• 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:
I'm not calling anyone a liar, not even Steven Jones!

This is the nature of a scientific discovery. When someone discovers something (like when I discovered that the WTC was turned into foam), it doesn't mean that other people are liars. It means that new information exists now that leads to an understanding that those other people are wrong.

Being wrong doesn't mean the same thing as being a liar. Wrong people don't always know they are wrong. Before I discovered that the WTC was turned into foam, how could they possibly know?

Nobody discovered it before me, so they are forgiven for making mistakes. They aren't liars.

When you say you saw a plane, I am not calling you a liar. I'm saying you were tricked. You thought you saw a plane, for good reasons. You saw something that looked an awful lot like a plane.

The problem is the object you saw flying through the sky did not behave as an airplane would have if it crashed into the south face of WTC 2. There wasn't debris bouncing back from the south face of WTC 2 at the moment of impact. There wasn't evidence of the wake that follows every airplane in flight. That wake would have seriously disturbed the fumes coming from WTC 1 and the explosion that later came from WTC 2 after the object that appeared to be a plane entered the building.

You're not a liar. You're just mistaken. I know people who are my close friends and associates who think they saw a plane in the sky on 9/11. They aren't liars, either. September Clues calls them liars, but not me.
Click to expand...

Must be hard to land a plane with all that self generated tail wind.
 
WTC Dust said:
Yes, there was that smell, but that smell didn't last very long. Besides, in my career as a biomedical scientist, I have come into contact with dead human beings and recognized their smell immediately for what it was. But there was a different smell. A smell that was not dead people.

The smell I'm talking about lasted for a very long time, months, as did the fume cloud coming from Ground Zero.
Click to expand...

I hope you didn't barbecue your dead people. Was your sense of smell calibrated in the same lab where your eyes were?
 
tsig said:
Must be hard to land a plane with all that self generated tail wind.
Click to expand...
I have an image in my head now, a huge wind following an aircraft and blowing it off the runway. Possibly trailing various items, people, anything not bolted down. If anyone has seen the jackass 3d movie clip where the guys use the jet thrust of a plane to throw items at people behind it, like that only in reverse.
 
Last edited:
How did I know it was WTC dust at first sight of it? Because I was searching for it since Day 3, when I got to the WTC site and noticed to my dismay that the streets were fully cleaned of the stuff. I looked up and saw it on the second floor overhangs but couldn't think of a way to reach it.

The dust deposits had a certain look to them that I recognized and documented.



dafydd said:
You had seen WTC dust previously? How did you know it was not just dust? What about the years of dust that would have gathered on top of the magic dust? You must be trolling,I cannot believe that you are this stupid.
Click to expand...
 
Are you another one that says wakes don't exist for airplanes??????

dafydd said:
No. I used to live near an airport,never saw any wakes. I can put my finger on the flaw in your reasoning. An airplane moves through air,not water You may have missed that. I still think you are an elaborate troll.
Click to expand...
 
Do a google on "WTC smell" and find many more who thought the smell was unusual.

sheeplesnshills said:
So it was not a fire because it spelled funny to you? Are you a fire fighter? Just how many fires of that scale and duration with that many casualties have you witnessed?
How many fires of any size at all?

I smelled the fire at ground zero, it smelled like a very hot dirty domestic oven to me.....sadly not "funny" at all.
Click to expand...
 
The thing that proves you wrong is that skyscrapers aren't manufactured out of strange materials. Steel. Concrete. Glass. Aluminum. Normal stuff. The size of the building doesn't determine the smell if it's on fire. It's the material that the building is made of that determines the smell, if it's on fire.

And there was nothing normal at all about the "fire" at Ground Zero.

sheeplesnshills said:
None even remotely on the same scale, in volume, duration or make up....none ever has been anywhere close to ground zero. Even if it did smell really strange , which it didn't, it would mean nothing as it was a one off.
Click to expand...
 
I can't claim to be an expert on events that happened in 1945.
People have survived plane crashes. I misread an article about it.

Don't forget that my 9/11 research isn't based on what other people write.

It's based on my direct observations and collection of the remains of the WTC itself.

WildCat said:
This is the same "deep understanding of kinetic energy" that lead you to claim that when a WWII bomber hit the Empire State Building at 180 mph the occupants just walked out of the wreckage and took the elevator down? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Make a jpeg and circle the bounce-back so we all know what you're talking about.

Porkpie Hat said:
There was bounce back, this was already determined by watching videos earlier in the thread....even at that it's up to you to present a coherant argument as to why things like bounce back and wakes would be relevant given what we all witnessed, and and still witness by watching the videos.

So far all we have is your assertion that what we do see is not compatible with airplane impacts.

S far you're batting zero on presenting an argument that can withstand ANY scrutiny.

Again, the wake you claim should be visually present in the plane videos was not visually present in the bullet impact videos which leads to the conclusion, taking your word as authoritative, that the bullet impacts in your video were also fake.

This leads to the question of why you'd post fake bullet impact videos in support of your claim?
Click to expand...
 
How does solid steel become iron chips?

Explain.

beachnut said:
bill smith and Steven Jones claims are not far-out enough to be included in your moronic claim steel turns to dust. I bet they return the favor. But you are in the same boat of fail with bill and Jones. Jones thinks the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti, that is equal to your steel turning to dust and no planes insanity.


Corrosion of iron. Rust. You have tough questions. Now I understand why you have no idea what happen on 911.
Click to expand...
 
Love the pic!! Now explain how jet fuel did that to the remaining steel beams.

beachnut said:
That is as insane as the steel to dust delusion.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtclookingforThermitenotfound.jpg[/qimg]
Oops, rust, and not dust.
Click to expand...
 
Note well that the Empire State Building did NOT turn into dust after the plane crash and also note well that the building was made of the same materials as was the WTC.

dafydd said:
Here are two photos of the 1945 Empire State Building crash,the one where Dusty said that the passengers got out unharmed and caught the lift to the ground floor. She claimed the the 911 planes were holograms and couldn't damage a building. In 1945 one of the plane's engines went straight through the building and killed some people in the next building. This was a much smaller plane than those involved in 911. Dusty,why don't you go and collect some dust from around the Empire State Building,it may have been a trial run for 911. Of course holographic projection techniques were not so advanced then,that is why the plane was black and white.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_234094e36a73187ff9.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_234094e36a744d3d54.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
 
I watched it being deconstructed day by day during the course of several years. Nothing was demolished.

dafydd said:
Ok,I'll concede the point. The media are very often not the brightest buttons in the box though. It doesn't make any difference. They just demolished it carefully. Asbestos,not Dusty's insane holographic plane and energy beam weapon theory.
Click to expand...
 
Ironic then, that most of you believe the 19 Arab conspiracy theory.

Porkpie Hat said:
My children, sure.

Future children, why not.

The reality is that professionals like you will be quoted by the uninformed, children and adults alike, resulting in them making complete fools of themselves. Given the digital age some of these people will no doubt find their professional prospects degraded for quoting snake oil salespersons like you and leaving behind a "wake" of stupidity for future employers to ponder as they choose who the best person for a given job is.

Which absolutely flies in the face of you doing nothing to determine what your "samples" consist of and have then verified by independant labs.

You'll have to point out where coming to JREF to be debunked is common place with researchers trying to make the world a better place.
Click to expand...
 
For Occam's razor to take effect, both theories must be equivalent.

Airplane crashes don't explain the WTC's precipitous demise.
Explosive devices don't explain the long lasting fumes.

So Occam's razor does not play a role if a theory comes along that explains those features of the attacks.

paperboy05 said:
Wiki does fine.


Occam's Razor doesn't require one to acknowledge every single minute hypothesis from every single person's opinion laced "data".
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom