Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

awww come on truthseeker..... did you never have a mecanno set as a kid?

These buildings are constructed...they are put together using relatively small pieces, in fact very small pieces relative to the overall structure.

As you know, the columns are not one continous piece of steel stretching from the ground to the roof...they are many lengths of steel bolted and welded together. But those joints, as you know, can also be the weakest part of the fabrication and so, when the column as a whole is stressed, those joints are the things that will snap.

The concrete was only 4 inches thick. As you know, that is so thin that it couldn't even support it's own weight and had to be supported on a metal deck which itself was supported on the floor trusses.

Imagine what happens to that thin concrete if you take away 50% of the floor trusses.........BANG! concrete snaps

The beauty of the wtc tower construction was it's way of creating maximum office space by avoiding the conventional steel frame design with all those pesky columns getting in the way of the MD's desk, and, as you know, instead it was constructed like a tube...or a tube within a tube.

As you know, conventional steel frame structures distribute the supported loads over the frame throughout the building. This can be quite neat because, as you know, the frame members can be spaced quite a distance apart and we can have big areas of glass or other funky cladding materials on the external face of the building. But, as you know, the wtc towers had this tube of closely spaced columns around the perimeter, which reduced the ability to have massive glass areas. But, as you know, this wasn't a problem because the height of the building was going to make large glass areas rather unnerving to some of the occupants.

But then, you knew all that already.
 
If this building really "fell down" on itself, straight down, there would be a 110 layer sandwich

Mabye this guy had something to do with it?

franchiseinfo_home1.jpg
 
These are the same people who told us that the air was safe to breathe. So you expect me to believe that they told the truth about the dust, after they told such a viscious lie about the dust? What on earth would it take to convince you that these people are liars?

And while I'm at it, where do these people lie about the effects of the dust? Or by "These people" do you mean the entire US Government? I see absolutely nothing that could call into question the integrity of the people who conducted the linked study.

The tragedy of the September 11, 2001, collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers and other buildings in and adjacent to the WTC site produced a dust cloud that was visible from space and covered much of lower Manhattan in millimeters to centimeters of extremely fine powdered material. This material was inhaled and ingested by thousands of people on the day of the event and for several days afterward. In addition, thousands of apartments, offices, and public buildings were contaminated by the dust through a variety of pathways. The short-term medical effects of this exposure were manifested in what became known as the World Trade Center (WTC) cough, documented as respiratory and other health problems among many of those who were exposed (Gavett and others, 2003; Prezant and others, 2002). Potential long-term medical effects of this event may not be known for many years. Several studies have examined various components of the dusts generated by the collapse of the WTC (Meeker and others, 2005; Plumlee and others, 2005; Badger and others, 2004; Yiin and others, 2004; McGee, 2003; Offenberg and others, 2003; Chatfield and Kominsky, 2002; Lioy and others, 2002, Millette and others, 2002; Clark and others, 2001).

So, once again, I ask you:

So, if 80% of the upper parts of the towers were turned into fine dust, what did the study of the composition of the dust find so little iron:

Fe-rich Primarily Fe and Fe oxide 0.2 – 1.3 0.1 – 1.1

Compare to the amounts of Gypsum:

Gypsum Includes all Ca sulfate particles 26.3 – 53.3 63.3 – 63.7

(first range is percentage for outdoor samples, second for indoor, see table on page 5)

So are you saying the towers contained gypsum in an amount between 25 and 50 times the amount of iron(steel)?

Or maybe your 20% of the steel left number is just a tad off?

You can either admit your "20%" number is a complete fabrication, or show me where the cited study was conducted by "liars". Put up or shut up.

ETA: I've just noticed they characterize the layer of dust as "covered much of lower Manhattan in millimeters to centimeters of extremely fine powdered material". This makes me think my initial calculations were spot on, rather than needing to explain a layer 6-8 inches deep. There may have been some settling of the dust layer over time that could account for the discrepancy.
 
Last edited:
Now you people seem to be in denial that there was inches of dust over lower manhattan. It had to be at least a 1 square mile area. Not counting all the dust that went in the ocean.

Pulverizing 100% of the building contents into dust would cover about 2 inches deep over one square mile. That is in the ball park of what we oberve.

Where are the floor assemblies? They blanketed lower manhattan, that's where.
 
Pulverizing 100% of the building contents into dust would cover about 2 inches deep over one square mile. That is in the ball park of what we oberve.


Got any math to back up this absurd assertion?

Didn't think so.

-Gumboot
 
Ahh, are you still looking for "acre-sized slabs, with a rectangular hole, like giant square donuts, 220 of them" then, "Ace"?
 
Pulverizing 100% of the building contents into dust would cover about 2 inches deep over one square mile. That is in the ball park of what we oberve.
No, what we observe is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Stop making everything up, TS. This isn't a game.
 
Now you people seem to be in denial that there was inches of dust over lower manhattan. It had to be at least a 1 square mile area. Not counting all the dust that went in the ocean.

Pulverizing 100% of the building contents into dust would cover about 2 inches deep over one square mile. That is in the ball park of what we oberve.

Where are the floor assemblies? They blanketed lower manhattan, that's where.

Got any math to back up this absurd assertion?

Didn't think so.

-Gumboot

He's pretty much taking that from Page 3 of the Beam Weapon pages, while simply ignoring my debunking of their calculation from way back on page 2 of this thread.

Just as a demonstration of their awesome "math" powers, that 1-2 inches deep layer is for one tower. How many towers were there again? And that's just the most obvious error, which TruthinessBaby simply ignores.

And he calls other people liars?
 
No, never said that. I'd expect floors stacked up, like in the other progressive collapses. Of course, those were different types of construction. Steel framed skyscrapers have never had progressive collapse.

None were ever hit by 767s, either.

Guys, look at the arial pictures. Two 110 story buildings disintegrated. Relative to the size of them, there is almost nothing left.

Except a pile of rubble several storeys-high that took months to clear.

We see plenty of perimeter sections, but perhaps not all of them. We see almost none of the core structure. Where is it? 47 columns x 1300 feet x 2 towers, plus cross bracing. Where is it all? There are stubs of the cores, but what happened to 2600 feet of core structure?

In a pile of rubble several storeys-high that took months to clear.

And floor assemblies. If this building really "fell down" on itself, straight down, there would be a 110 layer sandwich - steel pan, concrete, crushed office contents, steel pan, concrete, crushed office contents, etc.

No, there wouldn't. Where the hell did you get that crazy idea, anyway ?

Wake up. Those towers were blown to kingdom come.

I'm not sure that one's going to convince anyone, here.

There was 1" to 2" deep dust over a couple of square miles. Guess what? That accounts for the towers.

And where were the detonators found ?
 
Now you people seem to be in denial that there was inches of dust over lower manhattan. It had to be at least a 1 square mile area. Not counting all the dust that went in the ocean.

Pulverizing 100% of the building contents into dust would cover about 2 inches deep over one square mile. That is in the ball park of what we oberve.

Where are the floor assemblies? They blanketed lower manhattan, that's where.

Making up lies and basing your conclusion on them ? Of course, THAT'S easy.
 
Something round causes round holes.

Can I be of more help?

Yes. Please tell me what round ojects these might have been. I'm not aware of any. Seems they would have to be spherical. Cylinders would do it, but only if they fell straight down. Also, they would have to be moving faster than the rest of the stuff, because they must have self-disintegrated on impact, unlike the perimeter sections, which are strewn about all over.
 
Ahh, are you still looking for "acre-sized slabs, with a rectangular hole, like giant square donuts, 220 of them"?

Yes. With steel pans underneath them, and trusses underneath that. Yes. Haven't found even one. 220 floor assemblies missing.
 
Yes. Please tell me what round ojects these might have been. I'm not aware of any. Seems they would have to be spherical. Cylinders would do it, but only if they fell straight down. Also, they would have to be moving faster than the rest of the stuff, because they must have self-disintegrated on impact, unlike the perimeter sections, which are strewn about all over.
You are asking us what caused the damage and we've already told you many times, falling debris.

Why is it you think the object (or objects) that hit the structure had to be the same shape as the hole (or holes)?

Anyways what do you think caused it, do you not know or do you also think is was a "beam weapon" like Judy Wood?
 
Last edited:
Yes. Please tell me what round ojects these might have been. I'm not aware of any. Seems they would have to be spherical. Cylinders would do it, but only if they fell straight down. Also, they would have to be moving faster than the rest of the stuff, because they must have self-disintegrated on impact, unlike the perimeter sections, which are strewn about all over.
Troll.
 
TS1234, if you hold your head sideways, does dust fall from your ears?
After a night on the town with Judy Wood they got talking about the collapse in the local billiards hall. After a heated discussion, with theories flying back and forth about a "Death Star", the "Alan Parsons Project", and a microwave "Beam Weapon" fired from space or the moon, Judy picked up a billiard ball and threw it at TS in order to demonstrate the forces involved. The billiard ball stuck TS on the side of the head with such force that it pulverized his brain into dust.

j/k
 

Back
Top Bottom