Thread: Dr Wood's claim that 80% of the steel from the towers was turned to dust.

Originally Posted by Jango

I'm not disagreeing with his physics - I'm no physicist.

I am just curious why Fangbeer, who appears to be quite the smart person, would spend the overwhelming majority of his posting career here at Political Forums being an anti-truther debating truthers.

There seems to be a couple of people who actively spend the majority of their posting career here being anti-truthers.

If you want to discuss my posting habits, perhaps you should start a thread about it. This thread, however, is about Dr Wood's flawed presumption that steel turned to dust. If you have anything to add on this topic, such as how the oxidation of iron was inhibited by space based laser technology, I'd love to hear it.

Originally Posted by Jango

I'm not disagreeing with his physics - I'm no physicist.

I am just curious why Fangbeer, who appears to be quite the smart person, would spend the overwhelming majority of his posting career here at Political Forums being an anti-truther debating truthers.

There seems to be a couple of people who actively spend the majority of their posting career here being anti-truthers.

So what?

Posting on internet forums is a hobby for people. They post about what interests them, or where their expertise lies. I don't post too much in 9/11 forums because (1) I'm a legal expert, not a physics expert, and (2) the 9/11 Denier movement has become a cult at this point, and trying to convince someone their cult is based on lies is like banging your head against a wall.

However, I read and occasionally respond to posts in this subforum, because the psychology of 9/11 Deniers and other conspiracy theorists interests me - how do otherwise ordinary people have such a mental failing as to fall down the rabbit hole of these nonsensical cultlike groups of fanatics (9/11 Deniers, birthers, Holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, chemtrails people, NWO conspiracies, etc)?

Originally Posted by Fangbeer

If you want to discuss my posting habits, perhaps you should start a thread about it. This thread, however, is about Dr Wood's flawed presumption that steel turned to dust. If you have anything to add on this topic, such as how the oxidation of iron was inhibited by space based laser technology, I'd love to hear it.

Just a quick question that also supports your position - isn't there an even simpler math problem with Dr. Wood's theory?

If 80% of the towers were "dustified," how did emergency crews and cleanup crews remove far more than 20% of the original mass of the buildings during the cleanup?

The data on how much material was taken away from the site is freely available, at least in estimate form. If the total sum of the material is a decent amount greater than 20% of the standing mass of the buildings, that would essentially negate Dr. Wood's looney theory right there.

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

Just a quick question that also supports your position - isn't there an even simpler math problem with Dr. Wood's theory?

If 80% of the towers were "dustified," how did emergency crews and cleanup crews remove far more than 20% of the original mass of the buildings during the cleanup?

The data on how much material was taken away from the site is freely available, at least in estimate form. If the total sum of the material is a decent amount greater than 20% of the standing mass of the buildings, that would essentially negate Dr. Wood's looney theory right there.

That's good enough for you and me, of course, but unfortunately truthers are another matter. You have to discuss things in terms of the evidence they "trust." For Wood, that evidence is her perception of some photographs she reviewed. She sees dust in photographs, and assumes its main component is the steel from the building. That's a rather odd conclusion for an educated person to leap to, but there you have it. On the other hand, they don't trust estimates of debris removal because they feel things like that can be faked. Hell, they believe that aircraft slamming into buildings can be faked.

So I'd rather appeal to her and her follower's sense of perception and logic, and deal with them in terms they can understand.

Everyone has seen steel generate sparks. This is something that laypeople can relate to. If you can show that a release of energy from iron is a chemical property of iron that can't be faked, then they might take a moment to review their logic.

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

So what?

Posting on internet forums is a hobby for people. They post about what interests them, or where their expertise lies. I don't post too much in 9/11 forums because (1) I'm a legal expert, not a physics expert, and (2) the 9/11 Denier movement has become a cult at this point, and trying to convince someone their cult is based on lies is like banging your head against a wall.

However, I read and occasionally respond to posts in this subforum, because the psychology of 9/11 Deniers and other conspiracy theorists interests me - how do otherwise ordinary people have such a mental failing as to fall down the rabbit hole of these nonsensical cultlike groups of fanatics (9/11 Deniers, birthers, Holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, chemtrails people, NWO conspiracies, etc)?

Don't forget creationists.

The attraction to these topics is similar to the attraction of watching a train wreck in slow motion....not proud of it, just a fact.

This thread has been live for over 24 hours. I expect ANY MINUTE NOW the forum's regular CTers will be busting down the door IN MASS, to share their irrefutable evidence .

Any minute now....

Maybe they're shy.

Originally Posted by Fangbeer

If you want to discuss my posting habits, perhaps you should start a thread about it. This thread, however, is about Dr Wood's flawed presumption that steel turned to dust. If you have anything to add on this topic, such as how the oxidation of iron was inhibited by space based laser technology, I'd love to hear it.

We're in the conspiracy section. Does being on topic mean anything?

Originally Posted by Jango

We're in the conspiracy section. Does being on topic mean anything?

I don't see why it shouldn't. Do you have anything on topic to add, or are you going to try to continue to make this thread about me?

Re-read the first sentence in post #10.

Originally Posted by Jango

Re-read the first sentence in post #10.

Please re-read rule 14 and come back when you have something to add to the thread.