• 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:
What you can't deny about my samples is that they could possibly be
WTC dust.
Click to expand...

Good point!

I'm with Dusty now! You cannot deny that her samples could possibly be WTC dust and hence there were no planes, no hijackings, but instead a mysterious weapon that turned the towers to dust.

That's logic, dammit. Game over.
 
Last edited:
Dash80 said:
Could it be that he flew from Portland to Boston? Just sayin'

Yes there is a whole lot more evidence, which you would ignore even if I pointed it out... so should i bother or save the effort?
Click to expand...

I'd look at any good evidence you provide. That's the key thing.

Good evidence. People talking isn't good evidence. It's easy to say
words, and often times people make mistakes and they can lie.

I don't want you to bother with links to stories (either written or
video) that do not include better evidence than the story.

Hearsay is a particular type of evidence, and it's weak. I've been
conducting a forensic investigation that involves physical evidence.
I want to see physical evidence, documentary evidence, even
personal testimony is fine. But hearsay? That abounds, and none
of it has convinced me so far, so don't bother supplying more.

You must understand that I think the perpetrators are the exact
same people who supplied the cover story about the hijackers.
If I see a sufficient amount of evidence (even one single undisputable
piece of evidence is sufficient, in my book), I will change my mind
about the hijackers.

But not without this evidence. I'm not going to change my mind if
I read a news story about people saying this and that or watch a
video of people saying this and that. I want evidence that isn't hearsay.
 
WTC Dust said:
What you can't deny about my samples is that they could possibly be WTC dust.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's possible... but far more likely to be from someone's bbq grill who lives in your building and looked for a place to clean it, just like you used the same place to spray paint.
 
There are a few things that I see that aren't hearsay evidence that point to hijackings on 9/11.

1. The pictures of somewhat burned looking passport photos.
2. Evidence found in a car parked in Maine.
3. The one photograph of Mohammed Atta boarding a plane in Maine.

Is there any other non-hearsay evidence that hijackings took place?
 
WildCat said:
Oh, it's possible... but far more likely to be from someone's bbq grill who lives in your building and looked for a place to clean it, just like you used the same place to spray paint.
Click to expand...

The material properties of the dust is not indicative of ash.
Most of the dust is gray, but it's not light and fluffy like ash.
It's heavy. Dense. Not gritty, but very, very dusty.
You can taste it if you mess with it too much.
 
Dash80 said:
Just a thought... Have you ever wondered WHY the vast majority of people think you're crazy/stupid/lying? Apart from a few other loons, nobody supports your ridiculous steel to dust/foam/whatever theory.
Click to expand...

I have considered why, and I think I know the reason(s).

People are instinctively protective of ideas they hold dearly to be true.
As an instructor, I know the difference between teaching something
to people in two different cases. One, where they know nothing in
advance. Two, where they already hold misconceptions about the subject.
Misconceptions I define as false information that someone "knows" about
a subject.

The obvious example is biochemistry vs. evolution. Teaching biochemistry,
I get awed respect and quiet note-taking from my students. They look
to me as a genuine expert and depend on me knowing the subject inside
and out to be able to explain things backwards and forwards.

When it comes to evolution, I don't get this. What I get is a lot of
hand-raising, protests, arguments, refusals to do work, etc. This is
with both high school and college aged students, by the way.

I'm teaching the curriculum of New York State in both cases. But not only
do my students refuse to "go along" with my expertise in both cases,
but they also perform much better with the biochemistry than the evolution
sections on the Advanced Placement Biology exam (to name one standard).

Get it? I'm right in both cases, but the students started out knowing they
didn't know anything about biochemistry but thinking that they knew things
about evolution. It's much harder to teach somebody something if they
think they already know the answer.

Like most of you people. For some reason, you were comfortable with
the halfway explanation given for the demise of the World Trade Center.
The planes have nothing to do with it, because until 2005, it never
occurred to me that there might not have been planes. Up until then,
I was still focused on the anomalous destruction seen at Ground Zero.

As I've said before, 9/11 humbled me. I knew that I would have to learn
something in order to understand 9/11, so I began from scratch. I wasn't
so arrogant to think that I already knew the answer on the Day of 9/11.

Please. That's ridiculous on its face. They solved a crime like this in less
than a day? You're kidding me, right?
 
phiwum said:
Good point!

I'm with Dusty now! You cannot deny that her samples could possibly be WTC dust and hence there were no planes, no hijackings, but instead a mysterious weapon that turned the towers to dust.

That's logic, dammit. Game over.
Click to expand...

A scientific argument is made of bits and pieces.

One thing that no one can deny is that the dust is at least plausibly
from the WTC.

That's a small piece. There are more.
 
Die-Thread-Die.jpg
 
WTC Dust said:
I have considered why, and I think I know the reason(s).

People are instinctively protective of ideas they hold dearly to be true.
As an instructor, I know the difference between teaching something
to people in two different cases. One, where they know nothing in
advance. Two, where they already hold misconceptions about the subject.
Misconceptions I define as false information that someone "knows" about
a subject.

The obvious example is biochemistry vs. evolution. Teaching biochemistry,
I get awed respect and quiet note-taking from my students. They look
to me as a genuine expert and depend on me knowing the subject inside
and out to be able to explain things backwards and forwards.
Click to expand...
And yet here you are using the same tactics as young earth creationists wrt 9/11... :boggled:
 
WTC Dust said:
There are a few things that I see that aren't hearsay evidence that point to hijackings on 9/11.

1. The pictures of somewhat burned looking passport photos.
2. Evidence found in a car parked in Maine.
3. The one photograph of Mohammed Atta boarding a plane in Maine.

Is there any other non-hearsay evidence that hijackings took place?
Click to expand...
Uh YES Dusty there is!

1. Air Traffic Control lose radio contact and transponder signals from these aircraft.
2. Suspicious transmissions are heard from 2 of these aircraft, obviously not from their original pilots.
3. Betty Ong a flight attendant on American 11 calls the ground, her plane is hijacked. She reports 2 people stabbed and that the hijackers are in the cockpit. Part of Ong's call has been released.
4. Both Betty Ong and her fellow attendant Amy Sweeney report by airphone that flight 11 is flying low and erratic. Their calls end as the plane impacts the North Tower.
5. United 175 changes it's transponder code after losing radio contact, this makes it easier to track it. Calls were made from this flight also. Newark Tower witness the aircraft flying fast and low and see it crash in to the South Tower.
6. Flight 77 hijackers were also captured by CCTV cameras at Dulles airport.
7. Aircraft debris, body parts and DNA of both passengers and hijackers were found at the crash sites.
Plane debris was photographed, black boxes were recovered in Shanksville and the pentagon.
8. The hijackers martyrdom videos and Al Quada confessions.


These things are not hear-say, many are readily available on the net for you to see for yourself. Others are TESTIMONY and you dismissing them as stories means you're accusing people of lying.

Anything else I can help you with Tracy?

Anneliese.
 
WTC Dust said:
A scientific argument is made of bits and pieces.

One thing that no one can deny is that the dust is at least plausibly
from the WTC.

That's a small piece. There are more.
Click to expand...

It is possible that some unknown percentage of the dust you've collected is from WTC.

Big freakin' deal. We can't draw much of a conclusion from that.
 
WTC Dust said:
No, it's the scientific "we". As in, now that I've made this discovery, "we all" know that foaming is the proper term for the process, as opposed to dustification, which was an invented word.
Click to expand...

So you think that the scientific community just automatically agrees with you?
 
WTC Dust said:
That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying the wake of a boat continues in the forward direction after a boat stops. You want proof of this? hahaha

Haven't you ever been on a boat?
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet I've spent 100x more time in boats and in the water around boats than you have. Your understanding of wakes is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
None that I knew of in 2001!
Click to expand...
You didn't know the location of a single Walmart? Home Depot? Lowes? Weren't aware of a single small hardware store?


WTC Dust said:
I'm from Texas. I wasn't necessarily "supposed" to be living in Lower Manhttan. I just ended up there.
Click to expand...
And you didn't know a single person in the whole city to ask?

Do you think it is reasonable, when cops were being such jerks about
people even walking near Ground Zero, that they would have allowed
me to lean a ladder up against a wall and scoop up some dust?
Click to expand...

I am under the impression that there was a LOT of dust spread out over a LOT of the city. Perhaps I am wrong here, but just how close to ground zero did you have to be to find dust?



I say no.
Click to expand...
Based on what?

You have painted yourself as a researcher. As someone who never gives up till they find what they seek. Did you give up then?

You clearly don't fear the cops, as evidenced by your nude protests. Why did they scare you in this one instance?

Anyway, I eventually got some dust, so better late than never!
Click to expand...

Yes, after 8+ years.
Were the cops being jerks for the full 8 years? Did it take you that long to find a ladders store?
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm considering selling the dust. What do you think?
Click to expand...

That you would be a scumbag if you considered selling WTC debris, and even worse if that debris is not verified to be related to the WTC in any way but you claim it is.
 
WTC Dust said:
Oh, Chipmunk! You make me happy. You're talking about what I wanted to talk about at the very beginning!

The chain of custody is amazing! It's one link: me!
Click to expand...

You seem to be forgetting the 8 years of unknown.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom