• 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.
brazenlilraisin said:
What are you waiting for, don't you know there are still relatives who lack closure?

Oh, um, if you do find DNA...and it's identified as coming from a passenger of flight 175--what will that do to your "theory"?
Click to expand...

Good one. And it still wouldn't prove that the samples weren't deposited by more than one event over time, even if there is actually some real WTC dust mixed in with the Barbie droppings.
 
WTC Dust said:
The cops wouldn't let you put up a ladder and scoop up the dust, and besides, I didn't have a ladder and no ladder stores were open in lower Manhattan in the days after 9/11.
Click to expand...

This just gets funnier and funnier.
 
Porkpie Hat said:
Can you at least attempt to qualify your claim that the steel damage is strange?

BTW, this is precisely why there's nothing of your "theory" to debunk, because it's nothing but a series of disjointed empty claims. It's kinda like asking someone to debunk peanut butter.
Click to expand...

Warped edges.
 
WTC Dust said:
The cops wouldn't let you put up a ladder and scoop up the dust, and besides, I didn't have a ladder and no ladder stores were open in lower Manhattan in the days after 9/11.
Click to expand...

Weak excuse. There was dust all over people's window ledges. A determined investigator would have knocked on doors and gotten permission to collect it.

Was Dr Blevins a dedicated 9/11 researcher at that time? Not judging by the news reports from 2001. According to them, she was parading around in fluorescent outfits as 'Medical Marijuana Barbie' at events like this one on April 29, 2001...
http://cannabisnews.com/news/9/thread9552.shtml

Back then she was crying for attention thru marijuana, now her schtick is centered on the great America tragedy of 9/11, and her attempts to market her dirt/bbq droppings samples over the internet. (You ARE selling them, right?)
 
Last edited:
Dash80 said:
Ok so you HAVE seen evidence of hijackings, but you dismiss it anyway? Ok fair enough you think it's all fabricated, you claim to doubt it's authenticity. Well Dusty, it works both ways. We doubt your authenticity and think you're pretty much fabricating stuff, you expect us to believe you but using your own logic... give us one reason why we should.
Click to expand...

I have listened to stories of hijackings on 9/11.

The only evidence of hijackings I've "seen" is a picture of Mohammed Atta
at an airport in Maine. Is it really Maine? I don't know. Was it really on 9/11? I don't know.

But in terms of hijackings, that's the only evidence I've ever seen, and it ain't the right city. Atta was supposed to have hijacked a plane going out of Logan Airport in Boston, if I'm not mistaken.

You see? I'm not an expert on anything related to planes or hijackings because I haven't seen enough evidence that such stuff exists.

How can I be an expert with one shady photograph?

Contrast this to images of the WTC. These number in the many thousands. I've been able to research these images at great length and compare them to my independent observations. I don't think these images are fake. I think they are real, and that they really depict the damage to the buildings.

I've had much more to study when it comes to what destroyed the World Trade Center. When it comes to the issue of hijackings, there's just really not much there to see.
 
Here's some further evidence about Tracy's focus in the aftermath of 9/11. Contrary to what she claims here, she doesn't appear to have been doing any serious research even in 2001.

And I wonder, Tracy, if any of this will affect your professional credibility. Do you really see yourself as a world-leading 9/11 researcher, considering the outrageous shenanigans you've been up to? The good news is that your involvement in 9/11
'research' is doing much more harm than good for your 'movement'. Any semblance of professionalism and respectability that someone like Steven Jones brings to the table is wiped out by the clownish gong-show that you, Judy Wood and FH Couannier are putting on.

For that I thank you sincerely! You truly are the 'best and brightest' 9/11 Truth has to offer! Amen to that!!

Gangbang lottery, 2002

feed://gangbanglottery.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?orderby=updated
 
sylvan8798 said:
All I have to know?

All I have to know?

I have a PhD too, Dusty - in Physics. And a Bachelor's in Engineering. Condescension will get you nowhere. You can't explain how this supposed phenomenon works, and now you are trying to weasel by hand-waving it off.

As I understand it, you were not in NYC on the day of the attacks. Perhaps the psychological guilt of not having witnessed the attack on the city you were living in with your own eyes, and the helplessness of not being able to help its citizens, makes you want to deny that it actually happened. Rewriting the story into your own narrative, which you so "amazingly" discovered, makes you some kind of 9/11 hero in your own mind, instead of someone who was not even there.

ETA: Wow, this is my 1111 post. Eleventy, eleven!!!11!!
Click to expand...

Excellent! A physicist! So you agree that wakes exist, right? And that they follow every craft moving through every fluid, right?

P.S. When I was growing up, we called "1111" "fenceposts" so Happy Fencepost! hhaha
 
WTC Dust said:
I have listened to stories of hijackings on 9/11.

The only evidence of hijackings I've "seen" is a picture of Mohammed Atta
at an airport in Maine. Is it really Maine? I don't know. Was it really on 9/11? I don't know.

But in terms of hijackings, that's the only evidence I've ever seen, and it ain't the right city. Atta was supposed to have hijacked a plane going out of Logan Airport in Boston, if I'm not mistaken.

You see? I'm not an expert on anything related to planes or hijackings because I haven't seen enough evidence that such stuff exists.

How can I be an expert with one shady photograph?

Contrast this to images of the WTC. These number in the many thousands. I've been able to research these images at great length and compare them to my independent observations. I don't think these images are fake. I think they are real, and that they really depict the damage to the buildings.

I've had much more to study when it comes to what destroyed the World Trade Center. When it comes to the issue of hijackings, there's just really not much there to see.
Click to expand...

There is lot more to the hijackings than one hazy photograph.
 
Someone quote this for me, in case I really am on ignore:


Porkpie Hat:Can you at least attempt to qualify your claim that the steel damage is strange?
Click to expand...

Warped edges.
Click to expand...

Warped is right.....

(Deep Breath, noah.)

Ok. Dr. Blevins is it? Ok.
It is your contention that all the steel turned to dust, right?
So then, how does dust get a warped edge?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Truly the stuff of a good movie plot.....and we know from "Independence day" that its easy to dustify buildings!

[qimg]http://iusedtohavehair.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/independence-day.jpg[/qimg]



but wait....isn't that the twin towers in the background???? (note WTC7 isn't obvious at all) they dustified the ESB first then the WTC? but how did I see the burning WTC debris from the top of the Empire State????? Could it be that the dustifying is just a silly fiction?
Click to expand...

The word to use is "foaming".

Dr. Wood calls it "dustification" but that's because she did not want to bias the observer, so she made up a fanciful word.

Because of my discovery, we don't have to use the fanciful word any more. We now know the process: foaming.
 
Dash80 said:
A few pages ago she did claim to have something new, I recall her saying it something like "just wait for what I have for you next, it's controversial"

No doubt it will be the same bullcrap, just different packaging.
Click to expand...

Yes, it literally has to do with packaging. I'm considering selling the dust. What do you think?
 
Atta was supposed to have hijacked a plane going out of Logan Airport in Boston, if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

settle down, noah....


It is so very common for people to fly from Maine to Boston it scarcely warrants mention. The hijackers (or, "Unfortunate Victims" in your camp) were all over the place. This is to avoid rousing suspicion. There is nothing untoward about flying from Maine to Boston then onto the West Coast.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
So we just admit defeat and leave the forum for the insane to post what the please? Doesn't sound the action of a Skeptic to me....
Click to expand...

And a false dichotomy doesn't sound like the argument of a skeptic to me. Nor does the binary thinking of 'well if you aren't with us, you must be...one of them..." implicit in your post. Oh, and 'Skeptic' doesn't warrant a capital. Unless you want to insist it's on a par with, say, Christian...

I rarely bother addressing the truthers in these threads (work that one out). I do occasionally (and you'd think I'd know better by now) take issue with the poor example set by some debunkers. There are very few factual, evidenced arguments presented - in fact, some of the arguments presented are facile and fallacious. That's if there's an argument at all. In this thread "You have pink hair!" is considered the height of both reasoning and comedy. That it's the depths of fratboy misogyny is a side issue.

But let's, for a moment, take your remark seriously. Yes. The insane will post what they please. That's free speech in action. Only the insane will be swayed by the remarks of the insane...and they won't be swayed by ridicule and ignorance. You like the opportunity presented here to be extraordinarily rude, from the safety of the internet, towards people you insist have serious medical conditions. At least be honest with yourself, eh?

If you are concerned about loonies posting lunacy, then practise some deep breathing exercises and find another thread to respond to. Because what you're doing here is making sure that Dusty's thoughts are constantly bumped up for the casual observer to find. If that casual observer is genuinely unsure about 9/11, then they're left to choose between your abuse and gang mentality and Dusty's courtesy and earnest enquiry. Making people afraid to speak, making them agree with you rather than be abused by you, is not skepticism (or Skepticism).
 
Dash80 said:
My daughter has two pet rocks, she made them using permanent markers, those stick-on "bobble eyes" and jewels. I'd take some of Dusty's dust/foam but definitely not the cigarette butts, kids shouldn't be messing with those.
Click to expand...

OK. It's a dollar per milligram, and I'm selling gram quantities and above to the general public. Some dude tried to send me $20 on paypal, and I was like, "No." I am not going to package 20 milligram amounts of this dust for a tiny amount of money. Only serious buyers.
 
WTC Dust said:
Excellent! A physicist! So you agree that wakes exist, right? And that they follow every craft moving through every fluid, right?
Click to expand...
No one has denied that wakes exist. They don't "follow" boats or planes. They are waves caused by the craft, and the motion of the fluid as it flows into the space where the plane or boat has passed. But they are not "dragged", and in the case of a plane there isn't some huge column of air that is going to come flowing into the building behind the plane.

Whatever effects the airflow from the plane had were minor enough that we cannot detect them from the distance of the videos. Can you determine from the video that WTC moved when the plane hit? I don't remember how much, but I'm sure someone here can help. As I recall, the towers swayed as much as 7 feet at the top in heavy winds. You would not have been able to discern that from the ground.

BTW, how do you account for the holes in the buildings caused by your "fake planes"? Please be specific, you are an expert on this by your own admission.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom