WTC dust

[Sabrina]

Tehrmite does silly

Oh right; the mythical thermite explosive.

Anyone ever proved the existence of that? 'Cause last I checked, thermite was still an incendiary, not an explosive.



(Yes, I know you were being sarcastic; just responding in case anyone thought you were being serious.)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Fonebone <
The shaped charge creates a breach in the ship armor allowing the explosive payload
of the Exocet to penetrate into the vessel before the time delayed fuse detonates the explosive.
Apparently the shaped charge worked as designed blowing an entrance into the vessel but both
the time delayed and proximity fuses failed to initiate the explosive payload.


http://docfoualier.free.fr/exocet.pdf
The missile is divided into four modular parts:
[excerpt]
-Section 2 contains the warhead which is common to all versions. It is a 165-kg shaped charge with
fragmentation and incendiary effects. The explosive employed is Hexolite. It is initiated by a delay
fuse which allow the missile to penetrate the outer hull of the ship before blowing up. A proximity
fused is fitted as a back-up fuse if the missile overfly its target, then causing extensive damage to
the bridge, antennas and potentially aircrafts on deck.[/excerpt]

I'm not sure if we are at cross purposes here.....but the exocet does not use the shaped charge to peirce the side of the ship.....

"-Section 2 contains the warhead which is common to all versions. It is a 165-kg shaped charge with
fragmentation and incendiary effects. The explosive employed is Hexolite. It is initiated by a delay
fuse which allow the missile to penetrate the outer hull of the ship before blowing up. A proximity
fused is fitted as a back-up fuse if the missile overfly its target, then causing extensive damage to
the bridge, antennas and potentially aircrafts on deck."

Only one charge and it is detonated AFTER the missile has pierced the side of the ship using KE only

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Oh, really, Sabrina. How do explosives work, if it isn't by creating heat?

ROTFLOL......Research Scientist my Butt!

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'm not sure if we are at cross purposes here.....but the exocet does not use the shaped charge to peirce the side of the ship.....


Only one charge and it is detonated AFTER the missile has pierced the side of the ship using KE only

All beside the point as the Warhead, like the first one that hit Atlantic Conveyor is known not to have exploded.

 

[BadBoy]

Well I never saw that Judy Wood video before. I was very impressed and will get a copy of it somewhere.

imagine living next door to Mr Bill and Judy Wood. What a crazy house that would be.

 

[Mikemcc]

Wait...

She actually said that explosives work by causing heat?

Well, if nothing else before this did, that settles it. Utterly, completely, beyond doubt, BATCRAP crazy.

For pity's sake, I'm not even a chemist and I can see the flaw in that statement. Yet more proof that Dusty knows not of what she speaks of.

So nothing to do with the explosive wavefront then! No need for folks using explosives to tamp them in then...

This thread just keeps giving and giving!

 

[twinstead]

Now, let's give her the benefit of the doubt. Explosives of course don't work by causing heat, but sometimes heat can be a byproduct of an explosion. So, technically you can use heat and explosives in the same sentence.

Hey, I tried

 

[chipmunk stew]

This thread is proof that a PhD in science doesn't make you a scientist.

 

[Dragonrock]

More importantly, did she get naked on camera?

 

[twinstead]

Oh no he di'int

 

[aggle-rithm]

This is not the first internet group I've participated in, and there are always folks that insist that I'm not a scientist. <shrug> Persistent denial is fine for keeping your ego intact, I suppose.

Dusty, how do you reconcile your status as a working research scientist with the following statements?


There are bald-faced assertions that are either clearly wrong or unsupported:

Dust moving in the upward direction disproves a gravity collapse. Moving on.

Falling twelve feet doesn't generate that much kinetic energy, and the floors were only twelve feet apart.

If the WTC was destroyed by gravity alone, then the velocity of the building materials would have been straight down.

No amount of time passing can cause ordinary materials to form into a metallic foam.

Nothing about a plane crash could produce the samples I have.

Nothing about an airplane crash is sufficient to destroy a steel building.

Some science is collaborative, but it's mostly not. It's mostly one scientist alone in a lab doing whatever they do.

The appropriate gedanken experiment is the following:
Imagine dropping a 4 inch thick concrete floor twelve feet.
How much dust are you going to get?

I do know that even if it was a real plane, the destruction seen would not have resulted from it...

What happened on 9/11 was very strange. No traditional explanation has accounted for the destruction seen, especially not airplane crashes.

My samples are great. They show what the building became, and it isn't all gypsum and concrete. There's metallic dust, too.

One ad hominem argument:

How do you make your living? How much money do you have in the bank? These questions must be answered before anything you say has credibility.

One baffling appeal to popular culture, using a scientifically invalid example:

I'm guessing the closest thing in fictional work that describes the weapon is the "flux capacitor" used in Back to the Future. Remember how the professor throws a banana and a beer can inside it in order to generate 2.1 gigawatts of power? Something like that.

Begging the question:

You failed to recognize that you were witnessing advanced technology on 9/11. This was your first mistake.

Revelations of unwillingness to accept new evidence:

There are two things that you might never be able to convince me:
1. That an airplane crash could result in this damage.
2. That thermite caused this damage.

Don't even bother trying, unless you've got something that nobody else has.

Excuses for failing to produce any useable evidence:

You make me laugh! Why do you keep asking me for simple equations that a grade school student can find on the internet?

It's not a simple request to explain 9 years of work. Besides, I think I've made it clear that I am presenting my data for debunking, not following orders.

Dismissing the importance of scientific methodology/failing to accept burden of proof:

Why should I do easy calculations that other people can do and that are not relevant to the theory?

I know the origin of my dust! I discovered it.

You're presuming that my sample is contaminated, without evidence, other than the cigarette butts.

I'd account for contamination, if it were found.

What evidence do you think can counter metallic foam?

Calculations, smalculations.

Inflating the importance of badly flawed evidence:

You didn't take a look at the picture I posted to this thread?
It shows my dust.

Nope. I put up an image of the dust that is not available on any forum in the world except this one. I know because I had the picture taken, and I've only posted it in this forum.

I've already begun. I posted an image of some of the dust that I have, and nobody really talked about it.

It's impossible to put 9 years of research into a single post on JREF, and I don't plan to anyway. My best stuff is what I'm showing you right now. If you don't like it, fine, but I think it's neat.

Oversimplifying the issues:

I really don't know why most of you are against even discussing the possibility of an electrical weapon destroying the WTC. Steel conducts electricity. You know you can "do things" to metals with electricity.

Don't know what is sooooo outrageous about destroying steel with electricity.

Here's a simple model: Take a steel cage, a plain and simple steel cage. The size doesn't matter, but let's say it's one foot cubed. Put this steel cage in a large bucket, one completely filled with kerosene. Light the kerosene and step away.

What is your expected result? Will the steel break apart into a zillion pieces?

Conflating "possibility" with "probability":

Do you have imagination problems? By this I mean, is it possible for you to admit that a weapon such as I describe MIGHT exist? At this point, you seem to be the type of person who thinks that if they, personally, don't know about something, that it doesn't exist.

Failure to understand simple scientific principles:

So what was the horizontal force that threw the building debris sideways?

Wind?

Good old-fashioned, bat-crap crazy delusion:

If you pay attention to what I'm actually saying (as opposed to DEW and Dr. Wood and whether or not I need medication), then you will slowly start to see me as a great scientist. I have a world history changing story within my grasp, and I want to get it right.

Her billiard ball example is brilliant. Brilliant billiard balls! Woo.

An ignorant, technician's application of mass spectroscopy to my samples would not reveal the full extent of the data. It would need to be a very highly knowledgeable technician, and there isn't anyone more knowledgeable about the dust than me (who isn't stuck in the publish or perish land).

And finally, the mother of them all -- The revelation that scientists start with the conclusion and work their way backwards:

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.

 

[twinstead]

ouch

 

[Sabrina]

So, out of sheer curiosity (I didn't bother to tune in; I get enough batcrap crazy just reading this thread) did any scientists accredited in the necessary fields tune in to Dusty's presentation yesterday? And if so, did any of them manage to ask a question that stumped Dusty, or were there only panting, sycophantic questions and the occasional not-too-difficult question from a debunker allowed? I'm mildly curious to know exactly what a scientist accredited in one of the necessary fields would think of Dusty's work.

I'm also curious to know how long they were able to hold themselves back from calling her ideas completely insane, but that's another issue entirely.

 

[triforcharity]

That's gonna' leave a mark. For a LONG time!

 

[Furcifer]

Hey, I tried

At least someone is.

Dusty has made so many factual and scientific errors I'm not sure if she really understands how explosives work or not. Technically they do produce heat, and when you think about it this is as close to a correct answer as she's had all thread. So it kinda makes you wonder if she just got lucky.

 

[Furcifer]

Aside from how ridiculous it is to think there were no planes on 9/11, you have to laugh at the thought of the nefarious Bush government coming up with the most advanced and powerful weapon in the history of mankind and using it to blow a hole in the side of a few buildings. And then what? They shelved it, didn't even bother bringing it to war with them?

This stuff is so unbelievable you couldn't even make a movie out of it. Nobody is going to believe the US used this super weapon once, on themselves, and then 86'd it from the history books. Not when there's about a million easier, cheaper and more effective ways to get the US to go to war in Afghanistan if the government was in cahoots with OBL.

Occam's Razor always comes up because it really is the answer to these ultra complex conspiracy theories. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[dtugg]

Aside from how ridiculous it is to think there were no planes on 9/11, you have to laugh at the thought of the nefarious Bush government coming up with the most advanced and powerful weapon in the history of mankind and using it to blow a hole in the side of a few buildings. And then what? They shelved it, didn't even bother bringing it to war with them?

This stuff is so unbelievable you couldn't even make a movie out of it. Nobody is going to believe the US used this super weapon once, on themselves, and then 86'd it from the history books. Not when there's about a million easier, cheaper and more effective ways to get the US to go to war in Afghanistan if the government was in cahoots with OBL.

Occam's Razor always comes up because it really is the answer to these ultra complex conspiracy theories. It just doesn't make sense.

Dusty will get mad at you if you say she claims it was the government that did it. She claims it was terrorists. Of course the idea that terrorists could somehow obtain the most advanced and powerful weapon in history and then would only use it once rather than destroy the USA with it is even more ridiculous than the scenario you described.

ETA: She also is unable to explain why the US government is covering for these terrorists.

 

[bill smith]

U guess Steven Jones or one of his people better show up here soon before his nenothermite theory becomes too undermined.

Like I said before it's either Steve or Judy..

 

[excaza]

So, out of sheer curiosity (I didn't bother to tune in; I get enough batcrap crazy just reading this thread) did any scientists accredited in the necessary fields tune in to Dusty's presentation yesterday? And if so, did any of them manage to ask a question that stumped Dusty, or were there only panting, sycophantic questions and the occasional not-too-difficult question from a debunker allowed? I'm mildly curious to know exactly what a scientist accredited in one of the necessary fields would think of Dusty's work.

I'm also curious to know how long they were able to hold themselves back from calling her ideas completely insane, but that's another issue entirely.

I tuned in at the end while I was watching some tv, and there weren't any questions during the question break.

It doesn't really matter, the dust isn't magnetic, so steel is ruled out.

 

[HatRack]

This stuff is so unbelievable you couldn't even make a movie out of it. Nobody is going to believe the US used this super weapon once, on themselves, and then 86'd it from the history books. Not when there's about a million easier, cheaper and more effective ways to get the US to go to war in Afghanistan if the government was in cahoots with OBL.

Maybe that's the problem with conspiracy theorists. They haven't seen enough bad movies to realize when their delusions start to sound like one. Or maybe it's the other way around: they've seen too many bad movies and started believing them.