasted for months.

Nobody could tell me the dust cloud was hot, because my personal acquaintances SURVIVED the dust cloud without a single burn. This is the reason you didn't see me coming around JREF in 2004 when Steven Jones came out with his thermite study, because it wasn't the truth. This is why you hear me talking about Judy Wood, because nothing she says on her website is assailable. The truth is the truth. Doesn't matter who says it.
 
WTC Dust said:
Then don't ask me "how" something happened, because that is the work of Dr. Judy Wood.

I'm busy showing "that" it did, in fact, happen. Steel got turned into dust/foam.
Click to expand...

It did not. There is absolutely no available, scalable or even plausible method for changing steel in skyscrapers to dust, let alone utilising such a device in a false flag attack on US soil. You have provided not one shred of evidence to support your claims. You have made up your conclusion before you've evaluated the evidence and are shaping your blinders to suit your crazy theory.

I'll be blunt: you are delusional. Have you not noticed that engineers, architects, physicists, and basically everyone with a scientific degree or even just a basic understanding of the scientific method in these forums are saying that you are nuts? Do you think it's more likely that you're horribly mistaken and deluded about what you're talking about, or is it more likely that everyone else is so completely, utterly and unknowingly wrong?

You claim to be a scientist, of an utterly unrelated discipline admittedly, but a scientist nonetheless. You are doing yourself and the respect people have for science in general a great disservice with your fantasies.
 
WTC Dust said:
Here's the deal: I've got the right answer. Because it is the right answer, more and more of you will start to understand it and see it for the right answer. Eventually, you'll be claiming it as something you "knew all along". That's the way revolutions happen in science.

A trained biologist and dedicated political activist, living in lower Manhattan when all hell breaks loose. I smelled the buildings as they burned, and I smelled something that isn't a part of a normal building fire, and it wasn't the smell of dead bodies I'm referring to. That smell went away after a few days. The other smell lasted for months.

Nobody could tell me the dust cloud was hot, because my personal acquaintances SURVIVED the dust cloud without a single burn. This is the reason you didn't see me coming around JREF in 2004 when Steven Jones came out with his thermite study, because it wasn't the truth. This is why you hear me talking about Judy Wood, because nothing she says on her website is assailable. The truth is the truth. Doesn't matter who says it.
Click to expand...

That is because she says nothing on her website. She refuses to address very key factors, I wonder why that is.
 
aggle-rithm said:
How do you know the dust/foam used to be structural steel?
Click to expand...

The metallic foam was found in the middle of the other type of WTC dust, which is more abundant, the lighter dust.

I NEVER EXPECTED TO FIND METALLIC FOAM, EVEN AFTER ALL THESE YEARS OF STUDYING THE DUST.

It was a complete surprise to me. I did not realize that there were two entirely different types of dust, but when I saw the physical samples, I realized that all the literature is right on their data. The heterogeneity in results is explained. There are at least two different types of dust.
 

Attachments

  • Two colors of fumes 1.jpg
    Two colors of fumes 1.jpg
    100.8 KB · Views: 4
  • dark and light WTC shooting dust.jpg
    dark and light WTC shooting dust.jpg
    133.5 KB · Views: 1
  • dark and light WTC shooting dust 2.jpg
    dark and light WTC shooting dust 2.jpg
    142.6 KB · Views: 2
  • Peter Jennings two color smoke.jpg
    Peter Jennings two color smoke.jpg
    146.2 KB · Views: 2
  • WTC 1 shooting dust.jpg
    WTC 1 shooting dust.jpg
    55 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
What?!?

You come in here making absurd claims, expecting to be taken seriously as a research scientist, and then want us to evaluate your sense of humor?

That's it. I call Meta-Troll.
Click to expand...

This is what is hard for the determined skeptic to believe. Yes, a bonafide PhD research scientist with no ties and no agenda has come to the conclusion that exotic weaponry was used to destroy the WTC.

I didn't "fit in" in graduate school because I'm wacky. I got the grades, did the research and won awards, but I was still wacky. I wasn't like the other graduate students. At the time, I had to fight the stereotype that I was a dumb blonde, which I did quite effectively.

I'm a very entertaining and funny person. I'm not a drag or a bore.
 
djlunacee said:
That is because she says nothing on her website. She refuses to address very key factors, I wonder why that is.
Click to expand...

What do you see are the key factors unaddressed by the work of Judy Wood? Since I know her work so well, maybe I can help. Remember, though, if DEW gets disproved, my theory of multiple types of dust still stands.
 
WTC Dust said:
This is what is hard for the determined skeptic to believe. Yes, a bonafide PhD research scientist with no ties and no agenda has come to the conclusion that exotic weaponry was used to destroy the WTC.

I didn't "fit in" in graduate school because I'm wacky. I got the grades, did the research and won awards, but I was still wacky. I wasn't like the other graduate students. At the time, I had to fight the stereotype that I was a dumb blonde, which I did quite effectively.

I'm a very entertaining and funny person. I'm not a drag or a bore.
Click to expand...

Thank you for validating my conclusions.
 
A New Analogy for 9/11

Imagine that you are in a small town in England during the year 700 A.D.
Imagine that you shoot somebody dead in the middle of the town square.
The villagers gather around and try to determine what happened to the victim.

The villagers might come up with any number of explanations of the crime,
but none of them would be valid if they were only using ideas and concepts
that they already knew about at the time of the crime.

Some villagers might claim she was stabbed with a thin knife that left
pieces of it in the victim after it pierced the victim (the bullet fragments).
Some villagers might claim that lightning struck her (because they heard
the sound of the gunshot). Whatever. None of them is likely to be true.

Getting back to 9/11...everyone saw video of what looked like a plane
crashing into WTC 2, so they think that must have had something to do
with the destruction. Other people know about bombs, and so they
suggest that bombs were placed in all seven WTC buildings.

Of course, this is incompatible with the plane theory (because a plane
crash would surely dislodge some of the bombs), but never mind that.
We already know about bombs, so it must have been bombs that did it.

No.

This isn't what happened. Explosives did not take down the World Trade Center. An electrical weapon did. You just have to go back to England in 700 A.D. and figure out what happened to the gunshot victim. Then come back to 2010 and realize that 9/11 wasn't something you already knew about on the day that it happened.
 

Attachments

  • english village.jpg
    english village.jpg
    84.2 KB · Views: 12
Your analogy fails because a complete hypothesis is available for 9/11 that accounts for all the events of the day (real events, that is, rather than fantasies such as steel turning to dust, which did not happen).

I see, however, from your illustration that the 8th Century villagers would be further confounded by the need to account for the presence in their midst of a bicycle, a clock, and neo-classical architecture. I think explaining the murder would be the least of their worries.

Dave
 
WTC Dust said:
What do you see are the key factors unaddressed by the work of Judy Wood? Since I know her work so well, maybe I can help. Remember, though, if DEW gets disproved, my theory of multiple types of dust still stands.
Click to expand...

What is your theory? That there are multiple types of dust from a building collapse? Congratulations on realizing something completely obvious!
 
phunk said:
How do you not get it? We're not the ones making claims that violate the laws of physics, YOU ARE!
Click to expand...

I'm not. I'm suggesting something that validates the widely KNOWN laws of physics, but so what? New aspects of physics are being learned about every day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/science/06atom.html

This New York Times article (July 5, 2010) discusses the new science.

“It’s a billion times more intense than any other X-ray source available before,” said Linda Young, director of X-ray science division at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, who led the neon experiment. “You need to understand how this ultra intense X-ray source will interact with matter. If you do it with something simple, you can see every step of the process.”

"For now, SLAC’s X-ray laser is unique in the world, although Germany and Japan are planning similar facilities that are to turn on in a few years.

Not everyone is happy about the new SLAC, but even some of the old-timers see the change as necessary. “I think the future is grand,” said Dr. Richter. “The future is not the same as the past, but the future is never the same as the past.”
 
phunk said:
What is your theory? That there are multiple types of dust from a building collapse? Congratulations on realizing something completely obvious!
Click to expand...

What's important is that nothing about a plane crash generates metallic foam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom