WTC dust

[R.A.F.]

Why don't you locate them for me.

Other than to offer condolences on their loss, why would I? On the other hand, you could tell them how wrong they are to believe that their dead relatives were on those planes. Here's a "clue"...don't expect to be "welcomed" with open arms.

If they had family members that are no longer around, does that mean necessarily that they didn't die?

Do you mean "did die"??, otherwise this sentence makes no sense.

I have no theory at all about what happened to the victims who were said to be on those planes.

Of course you do...if the planes didn't crash into the buildings, and those relatives are dead, then your "theory" is that they died somewhere else, and in some other manner.

I know about the destruction actually witnessed and documented from the crime scenes, and that evidence does not indicate anything about plane crashes, despite the stories.

So pulling airplane wreckage out of the debris of the buildings just didn't happen...and anyone who would testify to that is a liar?

Unless you were "in fact" at ground zero to witness the removal of all the wreckage, then what good is your uninformed opinion??

 

[starri]

Given these two pieces of knowledge that no one can ever take away from me and that nobody will ever change, how in your thought process does that bring shame upon me?

You misunderstand me. You have every right to explore whatever alternate explanation of the events that you wish. Like most people who have been posting on JREF about your theory, I find it, to put it mildly, unconvincing, and based on some pretty big misunderstandings about physics and metallurgy. But I'm a non-traditional pre-med student, so my bona fides on that matter aren't exactly beyond reproach either, and so I try to take the opinions of experts, look at it through my own limited knowledge, and make my decisions. You're doing the same thing, and even though I think your conclusions are way, way off the mark, that doesn't mean I think it's shameful.

What I do find shameful is a few comments that have cropped up in this thread, such as (your words) "It's time to be goofy about 9/11," (this may be a paraphrase) "9/11 needs a clown," and the photo you posted from an event only a few days after 9/11 of a sign that you had made that said something to the effect of "I Love NY, I Love Firefighters, I Love Pot." It's been almost ten years, and there are people for whom the wounds of that day have never fully closed. Just from within my own lifetime, I can think of tragedies and disasters from Jonestown to Mount St. Helens, The Challenger and Columbia tragedies, the Columbine shootings, the 1995 sarin gas attack on the Tokyo Subway, the 7/7 London bombing, the Indian Ocean Tsunami, major earthquakes in Haiti, China, Kobe Japan, the 1994 Northridge quake, the 1989 San Francisco quake, Darfur, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the USS Cole attack, the embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, Hurricane Katrina and Chernobyl, and that's just off the top of my head. I don't think attempting to make light of any of them is appropriate.

Dr. Blevins, this is, I believe, to be a forum for free and open exchange of information, and even though I'm fairly green around here, if you have legitimate evidence in support of your theory, I think you have every right to post it, and the rest of us have every right to dissect it. But your comments about "lightening up" about one of the biggest scars on the American psyche in living memory is one I found extreme, extremely distasteful, and I felt compelled to say something.

 

[WTC Dust]

But your comments about "lightening up" about one of the biggest scars on the American psyche in living memory is one I found extreme, extremely distasteful, and I felt compelled to say something.

Why is this? Do you take this to be the universal view of every tragedy, or are there some tragedies that aren't off limits?

No one is allowed to examine 9/11 with their sense of humor intact? Doesn't seem right to me. And besides, I'm a funny person. A clown, even. Whatever I do has my own flavor to it, which is also normal. Certain things aren't going to change. I have made it past the sense of 9/11 as a tragedy only. Haven't you seen or heard jokes made by Penn and Teller, Gilbert Godfried, and others on the subjects of 9/11? Would you say "shame" to these people?

 

[WTC Dust]

Other than to offer condolences on their loss, why would I? On the other hand, you could tell them how wrong they are to believe that their dead relatives were on those planes. Here's a "clue"...don't expect to be "welcomed" with open arms.

I didn't expect open arms from JREF. I expected a rightful debunking (or attempts at it) from you folks. It's been mostly insults and outrage.

Do you mean "did die"??, otherwise this sentence makes no sense.

No. I meant it exactly as I said it. They might have died in a different manner. They did not die from a plane crash at the 4 mentioned sites, because there were no plane crashes at those sites.

Of course you do...if the planes didn't crash into the buildings, and those relatives are dead, then your "theory" is that they died somewhere else, and in some other manner.


Correct. Presuming they did die, which presumes that they were ever alive. I do not think that the death list is comprehensive, complete and correct.

So pulling airplane wreckage out of the debris of the buildings just didn't happen...and anyone who would testify to that is a liar?

I can't explain everything. I only know what I know. Airplane crashes NEVER produce metallic foam.

Unless you were "in fact" at ground zero to witness the removal of all the wreckage, then what good is your uninformed opinion??

Even if I was at Ground Zero at that moment, which I was not, do you think the understanding of a traumatized victim approaches that of a seasoned scientist with years of training and research after 9 years of effort at understanding the attacks? I don't think so. Traumatized people aren't reliable witnesses in many cases. They make mistakes because of the trauma. This is not news to you, or it shouldn't be news to you. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

 

[WTC Dust]

No, the plane punched through the exterior in compliance with the laws of physics, as opposed to bouncing off like a cartoon. Buildings are not made of undestructium, so they can be damaged. The steel in cars is bent in crashes at highway speeds, far less than the airline impact speed.

Yes, buildings are mostly an empty space. They make being inside possible.

The most shameful thing about 9/11 is that so many people have been convinced of impossible physics.

The plane pieces would have bounced off the exterior steel beams at the south face of WTC 2, not punctured through like Wiley Coyote going through a mountain. Cartoon physics, indeed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

How did the DNA of the passengers and crew arrive at the crash sites if there were no passengers and crew?

 

[R.A.F.]

I didn't expect open arms from JREF.

Who said anything about the JREF?? I was talking about the relatives of those who died...please pay attention.

I expected a rightful debunking (or attempts at it) from you folks.

You've given us nothing to debunk. Your opinions and conjecture are meaningless without evidence...and what you "call" evidence simply isn't.

It's been mostly insults and outrage.

You post that those who died, didn't, and you're surprised by outrage. You're a real sicko.

They might have died in a different manner.

Prove it.

They did not die from a plane crash at the 4 mentioned sites, because there were no plane crashes at those sites.

Now, I'd like you to walk right up to one of the relatives of someone who died on these non-planes, and say that too them...but you won't do that because you are a coward who "hides" behind the anonymity of the internet.

Presuming they did die, which presumes that they were ever alive. I do not think that the death list is comprehensive, complete and correct.

...and go and say that to the relatives too...

I can't explain everything. I only know what I know.

You seem to know the "truther" propaganda pretty well

Airplane crashes NEVER produce metallic foam.

Please pay attention...I SAID AIRPLANE WRECKAGE...I said nothing about "metallic foam", and you're attempt to change the subject is simply a "dodge".

...a seasoned scientist with years of training and research...

Let me guess...a self-taught scientist? If not that present your credentials so that I may evaluate them. (I normally wouldn't say this, but YOU brought up the "argument from authority").

Traumatized people aren't reliable witnesses in many cases. They make mistakes because of the trauma. This is not news to you, or it shouldn't be news to you. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Why don't you answer the questions I actually ask you? I'm not talking about eyewitness testimony. I'm talking about the airplane wreckage that was removed from the attacked buildings...how do you go about "wishing" that away?

As an aside...please use the quote function as it makes it easier to respond.

 

[starri]

No one is allowed to examine 9/11 with their sense of humor intact? Doesn't seem right to me. And besides, I'm a funny person. A clown, even. Whatever I do has my own flavor to it, which is also normal. Certain things aren't going to change. I have made it past the sense of 9/11 as a tragedy only. Haven't you seen or heard jokes made by Penn and Teller, Gilbert Godfried, and others on the subjects of 9/11? Would you say "shame" to these people?

I've never heard P&T make jokes about 9/11, but frankly, yes, I probably would. I really soured on Bullcaca after a while, but one of the last episodes I remember clearly was one that was about conspiracy theories, where they discussed the Kennedy assassination, and, in lieu of actual human skulls to study, set up two watermelons to shoot at to simulate the effect of a bullet from behind the head, and, just to be macabre, set a pillbox hat on one of the two melons. And yes, I found that to be in horrifically bad taste.

I know my sense of propriety tends towards the prim, and that is was it is, but for me, a good rule of thumb would be to avoid being flippant about things that have happened in living memory. I have a maternal aunt who grew up in Nazi-occupied Alsace, and she, today, in her seventies, won't talk about it.

It's an open internet, and you have the right to take whatever tack toward the material at hand as you wish (within the JREF rules, at least), and I am happy to debate with you. But at the same, I think we all do a favor to the memory of the event in question by remaining respectful.

And those are mt $.02.

 

[Sabrina]

Where did ANYONE on this forum ever claim that the WTC fires were "ordinary"? There was absolutely nothing "ordinary" about them, given that they were sparked by damage from PLANES smashing into and through the buildings and were fueled by materials not often found in such vast quantities in more normal house fires (by which I mean the vast quantities of drywall, countless sources of computer materials, plastics, optical wiring, plus the jet fuel that sparked a good deal of the fires). Nowhere has ANYONE claimed that these fires were normal. I'm sure lefty and tri will agree with me that the fires were, if anything, utterly ABNORMAL. Setting aside your utter lack of knowledge about how a plane traveling at over 500 mph could easily punch through the steel, glass, and aluminum that comprised the relatively thin outer skin of the WTC (I don't have access to the blueprints, but IIRC the outer walls were no more than a foot thick, if that, and comprised only partially of steel columns; the vast majority of the outer walls was the glass and aluminum cladding, both of which are much weaker than steel). Over 95% of the building was nothing but air; be kind of hard to have an office building without the space to put offices in after all. You seem to be operating on the assumption that the WTC was a solid block of material, which, if it were true, MIGHT possibly allow for your ludicrous assumption that the planes couldn't pierce the material, but given that the planes had AT MOST a foot of relatively soft material to punch through at 500 mph, the idea that the planes couldn't pierce them is utterly and completely idiotic. Please, educate yourself on the structure of the outer building before you start making claims that the plane's inertia alone couldn't pierce it, never mind the kinetic energy.

And this is coming from someone with almost no knowledge of physics. My Lord... *shakes head incredulously*

 

[AZCat]

The most shameful thing about 9/11 is that so many people have been convinced of impossible physics.

The plane pieces would have bounced off the exterior steel beams at the south face of WTC 2, not punctured through like Wiley Coyote going through a mountain. Cartoon physics, indeed.

I think this is the point where it becomes clear a layperson's understanding of physics is not sufficient when considering the impacts of the aircraft on the WTC towers. Perhaps it would be in your best interest to accept this limitation and stick within your personal areas of expertise.

 

[leftysergeant]

The most shameful thing about 9/11 is that so many people have been convinced of impossible physics.

Your saying so does not make it so.

The plane pieces would have bounced off the exterior steel beams at the south face of WTC 2, not punctured through like Wiley Coyote going through a mountain. Cartoon physics, indeed.

There is no reason they would have bounced, any more than a shotgun pellet will bounce off a car. You are treating the airplanes and the buildings as solid objects, and the aircraft as the lighter of the two.

Aluminum piles up against what it hits. With more arriving behind it, it eventually overcomes what is in front of it. Look again at the holes. Notice that the aluminum did not cut the steel, but rather broke the joints between columns.

As for leaving a cut-out of itself, this is not unprecedented. Google "USS Hinsdale." A Japanese "Betty" kamikaze aircraft (made almost entirely of aluminum and propeller-powered, thus incredibly slow compared to a 757) made an almost perfect cut-out of itself in the steel hull and penetrated all the way into the engine room.

You are arguing from incredible ignorance.

 

[WTC Dust]

How did the DNA of the passengers and crew arrive at the crash sites if there were no passengers and crew?

I only heard stories about that. I never saw any evidence that convinced me. Having sequenced DNA myself, I'd be convinced by DNA evidence. They showed the DNA data at the OJ trial.

Maybe the reason I haven't seen any of this evidence is because they haven't brought a single person to trial for the crimes of 9/11. This should be suspicious to you...

 

[WTC Dust]

Who said anything about the JREF?? I was talking about the relatives of those who died...please pay attention.



You've given us nothing to debunk. Your opinions and conjecture are meaningless without evidence...and what you "call" evidence simply isn't.



You post that those who died, didn't, and you're surprised by outrage. You're a real sicko.



Prove it.



Now, I'd like you to walk right up to one of the relatives of someone who died on these non-planes, and say that too them...but you won't do that because you are a coward who "hides" behind the anonymity of the internet.



...and go and say that to the relatives too...



You seem to know the "truther" propaganda pretty well



Please pay attention...I SAID AIRPLANE WRECKAGE...I said nothing about "metallic foam", and you're attempt to change the subject is simply a "dodge".



Let me guess...a self-taught scientist? If not that present your credentials so that I may evaluate them. (I normally wouldn't say this, but YOU brought up the "argument from authority").



Why don't you answer the questions I actually ask you? I'm not talking about eyewitness testimony. I'm talking about the airplane wreckage that was removed from the attacked buildings...how do you go about "wishing" that away?

As an aside...please use the quote function as it makes it easier to respond.

Do a google on my name, Tracy Blevins, and find out as much as you want about me. I never did time in jail, so I'm not that Tracy Blevins. I'm the one with pink hair.

 

[dc1971]

The most shameful thing about 9/11 is that so many people have been convinced of impossible physics.

The plane pieces would have bounced off the exterior steel beams at the south face of WTC 2, not punctured through like Wiley Coyote going through a mountain. Cartoon physics, indeed.

LOL!!!! You're using a cartoon for your research!!



I think I just gave myself another hernia I laughed so hard!!

Nice!!

 

[R.A.F.]

I'm the one with pink hair.

So that is your picture as an avatar...you look so sad.

...and you ignored most of my post...nice debate tactic.

I have a very little patience when dealing with those who like to "play games"...why not try actually addressing my post.

 

[triforcharity]

Explain how this happened. Paper right next to "fires" that does not catch fire. Strange fire, indeed.

It takes more to light a piece of paper on fire, than it does to melt plastic.

It's called an ignition temperature.

Not one firefighter who was there, found anything "strange" with the fires.

Why do you fail so bad?

 

[triforcharity]

A building collapse doesn't cause dust for an entire year, though, not to mention that it doesn't cause the type of dust seen rolling down the streets on 9/11 and found in the nook where I found it.

No, but a construction site would. BTW, you have YET to show any evidence that the Memorial was interrupted.

You have to explain the data, not ignore the data that doesn't fit preconceptions.

You don't have any data.

No building that ever collapsed caused metallic foam to appear. No building that ever caught fire generated metallic foam.

Correct. You have an unknown dust, from an unknown source, with 8 years of contamination.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[triforcharity]

The most shameful thing about 9/11 is that so many people have been convinced of impossible physics.

The plane pieces would have bounced off the exterior steel beams at the south face of WTC 2, not punctured through like Wiley Coyote going through a mountain. Cartoon physics, indeed.

Well, than a bullet shouldn't work, and bunch of water cannot cut steel.

Can you show your work? Show us the math.

 

[triforcharity]

Where did ANYONE on this forum ever claim that the WTC fires were "ordinary"? There was absolutely nothing "ordinary" about them, given that they were sparked by damage from PLANES smashing into and through the buildings and were fueled by materials not often found in such vast quantities in more normal house fires (by which I mean the vast quantities of drywall, countless sources of computer materials, plastics, optical wiring, plus the jet fuel that sparked a good deal of the fires). Nowhere has ANYONE claimed that these fires were normal. I'm sure lefty and tri will agree with me that the fires were, if anything, utterly ABNORMAL.

Correct. But, at the same time, not one of us found anything suspicious about the fires. They were to be expected, considering.

Yes, they were not you "normal" house fire, but they were not suspicious in any way.

 

[triforcharity]

I only heard stories about that. I never saw any evidence that convinced me. Having sequenced DNA myself, I'd be convinced by DNA evidence. They showed the DNA data at the OJ trial.

Maybe the reason I haven't seen any of this evidence is because they haven't brought a single person to trial for the crimes of 9/11. This should be suspicious to you...

That scumbag POS Moussoui might disagree with you. So would KSM.