• 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.
Say Dusty - care to link your asinine theory with.... you know.....the rest of the day's events?

Surely you're not implying that a crash in Shanksville and another at the Pentagon are mere coincidence?
 
That I don't get paid to do my work does not mean I'm not a professional researcher.

Plus, for most of the time after 9/11, I was a resident of lower Manhattan, I was in a unique position to observe and witness the aftermath.

I waited and searched for someone who had the right answer to the right question. The right question was, "What destroyed the WTC?"

If you think it's planes, fine. Go ahead. I will not be able to change your mind. But I've got physical evidence (imperfect as it is) that implies that you are wrong.

I witnessed things that nobody was talking about. The news media didn't explain it. The conspiracy theorists didn't explain it. What made the WTC fume for that long? Answer this and you will have answered the main question.

Craig4 said:
There are two real problems with people like you. The first is that in the realm of failure analysis there is still work to be done on 9/11. There are actual failures in intelligence and security, emergency response and building construction that need further study. The problem is that when legitimate concerns are raised the people raising them get associated with people like you. Your concerns are not legitimate and they don't really matter. However because you spout off about them people with legitimate issues get dismissed.

The second problem is that your approach to this topic is just disrespectful. 9/11 was a national tragedy and deserves a high quality of effort. Your "work" isn't good enough for this topic. You've turned a tragedy into a meaningless hobby.
Click to expand...
 
I went on and on about the PLANE CRASHES!!

I'm not saying you didn't see "a plane" in the sky. I'm saying that
you didn't see and video images did not capture evidence of a
PLANE CRASH.

There is evidence of a plane, but when you look for evidence of
a plane crash, you don't find it, which is why I've come to my conclusion
that it was a fake plane. Because there was no plane crash.

If you keep saying "But I saw a plane!" you'll be missing my point. I'm talking about a plane crash that wasn't.

Craig4 said:
No, we saw planes. The world saw a planes. People in the buildings saw planes coming at them. We saw the wreckage of a plane. If on WTC Dust planet you need there to not be a plane that's your business. However you should understand that in reality there were planes and what happens in your silly little fantasy world doesn't matter in the real world. Understanding this fact might help you avoid confusion.
Click to expand...
 
If the WTC steel turned to dust, what is all that steel doing lying around after the collapse?

WRT the fires, there was 220 acres + of materials that will burn. Most of it hydrocarbons. Nothing is "suspicious" about the fires to anyone in the fire service. Nothing.
 
As a competent scientist, I know when I don't have to do certain work. One of those times is when it has already been done by another person.

Those mathematical details that you seek can be found on the website of Dr. Judy Wood. I could re-do them for you, but why should I? Just go to the site and find out for yourself.

Craig4 said:
Explain in detail. Do math, show your work.
Click to expand...
 
I'd say PLANE CRASHING INTO BUILDING is a good comparision, no matter what size the plane is.

If you think size matters (are you a man? j/k), then please tell me what about a bigger mass makes any difference?

Besides, talk about planes is boring. They didn't destroy the WTC. Period.



vs What small plane? A 757 vs. a 2 seat Cessna? Youbetcha.



You're honestly comparing a Cessna crash to what we saw on 9/11? :crazy:




A big one that's extremely difficult to get to. All set?



Argument from :crazy:

You're no scientist. Stop pretending.[/QUOTE]
 
WTC Dust said:
I'd say PLANE CRASHING INTO BUILDING is a good comparision, no matter what size the plane is.

If you think size matters (are you a man? j/k), then please tell me what about a bigger mass makes any difference?
Click to expand...
"Competent scientist" eh? Does physics exist in your world?
 
Darn! My only choices seem to be dust and fairytale foam, so I'll go with dust.

The foam is quite dusty, but you can pick it up. I liken it to a metallic meringue.



Dash80 said:
The plane impacted the building, it didn't just vanish in the sky. Neither did it fly by and off in to the distance. I had an unfortunately perfect view of this horrible event and you treat the whole thing like a sick joke.

Metallic foam? Seriously? You said you collected dust, so is it dust or is it this fairytale-foam? Pick one.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
As a competent scientist, I know when I don't have to do certain work. One of those times is when it has already been done by another person.

Those mathematical details that you seek can be found on the website of Dr. Judy Wood. I could re-do them for you, but why should I? Just go to the site and find out for yourself.
Click to expand...
Dr Wood does not explain how her "beam" works with math or science. Could you link to where she explains it (if I missed it)?
 
I'd say PLANE CRASHING INTO BUILDING is a good comparision, no matter what size the plane is.
Click to expand...

So you think a Cessna travelling at full speed would cause EXACTLY the same amount of damage as a 757 travelling at its full speed?
 
WTC Dust said:
That I don't get paid to do my work does not mean I'm not a professional researcher.

Plus, for most of the time after 9/11, I was a resident of lower Manhattan, I was in a unique position to observe and witness the aftermath.

I waited and searched for someone who had the right answer to the right question. The right question was, "What destroyed the WTC?"

If you think it's planes, fine. Go ahead. I will not be able to change your mind. But I've got physical evidence (imperfect as it is) that implies that you are wrong.

I witnessed things that nobody was talking about. The news media didn't explain it. The conspiracy theorists didn't explain it. What made the WTC fume for that long? Answer this and you will have answered the main question.
Click to expand...

The fact that your work is unprofessional, lacking in rigor and generally of a poor quality means you're not a professional researcher. Let me be very clear; your work is not good enough to be taken seriously.

No, you do not have physical evidence that no planes went into the towers. The reason people aren't talking about what you claim to have witnessed is indicative of the fact that your claims have no value.
 
It wouldn't have the same effect in magnitude, but it would have the same effect in kind. Meaning, a physical collision. You wouldn't get foamed by a Lexus, no matter how many times it hit you and no matter how fast it was going. Chunks, yes. Foam? No. Except your body already contains foamy proteins, so that doesn't count. Foam due to the impact? No.

WildCat said:
I hilited the words that matter. Materials have nothing at all to do with it.

If a Hot Wheels car hit you at 5 mph do you think it would have the same effect as a Lexus hitting you at 60 mph?
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
It wouldn't have the same effect in magnitude, but it would have the same effect in kind. Meaning, a physical collision. You wouldn't get foamed by a Lexus, no matter how many times it hit you and no matter how fast it was going. Chunks, yes. Foam? No. Except your body already contains foamy proteins, so that doesn't count. Foam due to the impact? No.
Click to expand...

There wasn't any foam found at the WTC either.
 
Not every bit of it turned to dust. Some of it remained. Some of the remains are strangely affected, but that's a whole other topic.

The WTC wasn't particularly filled with hydrocarbons, any more than a regular building. Besides, they didn't find chunks of burned things. They found tiny, fragmented pieces of things amid all this dust.



triforcharity said:
If the WTC steel turned to dust, what is all that steel doing lying around after the collapse?

WRT the fires, there was 220 acres + of materials that will burn. Most of it hydrocarbons. Nothing is "suspicious" about the fires to anyone in the fire service. Nothing.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom