• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Stick with biology. You suck at...well, everything else, as far as I can tell.
 
My methodology is observation, observation, observation, and taking samples.

Don't forget that I do have samples of the remains of the WTC.

Do you?

Sword_Of_Truth said:
What's important is what your methodology says. And so far, it doesn't say anything resembling "scientist".



I hope for your sake that does not appear on your resume.

Aside from which, it appears that you have absolutely no experience with aircraft incidents, major structural fires, firefighting, fire investigation or anything with even the slightest similarity or applicability to what happened on 9/11 and/or the days and weeks afterward.

My original statement stands, you observed substances you have never seen burned before in a kind of fire that you have never observed before.



Not the way you're using it, it isn't. If something smelled like chocolate to me, I would consider having it tested for the presence of sugar, milk solids, cocoa extract, hydrogenated vegetable or palm oil and natural or artificial flavors. That would be a proper scientific investigation and conclusion.

In your case, you have done absolutely nothing of the kind. You you did not take atmospheric samples of the strange smell. You did not visit major structural fires taking samples there, nor did you take samples at air crash sites and you certainly did not compare these samples to each other eliminating everything that was common between them.

That would have been scientific, but that is clearly not where your interest lies. You smelled something strange, and there you came to a dead stop.



You are also not the only one who didn't a damn bloody thing to find out what it was.
Click to expand...
 
dafydd said:
I bow to your extensive experience of dumbness. You're more fun than a barrel of monkeys and about as clever. No more responses from me,I'll just read your posts and enjoy. Goodbye.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but, you owe a barrel of monkeys an apology for comparing their cleverness to that of dusty. A barrel of monkeys if far cleverer than that!

:D
 
One by one, you'll end up conceding every point I've made on this forum.
(Except the mistake I made about someone surviving the ESB crash, which
I admitted and changed as soon as I realized it was a mistake.)

I'm a bona fide research scientist. I have an excellent understanding of chemistry and physics, in addition to my profession. I've succeeded in making a dramatic discovery that none of you have touched, other than to say I'm a liar, crazy, etc.

NONE of you have the WTC dust. Every one of you is wrong about what destroyed the WTC, if you say that airplane crashes or explosives did it.

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...
 
Every one of you is wrong about what destroyed the WTC, if you say that airplane crashes or explosives did it.
Click to expand...

Answer the question. For ONCE in your miserable JREF existence, answer the friggin questions:

Where is the weapon?
Where was it tested - where was it deployed? What has become of it now? Why use a weapon that powerful on your own people, when you're currently at war? Why not use it again? Instead of sending soldiers to die, we can just dustify any seat of power in on the planet. Why haven't we?
 
Don't be confused, Dash. I'm not talking about thrust. I'm talking about the wake that follows every single craft moving through every single fluid.

Spaceships don't have wakes, because they aren't moving through any material. Boats do. Airplanes do. No evidence of this wake was seen in any video or still image of the WTC on 9/11.

This should wake you up, but you can go ahead and grit your teeth and wave your hands around some more if you choose.

Dash80 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
The Empire State Building is constructed of largely the exact same materials that went into the WTC. Steel. Concrete. Glass.

ALL skyscrapers are made of steel.

What's scary and sad is that engineers are now being taught....somehow....that airplane crashes and jet fuel induced office fires can turn skyscrapers into dust. It bothers me. The truth needs to come out.


dafydd said:
I'll type this slow because I know you can't read fast. Try and follow me. The plane that crashed in 1945 was much smaller,carried less fuel and therefore did not wreak enough damage to cause the building to collapse. The Empire State Building is not made of the same materials as the WTC. You claim to be a scientist but have not done any basic research. Frankly,a brain dead chimpanzee would make a better scientist than you. I don't believe that you have a Phd. Sorry for using some big words.
Click to expand...
 
sylvan8798 said:
Ok, it feels pretty strange to come to WTC's defense, but "deconstruction" is actually a pretty good description. They dismantled Deutsche Bank bit by bit, and it took many years. There were issues with the debris from the WTC collapses in the building, human remains, and the building itself had asbestos or something. The term was commonly used in the media with reference to the project.
Click to expand...

Then again, a stopped clock is right twice a day. :rolleyes:
 
Not really. I just don't google acronyms without knowing precisely what I'm looking for, and you didn't say. I tend to not google anything at the demands of 19-Arab-Conspiracists like you, either. I despise conspiracy theories.

16.5 said:
Dusty comes in with 14 posts in 20 minutes, but ignored this one, as she has ignored it for the last week.

lazy troll is lazy.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
My methodology is observation, observation, observation, and taking samples.

Don't forget that I do have samples of the remains of the WTC.

Do you?
Click to expand...

You only SAY your methodology is observation, observation, observation, and taking samples. You only SAY you have samples of the remains of the WTC. You could be some crackpot for all we know.

The only response from those who contest your findings is, "why should we believe a word you say?", and the only response from you should be, "because I had the samples independently tested and the results support my findings. Here they are."

Until that conversation happens, you're just another nobody on a relatively obscure internet forum claiming to have earth-shattering evidence of something.
 
The streets were clean when I got there, less than three days later.

Were you there three days later? If so, do you think you could have scooped some dust off the street, as I had planned?

The dust was there, only higher up. You couldn't reach it from ground level. There was not one spec of dust easily found when I showed up such a short time later.

I went there intending to take some dust samples, and was foiled. Years later, I succeeded.

Dash80 said:
THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE! Cleaned up after 3 days? Tracy I'm beginning to wonder if you were on the same planet after 9/11, let alone in the city!
Click to expand...
 
The two buildings were constructed of largely the same materials.

Dash80 said:
The B-25 bomber that hit the ESB was a hell of a lot smaller than a wide-body 767, and traveling less than half the speed. That makes a big difference Dusty. The ESB was also constructed differently. It has a conventional steel web frame and is thickly clad in masonry, and the fire was quickly reached and dealt with. You fail, again.
Click to expand...
 
What's scary and sad is that engineers are now being taught....somehow....that airplane crashes and jet fuel induced office fires can turn skyscrapers into dust. It bothers me. The truth needs to come out.
Click to expand...

No, hundreds (thousands) of tons of steel can turn concrete, wallboards, ceiling tiles and many other things into dust. Especially when the steel strikes the concrete at a high rate of speed.

The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $24.4 billion as of 2011[1]).

How many people were required to build a weapon (IMO) much more powerful and scary than an atom bomb? How did all those people keep quiet after so long? Why can't you PROVE anything?

You're no scientist. You have no Phd. You LIE and you know it. This is a game to you. I know what happened to the towers, and I'm a printer. Although I do have some helpdesk experience, too.

I know what caused WTC 1 to collapse before it was even done. What's taking you so long? Where is this weapon? Where was it tested? How much did it cost?
 
It's not bounce-back from any sort of plane impact. It doesn't happen at the moment when the object appears to touch the south face of WTC 2. It begins later.

So it doesn't qualify as bounce-back from a plane crash. It's something, just not plane debris.

Porkpie Hat said:
It's on my priority list right between cleaning my wifes office and reenacting all Charton Hestons Planet of the Apes scenes wearing nothing but glow in the dark boxers while humming Michael Jacksons "Thriller" under by breath.

In the mean time, here's Alienentities post with video that shows exacty what you claim never happened,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7394080#post7394080

And perhaps you could address my previous point that low resolution and low frame rates affect our ability to utilize youtube vids for this type of analysis.

BTW, I find it funny that you'd ask for a still to show something that's obvious in the video, kinda summarizes why 911 truth has been such an utter failure.
Click to expand...
 
sts60 said:
Are you guys still arguing with the loon? The useful content of this thread, now nearing five thousand posts, could have been handled in two:

Post 1: The WTC structures were turned to dust, plus additional inane drivel.
Post 2: Incorrect. The vast majority of the structural steel was recovered and processed.

The rest is just an incompetent crank's exercise in ego gratification, presumably obtained by arguing with sane people (i.e., the rest of you), and appealing to another incompetent crank's silly fantasies. I know arguing is fun - I do my share - but 123 pages of this?
Click to expand...

The useful content perhaps, but the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes style comedic ramblings are priceless, but amusing. :D
 
You aren't listening. My trip to Europe? I talked to scientists in their labs. Yes, I am collaborating with physical scientists who are very interested in additional analysis of my samples.

So there you go.

Any other sniggling doubts you have?

P.S. Why do you believe the 19-Arab Conspiracy theory so strongly?

Porkpie Hat said:
Your post does nothing to address anything I said and you seem to have forgotten this,

"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."

As a serious researcher looking for truth you've decided to forego the obvious step in having your samples analyzed in favour of arguing with members of a sceptics website.

Curious move for a serious researcher.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom