• 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:
When I first began reading your message, I thought that you were being polite. By the time I got to the end of it, I had changed my mind.

I didn't come here to convince anyone of anything. Why would I do that here? You aren't seriously researching 9/11, most of you. I came here for a debunking, and am quite interested in it.

I don't need a debunking of the energy weapon theory, because it isn't my theory. I don't need a debunking of the no plane people, because I'm a no hijackings person.

I found a good amount of WTC dust. It is in the form of a metallic foam.
This is my discovery. Nobody has touched it yet, except for to suggest fatal contamination without really backing it up and to suggest (I'm guessing) fakery in my magnetism demonstration without really back it up either.

Pretty sad case, for a set of supposed premier debunkers.
Click to expand...
I was being very polite, you on the other hand have proclaimed yourself a serious researcher and rudely proclaimed everyone else to not be serious.

I was very serious in that I wasnt to see your reasoning, not just empty claims. I asked you a few pretty simple questions and you answered none. You claim you're not here to convince anyone yet if what you claimed was true would that not be the purpose and goal of your research?

To convince others that the US government lied?

Again, how is it that you can reach a conclusion stating no planes hit the towers based on video we've all seen but can't answer how the frame rates and resolution would affect your ability to see and confirm plane pieces bouncing off the buildings at impact?

And what artifacts in your bullet videos translate into confimation of your claim that "no wake=no impact"? If there's no wake in the bullet impact videos should we conclude those were faked too? As a scientist can you not identify fallicious reasoning led by conclusion rather than evidence?

What's sad is there's poor mis-informed kids running around making fools of themselves based on the kind of crap the scholars (and I use that term loosely) in the 911 truth movement spoon feed them and none of you even care enough to tell the truth.
 
WTC Dust said:
We wouldn't be talking about whether or not aluminum objects can destroy steel objects without destroying themselves at the same moment.
Click to expand...
There's your problem, that never happened.

You've heard of strawman arguments right?

'Cause that's what you're making.
 
WTC Dust said:
Projected image devices exist, and so does steel foam!

There are several industrial processes that can produce steel foam. It's not magic, either.

As far as coupling it to a hurricane, I don't know about that, but Judy says it's an interesting thing to keep in mind, so I do.
Click to expand...
Do you owe Judy money?
 
WTC Dust said:
Fake plane. How would you know if you saw a fake plane flying through the sky? Do you really think such technology doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
? This is one of the top insane claims made about 911. You are a winner.

Wow


WTC Dust said:
Hey, if you're a pilot, answer the question.

Does a plane drag air along with it when it flies through the air?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Does producing lift create drag? What nonsense are you talking about and what is the point? Do you know what drag means?
 
Last edited:
Obviously she has no idea. I'm no expert so someone correct me if I'm wrong... drag is the air flow over and around an object? Aircraft and other vehicles like high-speed boats and cars are designed to reduce drag, streamlining their shape to make them more efficient.
Planes do not drag air along with them, boats do not drag water along with them. They leave a turbulent wake of air or water behind, it's not hard to find examples of this. Dusty probably knows, but ignores it just like she ignores everything else.

Here's some examples Dusty (or should we call you Foamy now):

Wakeboarding: surfing the turbulent water of the boat that's pulling you.

Formula One/IndyCar Racing: These cars create turbulent air behind them which makes it harder for another car to follow close, this works for planes too. Wake turbulence can cause a plane too close behind to crash. I believe the AA crash in Queens just weeks after 9/11 was caused by this, look it up.
 
WTC Dust said:
If 9/11 hadn't happened and been inaccurately described by the news media, we wouldn't be having discussions about obvious things. We wouldn't be debating the existence of wakes. We wouldn't be talking about whether or not aluminum objects can destroy steel objects without destroying themselves at the same moment.

It's dumb physics, and it's a shame. Shameful that so many people would rather believe in dumb physics than see the obvious (that an airplane crash didn't do what was done to the WTC).

It gets so bad, you're actually willing to delude yourself that airplanes don't drag air behind them. Somehow, air is magically different from water. All this is ridiculous.

Airplanes can't pierce through steel columns and stay intact, but that's what the video expects you to believe.
Click to expand...

If you have a Phd then I am the king of China.
 
sylvan8798 said:
Who is it, really, who can't handle the truth?
Click to expand...

Indeed, it's far less scary to believe that an all-powerful and firmly established cabal orchestrated the devastation, than to believe it was an almost random act of violence by a relatively small group that could strike at any time, for no discernible reason.
 
It is a biomedical degree. She really isn't lying about that. Of course, that doesn't matter. Her degree isn't even in a relevent field. Even if it was, it wouldn't matter. Her hero, Judy Wood, has a doctorate in engineering.
 
Dash80 said:
Obviously she has no idea. I'm no expert so someone correct me if I'm wrong... drag is the air flow over and around an object?
Click to expand...
Not quite. Aerodynamic drag is the force of a fluid (and yes, air is a fluid) that opposes the relative motion of the body. Lift is also air flow over and around an object, but it acts normal to the direction of the flow.

Aircraft and other vehicles like high-speed boats and cars are designed to reduce drag, streamlining their shape to make them more efficient. Planes do not drag air along with them, boats do not drag water along with them.
Click to expand...
Correct, nothing is 'dragged' along with the object. In very general terms, the object creates a pressure wave in front of it, which imparts some forward velocity on the fluid. This is what creates the wake, and is most easily seen with boats. Nothing is actually dragged by the object.

This seems like a case where someone was attempting to give Dusty a layman's interpretation of aerodynamics, and she took it literally.
 
Last edited:
I'm looking all through this subforum and I can't find anywhere where anybody claimed the planes stayed intact when they hit the steel columns. WTC Dust can you help me with this?
 
dtugg said:
It is a biomedical degree. She really isn't lying about that. Of course, that doesn't matter. Her degree isn't even in a relevent field. Even if it was, it wouldn't matter. Her hero, Judy Wood, has a doctorate in engineering.
Click to expand...

I presume that Judy Wood was sane when she was younger?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom