• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

You are arguing from ignorance and it is sad to behold.I am embarrassed in your place
 
triforcharity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The only thing about them that was out of the ordinary was the method of ignition and the situation that caused them. Sorry, I may not have made that clear in my previous post.
 
starri said:
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.
Click to expand...


Do you think 9 years of serious research into the question is giving the event enough respect? I do.
 
Is nine years the cut off? No.

I still to this day respect the guys who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, in Carantan, in Bastogne, who fought in Normandy. I don't make jokes about them or the events they encounter. That was 66 years ago.

So, in conclusion, just because you have been "seriously researching" the events of 9/11, doesn't mean that now you can make jokes about it.

Sorry, that is absolutely disrespectful.
 
Sabrina said:
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*
Click to expand...


When I have a very good understanding of physics and of science in general, having earned almost every dollar I've ever earned in science laboratories or science classrooms, why not be open minded to what I'm saying?

I have spent my life as a scientist, starting when I took extra science classes in high school and won first place in science competitions, etc. I was accepted into medical school at age 17, accepted at Stanford, graduated valedictorian, graduated with a science degree on the honor rolls, earned a PhD early, completed a postdoctoral fellowship, industry experience, peer reviewed journal articles with my name as first author..............

And I lived in lower Manhattan and smelled the strange fire coming from Ground Zero with my own nose. Darn it! The size of the fire doesn't determine the smell. It's what is ON FIRE that determines the smell. You don't have to be a physics whiz to understand this.

Aluminum airplanes cannot pierce through steel beams WITHOUT SHOWING SIGNS THAT THEY HIT STEEL BEAMS! Crash physics are easy to understand. Can a fast car hit a tree without damage to the car? No. And cars are made of steel, not aluminum.
 
Last edited:
No matter how smart you may be (or may have been before your current state), your argument from incredulity is still a logical fallacy, and not an argument. "Didn't smell right" in your own personal perception does not trump the plethora of evidence. Including the physics, of which your knowledge is so bad as to be laughable. You write about physics like a pot-addled high school kid on 4chan, so it really doesn't matter what you did at Stanford.
 
|||NEWS FLASH|||

pH studies complete on the dust sample

result? slightly basic (between pH 7.5 and 8)
 
carlitos said:
No matter how smart you may be (or may have been before your current state), your argument from incredulity is still a logical fallacy, and not an argument. "Didn't smell right" in your own personal perception does not trump the plethora of evidence. Including the physics, of which your knowledge is so bad as to be laughable. You write about physics like a pot-addled high school kid on 4chan, so it really doesn't matter what you did at Stanford.
Click to expand...

I didn't go to Stanford. I was accepted into Stanford. I attended Washington University in Saint Louis.

Besides, just google "WTC smell" and find out for yourself. Millions of people smelled the smell, and many people blogged about it. They all had a difficult time identifying it.
 
WTC Dust said:
I didn't go to Stanford. I was accepted into Stanford. I attended Washington University in Saint Louis.

Besides, just google "WTC smell" and find out for yourself. Millions of people smelled the smell, and many people blogged about it. They all had a difficult time identifying it.
Click to expand...

If I light a match you would recognize the smell. If a match factory burned down do you think it would smell like a lit match?
 
Dusty, nobody cares about your personal incredulity. We care about what you can prove. And you literally have nothing.
 
WTC Dust said:
When I have a very good understanding of physics and of science in general, having earned almost every dollar I've ever earned in science laboratories or science classrooms, why not be open minded to what I'm saying?I have spent my life as a scientist, starting when I took extra science classes in high school and won first place in science competitions, etc. I was accepted into medical school at age 17, accepted at Stanford, graduated valedictorian, graduated with a science degree on the honor rolls, earned a PhD early, completed a postdoctoral fellowship, industry experience, peer reviewed journal articles with my name as first author..............

And I lived in lower Manhattan and smelled the strange fire coming from Ground Zero with my own nose. Darn it! The size of the fire doesn't determine the smell. It's what is ON FIRE that determines the smell. You don't have to be a physics whiz to understand this.

Aluminum airplanes cannot pierce through steel beams WITHOUT SHOWING SIGNS THAT THEY HIT STEEL BEAMS! Crash physics are easy to understand. Can a fast car hit a tree without damage to the car? No. And cars are made of steel, not aluminum.
Click to expand...

Hiliting mine.

This is called an appeal to authority.

It doesn't matter who you are. It matters what you say. If you tell me because you have studied meterology, and you tell me the sky is bright pink, you're still wrong. If I say it is blue, and provide a picture of said blue sky, am I wrong just because you're a meterologist?

No.

You're wrong either way. Doesn't matter who I am.

Get the point?
 
WTC Dust said:
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...
Click to expand...

Um......yes they have....http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/

for a research scientist, you are horrible at it.
 
WTC Dust said:
I didn't go to Stanford. I was accepted into Stanford. I attended Washington University in Saint Louis.

Besides, just google "WTC smell" and find out for yourself. Millions of people smelled the smell, and many people blogged about it. They all had a difficult time identifying it.
Click to expand...

1 - Perhaps if you didn't go to Stanford, you should write "accepted at Stanford, graduated valedictorian," in that way. It's misleading.

2 - Did you forget to, like, address the point of my post?

ETA - I actually smelled the smell, by the way. I was in lower Manhattan the first week of October, 2001. It was awful.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
When I have a very good understanding of physics and of science in general, having earned almost every dollar I've ever earned in science laboratories or science classrooms, why not be open minded to what I'm saying?

I have spent my life as a scientist, starting when I took extra science classes in high school and won first place in science competitions, etc. I was accepted into medical school at age 17, accepted at Stanford, graduated valedictorian, graduated with a science degree on the honor rolls, earned a PhD early, completed a postdoctoral fellowship, industry experience, peer reviewed journal articles with my name as first author..............

And I lived in lower Manhattan and smelled the strange fire coming from Ground Zero with my own nose. Darn it! The size of the fire doesn't determine the smell. It's what is ON FIRE that determines the smell. You don't have to be a physics whiz to understand this.

Aluminum airplanes cannot pierce through steel beams WITHOUT SHOWING SIGNS THAT THEY HIT STEEL BEAMS! Crash physics are easy to understand. Can a fast car hit a tree without damage to the car? No. And cars are made of steel, not aluminum.
Click to expand...

Not hardly dearie.

In the first place, you are not a physicist, so whether you passed beginner physics or not is irrelevant to the discussion. There are individuals on this board with serious degrees in various physics disciplines, so if we're going to "argue from authority", I'm inclined to lean toward the folks who have spent the vast majority of their lives studying said discipline, and guess what? Every single one of them says you're mistaken.

Secondly, your particular credentials are in the field of medical biology, IIRC (although please correct me if I misstated). Quite frankly, you are not a member of a discipline that is needed to understand what happened on 9/11, so your credentials, impressive though they may be, are in YOUR field, not the fields needed (such as architecture, physics, aeronautics, structural engineering, and fire disciplines, to name a few) to really grasp the enormity of what happened there. Your personal incredulity is not the measure you should be using; what you SHOULD be using is the research conducted by people IN THOSE FIELDS who have pretty much all (with a few exceptions that have subsequently been proven wrong by their peers) said that two planes flew into the WTC towers, caused major structural damage and fires, and subsequently were a major contributing factor to the towers collapsing.

Third, I'm quite frankly amazed that you are still persisting in your lunatic theory that the planes should have bounced off of the WTC and fallen to the ground, and that because we don't see the damage to the planes, that somehow translates to "there were no planes". Newsflash m'dear; the planes were virtually DISINTEGRATED. They were traveling at their upper speed limit with no attempt made to slow down before plowing into a relatively thin skin of aluminum, glass, and steel (no more than a foot thick, and the steel columns were hollow as well, IIRC); what exactly did you THINK was going to happen? Something traveling that fast and plowing into something that was at least partially (probably close to fifty percent, taking into account the aluminum cladding and glass that comprised part of the outer shell of the WTC) made of material softer than itself is barely going to be slowed down by something like that! Inertia and kinetic energy can EASILY account for the planes being able to penetrate the building, as well as the fact that the buildings were made up of nearly 95% AIR! What was going to stop it; the steel? Please; unless you think those columns were made up of all one piece or something, that's ludicrous. Of course the columns would give way at their joints; that's the weak spot of the columns! It's like the game Red Rover; the weak spot that allows you to break the chain is ALWAYS where two people are holding hands. The speed the planes were traveling at was enough to break the chain at numerous locations.

Fourth, no one is arguing that the fire carried an unusual smell, but it is easily accounted for when you take into account what was in the towers; i.e. computer materials, drywall, fabrics from upholstery, wood, metal, glass, electronic components, plastic, fiber optics, and sadly, human bodies. For God's sake, woman, you have two individuals in this very thread who have spent YEARS dealing with and studying the physics of fires; if there were something odd or wrong about those fires, they would have known! The hundreds of firefighters, first responders, and investigators would have known! Again, your personal incredulity does not constitute a reliable factor by which wrongness should be measured!

I'm sick and tired of you trying to claim expertise you do not possess, Dusty. You have a PhD; fine, whatever, I'm glad for you, but do your work within the confines of that discipline, because that's what you're TRAINED in. If you want to expand your horizons, great; but go to school FIRST before you start trying to step to people who have YEARS of expertise in their fields to back up what they're saying. If someone like me, who has little experience in ANY of the fields I mentioned above that would be REQUIRED to fully understand the events of that day can see right through your BS, then you have problems. My area of expertise lies in other directions; namely military intelligence and TTPs, or Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, coming from almost nine years spent as an officer in the United States Army. And using that, I can see right through the line of BS you are trying to sell, because what you are proposing makes absolutely NO sense if you're talking about the reasons behind why someone would do this. There's little or no gain for anyone in this entire scenario; even the terrorists, while gaining the overreactions of fear and panic in this country, have schooled us well and made us realize that we are vulnerable, and I along with thousands of others are working to make damn sure we aren't that vulnerable again. We aren't perfect at it yet, but we damn sure learn fast. You could learn a thing or two from that.
 
WTC Dust said:
...

Aluminum airplanes cannot pierce through steel beams WITHOUT SHOWING SIGNS THAT THEY HIT STEEL BEAMS! Crash physics are easy to understand. Can a fast car hit a tree without damage to the car? No. And cars are made of steel, not aluminum.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

Even if you managed to convince some of us that your admittedly brief exposure to physics fundamentals might have some merit, your last paragraph eliminates all doubt. You should leave the analysis of complex dynamics to the professionals. It isn't high school subject matter, not even in the "extra science classes".
 
WTC Dust said:
|||NEWS FLASH|||

pH studies complete on the dust sample

result? slightly basic (between pH 7.5 and 8)
Click to expand...

Wow, it took you a year to find the pH? I just did it this morning to my aquarium. It took 3 minutes.

Do you have a point?
 
WTC Dust said:
Aluminum airplanes cannot pierce through steel beams WITHOUT SHOWING SIGNS THAT THEY HIT STEEL BEAMS! Crash physics are easy to understand. Can a fast car hit a tree without damage to the car? No. And cars are made of steel, not aluminum.
Click to expand...

You think the planes passed through the buildings without taking damage? That's... even more crazy than your theory that all the steel dustified even though there's thousands of photos and testimony showing that it was all there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom