• 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:
What's important is that nothing about a plane crash generates metallic foam.
Click to expand...

What's important is that you're completely unable to present what your "foam" is composed of. Also important is that you're completely unable to explain why it's "strange." Also important is that you're completely unable to present a quantitative analysis of the structure of your dust.
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

You didn't take my analogy seriously. I just took any old picture of a town square in England, okay? They didn't have cameras in 700AD, so I couldn't get an authentic picture. Just like they didn't have guns, and would be unable to correctly identify the manner of death of the victim.

Imagine a research scientist with pink hair saying, "Some device pushed a metallic projectile through the air very quickly, and this projectile entered the victim's body and damaged her organs such that she died."

I'd have been technically correct without naming the weapon, or even knowing the particulars of the weapon used.

Getting back to 9/11, I am telling you that the contents of the WTC buildings, including the steel, was largely turned into dust. I don't have the weapon specifications sitting in front of me, or I'd be telling you what they were. But I am actually describing the mechanism of destruction.
 
excaza said:
What's important is that you're completely unable to present what your "foam" is composed of. Also important is that you're completely unable to explain why it's "strange." Also important is that you're completely unable to present a quantitative analysis of the structure of your dust.
Click to expand...

What's also important is that she continually seeks to mislead. For example, we know that there were two plane crashes, several highly destructive fires, and at least six building collapses on 9/11, yet she insists on describing this complex and varied sequence of events as "a plane crash". Other than outright dishonesty, I can't think of a good reason to keep on doing that.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
What's also important is that she continually seeks to mislead. For example, we know that there were two plane crashes, several highly destructive fires, and at least six building collapses on 9/11, yet she insists on describing this complex and varied sequence of events as "a plane crash". Other than outright dishonesty, I can't think of a good reason to keep on doing that.

Dave
Click to expand...

There were ZERO hijackings on 9/11.
 
WTC Dust said:
You didn't take my analogy seriously.
Click to expand...

I don't take you seriously.

WTC Dust said:
Imagine a research scientist with pink hair saying, "Some device pushed a metallic projectile through the air very quickly, and this projectile entered the victim's body and damaged her organs such that she died."

I'd have been technically correct without naming the weapon, or even knowing the particulars of the weapon used.
Click to expand...

Yes, you would. This is another reason why your analogy is worthless, though. What's actually happening here is that you're saying all that, but in fact all the witnesses saw the victim stabbed through the heart with a spear, which is still lodged in the victim's body, and heard the murderer shout "Die, you heretic scum!" as he ran away.

WTC Dust said:
Getting back to 9/11, I am telling you that the contents of the WTC buildings, including the steel, was largely turned into dust.
Click to expand...

And you're either lying or insane, because that statement is obviously untrue.

Dave
 
excaza said:
What's important is that you're completely unable to present what your "foam" is composed of. Also important is that you're completely unable to explain why it's "strange." Also important is that you're completely unable to present a quantitative analysis of the structure of your dust.
Click to expand...

This isn't actually true, and even if it were true, the mass composition of these samples tells only part of the story. It's the structural arrangement of the material that tells the rest. Little flakes of metal dust? These can be explained by well understood processes.

Metal foam? Not really.

Remember what Carl Sagan said, "The beauty of a living thing is not that atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together."

In this case, the metallic foam isn't a living thing, but the structure of the material still tells a world history changing story.

The tiniest bit of evidence can overthrow the grandest theory, and that's what I intend to do with it.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave,

I can see you care about this. So, why don't you prove me wrong? Why don't you take just one of the four suggested hijackings that day, and prove that it happened.

Don't tell me that stories are sufficient evidence, because stories are weak. I want substantial proof that hijackings occurred.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I don't take you seriously.



Yes, you would. This is another reason why your analogy is worthless, though. What's actually happening here is that you're saying all that, but in fact all the witnesses saw the victim stabbed through the heart with a spear, which is still lodged in the victim's body, and heard the murderer shout "Die, you heretic scum!" as he ran away.



And you're either lying or insane, because that statement is obviously untrue.

Dave
Click to expand...


But, Dave, if they examined the body after she expired and didn't see any cuts or slashes, but instead saw bullet fragments, it doesn't matter how many people claim they saw a spear. Those people are mistaken.
 
WTC Dust said:
This isn't actually true, and even if it were true
Click to expand...
It's actually completely true, because:
the mass composition of these samples tells only part of the story
Click to expand...
And you're incapable of providing it. If you could, you wouldn't be obfuscating and posting random, inane gibberish.
It's the structural arrangement of the material that tells the rest.
Click to expand...
And you're incapable of providing it. If you could, you wouldn't be obfuscating and posting random, inane gibberish.
Little flakes of metal dust? These can be explained by well understood processes.
Click to expand...
Yes, like a building collapsing.
 
Distilling what you want to say from your anology: "I claim that the DEW from space hypothesis explains the observations better than the explosives hypothesis, therefore the DEW is the correct hypothesis."

You are wrong. The bomb-hypothesis being wrong does not imply the DEW hypothesis is correct, as you seem to imply. There is no evidence DEW weapons where used, even the most superficial investiagion of the photographic evidence shows the evidence contradicts the assertion that structutral steel was dustified and, last but not least, DEW weapons do not exist.
 
Last edited:
NutCracker said:
Destilling what you want to say from your anology: "I claim that the DEW from space hypothesis explain the observations better than the explosives hypothesis, therefore the DEW is the correct hypothsis."

You are wrong. The bomb-hypothesis being wrong does not imply the DEW hypothesis is correct. There is no evidence DEW weapons where used, even the most superficial investiagion of the photographic evidence shows the evidence contradicts the assertion that structutral steel was dustified and, last but not least, DEW weapons do not exist.
Click to expand...

DEW is Dr. Judy Wood's theory.

"The WTC was turned largely into dust" is my theory. I'm not talking about the weapon used. I'm talking about the mechanism.
 
WTC Dust said:
I wasn't repeating a lie. I was clarifying my position to you. I don't like to be misunderstood.
Click to expand...

Yes, you were repeating a lie. There were four hijackings on 9/11. Some people who know this have chosen to claim that there were none. Others have belived them, and repeated their lies. You belong to one or other of these groups.

Dave
 
WTC Dust said:
But, Dave, if they examined the body after she expired and didn't see any cuts or slashes, but instead saw bullet fragments, it doesn't matter how many people claim they saw a spear. Those people are mistaken.
Click to expand...

Yes, but suppose they examined the body and found a spear sticking through it, and no bullet fragments, then in 709 a crazy pink-haired woman turned up in the village square with some tiny bits of metal and said she'd dug up the corpse and found them in the grave. And suppose the victim had actually been killed by a spear, and the woman was in fact insane. Then would it have been a gunshot wound?

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom