• 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.
Just saying, if you know almost nothing about the work of Judy Wood except what her detractors say about it, you are underinformed.

chipmunk stew said:
Christians say that the problem with non-believers is that we don't possess the appropriate attitude of surrender to the Truth so we get hung up on the obvious conclusion that the Bible is flat-out nonsense.
Click to expand...
 
None of this is specific to what I'm saying. You could cut and paste this exact post and use it anywhere, so it doesn't apply to me specifically.



alienentity said:
None of you are competent in the areas in question. It's elementary, dear dusty.

I'm highly competent in certain areas of my professional training. Do I pretend (like you) to be an expert in other things? No.

Because I'm not an arrogant fraudster. Not so sure 'bout you, dearie. You're not treading the fine line between imagination and delusion, between argument and deception - you've long ago crossed over into the territory of hoax and fraud.
Click to expand...
 
To repeat: I am not an expert in plane crashes. I am an expert in what destroyed the World Trade Center.



alienentity said:
In reference to your post below, where you suddenly appointed yourself as an expert in plane collisions, wake characteristics, ballistics, etc etc etc,- you grossly exceed any qualifications you may possess.

Please, explain, in the context of your statement above (the PhD level scientists) what your personal training is in plane collisions, wake characteristics and ballistics.

List the degree majors that you have, along with the PhD. We will then assess whether this is a relevant qualification. We will be fair but skeptical.

Hint: Based on your wild proclamations, which have already destroyed your credibility, I would suspect you have virtually NO professional, accredited training in the relevant areas. Just a hunch. Prove me wrong, please, and display that physics PhD if you have it. I'll be waiting with baited breath....
Click to expand...
 
There might have been an aiplane at the Pentagon, but I doubt it, and anyway I'm not an expert in the Pentagon. What is certainly clear is that the government hasn't produced convincing evidence of an airplane crash at the Pentagon.

I'm an expert in what destroyed the WTC. The best work on the Pentagon is being done by the CIT.

waypastvne said:
The vortices are there in the videos you just don't know how or why they form or what to look for in the videos.

Pointed out below are the port wing tip vortices of AA77.

[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Pentagon_video_security2.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Pentagon_video_security3.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Pentagon_video_security4.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Pentagon_video_security5.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Pentagon_video_security6.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Pentagon_video_security7.jpg[/qimg]



Click to expand...
 
Dumb.jpg
 
Seen this video a hundred times. There are no plane parts that appear to bounce back off the south face of WTC 2, just like I said.

Yes, there is the explosion I keep mentioning that came from the south face of WTC 2. It happens after the object fully penetrates the building. Debris comes flying in the southerly direction, no doubt, but it isn't obviously from a plane crash and it occurs after the fact. The debris appears to be from an explosion inside the building, not from an impact at the south wall.

I'm not denying plane debris bounce back in response to watching this video again. This video is one of many that I've closely examined, none of which show any bounce back from a plane crash.

Also, getting to my other point about the wake that follows a plane, you don't see evidence of this wake, do you? A column of air does not appear to be pushing that explosion up against the wall of the WTC, or affecting it in any obvious way. The explosion just comes out of the south face of WTC 2.

Your nitwit accusation is at odds with my "impressive" qualifications.

alienentity said:
Just to play along a bit further with Dr Blevin's 'call to perfection' fallacy, that we should, even without bothering to calculate the actual resolution of various videos available of the WTC 2 plane impact, be able to see some amount of debris deflecting/ricocheting off the tower rather than just entering into it; I offer this video.



Yes, I know she'll go straight into denial mode, even though the video CLEARLY shows a noticeable amount of material doing just that even before the entire plane has impacted, and before the ignition of the huge fireball.
That's kind of the point, because she's cooked her own goose, so to speak, by making various irresponsible claims.

However, the real kicker is not this simple demonstration of the fallacious nature (it both sucks and blows) of the claims; no - it is that this entire discussion is a rather moronic distraction from all the forensic evidence of the planes which exists independent of any grainy videos which are available.

Yes, that's what I just wrote - something can exist as a fact even if it has not appeared on a grainy youtube video. I'm really going out on a limb, I know. :rolleyes:

Forget about hypothetical scenarios of the Queen Mary. Forensics takes care of all that bafflegab. Look at the totality of the evidence, apply Occam's Razor, and voila, there's your answer.

Dr. Blevins, with all her impressive yet irrelevant qualifications, is simply not able to pull off this rather mundane intellectual feat. Or perhaps I should say she doesn't want to. It doesn't matter which is true (maybe both?). She's wrong, plain and simple.

But not just wrong - she, as a committed no-planer, is insisting on a staggeringly stupid idea. This really serves only to demonstrate the profound disfunction of a potentially fine mind, and is ultimately rather sad. As a pure fraud or a delusional nitwit she is wasting whatever potential she has on this nonsense. The notion that adding together a group of such nitwits, namely Judy Wood and FH Couannier, will result in brilliant insight is sadly mistaken. Quite the contrary - since these very people are drawn together by a shared incompetence and intellectual disfunction, the errors will be amplified. It's exactly like Lloyd Christmas getting 'help' from Harry Dunne.. (see 'Dumb and Dumber')

These clowns will run away from any mainstream, competent scientists. They are destined to be isolated and irrelevant.
Click to expand...
 
I don't have the answer to every question, and I never will, so don't expect it from me.

What you can expect is that the things I say are the truth. Namely, I discovered WTC dust in my home and discovered that it was of multiple types and discovered that it was a metallic foam.

In terms of NORAD and the FAA, you are again talking about airplanes, but from a different perspective. From the twoofer perspective, I'd say. They all insist that hijackings took place, when I disagree.

You calling me a no-planer? It's not exactly precise. Yes, I say that no plane hit the WTC, but even rarer (perhaps I'm the only person saying this) I say that there isn't good evidence that hijackings took place.

As to who the perpetrators are? I don't know them by name, but I know what they did. The perpetrators are the very same people who are the original sources of the 19 Arab hijacking story.



Dash80 said:
I know I said I wasn't getting involved anymore but maybe a part of me is hoping you could be capable of rational discussion.

I see these claims often amongst truthers, that few people would need to be involved. This is trash, especially when you are a no-planer.

I would like you to answer these points, without resorting to "you're wrong" or "planes can't do that" answers. Answer without dodging the issues and tell me your explainations for the things I mention.

1. As a no-planer you are implicating many people, not just a "small group" and this includes the government.

Lets begin with listing a few:
*NORAD (military response to hijackings).
*FAA
*Air Traffic Control (Not only those who were tracking the flights and heard the hijackers on the radio, controllers at Newark Tower saw United 175 hurtle towards the South Tower and impact it).
*United and American Airlines (who confirmed the loss of two planes each and their passengers).

Either the above organizations were directly involved in the inside job or were somehow fooled. Please explain HOW either of these possibilities were achieved.

The first report of a plane crash was seconds after 8:46am, when Battalion Chief Joseph Pfiefer radioed that a plane had smashed in to the North Tower and appeared to have aimed directly at it. Are you implicating the FDNY too? Explain their role in this "deception"

2. Exactly who do you THINK this group of people are? How did they set up this weapon? How did they utilize it?
Click to expand...
 
True, true, but if you sum up the vectors and masses of all the little bits, they would average out to be in exactly the opposite direction of travel as the bullet. Momentum is conserved.

leftysergeant said:
In post #4372, I mistakenly wrote the bulet fragments mostly scattered parallel to the direction of travel of a bullet, when I meant perpendicular. I am not getting the sleep I should when I should these days.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm not denying plane debris bounce back in response to watching this video again. This video is one of many that I've closely examined, none of which show any bounce back from a plane crash.
Click to expand...

The only way there would be bounce-back would be if the steel had enough elasticity to absorb the momentum of a heavy object moving at 500+ MPH. I don't think there is any material known to man with that much elasticity.

However, you can prove me wrong. Show the calculations that led you to this conclusion.
 
You won't hear me saying any of that bullpie.

But you will hear me say: THERE WERE NO HIJACKINGS on 9/11.

Talking about airplanes is a waste of time when there weren't even any hijackings.

aggle-rithm said:
You've got a lot to learn about being a truther.

It doesn't matter that the different "inside job" hypotheses are clearly contradictory or nonsensical. As long as they work their way backwards from the same conclusion, they are all valid!


The really professional truthers can claim, in the same breath, that NORAD ordered its fighters to stand down AND they had them shoot down Flight 93. Now THAT's trutherism!
Click to expand...
 
No. I don't do calculations on demand, except the ones expected by my employer.

aggle-rithm said:
The only way there would be bounce-back would be if the steel had enough elasticity to absorb the momentum of a heavy object moving at 500+ MPH. I don't think there is any material known to man with that much elasticity.

However, you can prove me wrong. Show the calculations that led you to this conclusion.
Click to expand...
 
Uh, did Dusty ever:

1. show us the "metallic foam" dust?

2. get an answer from her pal in France?

Tick tock
 
WTC Dust said:
An answer to a scientific question is correct when it keeps being correct no matter how many different types of questions you can throw at it.

What hasn't been elimated, yet? A beam weapon. .
Click to expand...

Many questions have been thrown at "beam weapons" that are never answered. Ignoring questions does not support a hypothesis.

Collapse by gravity is the only theory that has not been eliminated.
 
I could check your math, if that's what you want.
But really, with any calculations, the setup is the most important.
What are you calculating? What are your assumptions? How do you perform the calculation (meaning what methods you use)?

So you wanna do this? You do the calculations and I check them for accuracy and relevance? I'm into it.

aggle-rithm said:
Would you like for me to do them for you?

If I do, will you accept the results, whatever they may be?
Click to expand...
 
I put some images up in this thread, but you can check my blog at wtcblogspot.com for more of them.

And, not only did I "hear back" from my "pal" in France, I've just returned from meeting him in Marseille.

During this meeting I was able to study some of Steven Jones' samples. It was very fruitful. Fred says that the dust cloud was cool, that he sees evidence of cold fusion, and that Steven Jones is a weird guy to be doing 9/11 research, considering he came to fame in a shameful debunking of cold fusion in the 80's.

16.5 said:
Uh, did Dusty ever:

1. show us the "metallic foam" dust?

2. get an answer from her pal in France?

Tick tock
Click to expand...
 
I actually laughed out loud when I read this one.

DGM said:
Many questions have been thrown at "beam weapons" that are never answered. Ignoring questions does not support a hypothesis.

Collapse by gravity is the only theory that has not been eliminated.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
No, no, no. I'm still talking about the video. I haven't given up. I want to be proved wrong if possible. That's why I'm asking for a jpeg. I haven't moved the goalposts one bit. If anything, I've focused the goal on what exactly is needed to prove me wrong. Let's see a jpeg that includes some circled debris, so that we can determine if it was

1. reasonably parts of a plane
2. moving in the opposite direction of the flight path
3. at the site of supposed impact
and
4. beginning at the moment of impact.

If you can do this, you'll have proved me wrong. But since I've seen that very video and examined it closely for evidence of bounceback and not found any, I'm asking for a screen shot and a circled place on a jpeg.
Click to expand...

First you wanted video of the debris. It was provided.
Then you wanted a time where the debris bounced back. It was provided.
Then you wanted the debris to reasonably look like it was from the plane. It was provided.
Then you wanted it at the site & moment of impact. It was provided.
Now you want a jpeg with the debris circled.

That is moving the goal post dust.

Now, I tend to post from my phone. It doesn't have MSpaint. Granted I could go to the site office & use the PC there to do it but since you refuse to accept what has been provided by myself & others, why should I believe you when you say if this piece of info is provided you'll reconsider when you've clearly shown that is not true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom