• 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.

Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Arkan, for crying out loud. The twin towers exploded into dust. Many, many chunks of building, from huge to small, were propelled sideways, and fell down. These chunks had dust trails. Huge dust trails. Opaque dust trails. Thick, dense dust trails. The dust then fell, almost as rapidly as the aforementioned chunks of building.

If there is a chunk of building falling, and it is giving off a huge trail of dense dust which falls rapidly, it is a fizzy. If you have a questionable chunk, post a video, and I will examine it.

Goodness gracious you folks are great at missing the point.

The point is: Steel turned to dust. Below is not a fizzie. Below is something even more astonishing.




http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/dustspire.gif

If you think the fizzies can be explained by something innocent, like drafting drywall, then let's have an experiment. If it is drafting drywall, we should be able to recreate a small fizzy.
Click to expand...


Absolutely NO steel turned to dust.

There is no such thing as a "fizzy."

You are insane.
Click to expand...
 
Ron;

I am now beginning to wonder if you shouldn't have ACE on the show...

RON: Hi, and welcome to Hardfire. Today we have as our guest, ACE BAKER. He is a musician. Today he is here to explain how the steel in the twin towers turned to dust when the buildings collapsed.

ACE: Thanks Ron.

RON: So ACE, please tell us.

ACE: Ok. So the USA secretly developed these enormously powerful High energy beam weapons. These weapons, in space, sent down to earth very powerful beams of energy which caused the collapses of the towers. As a result, as the steel fell to the earth, it created "FIZZIES" which are the dustified trails created by steel as it turns to dust.

RON: okie dokie. (turns to producer) Can we go to commercial?

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Ron;

I am now beginning to wonder if you shouldn't have ACE on the show...

RON: Hi, and welcome to Hardfire. Today we have as our guest, ACE BAKER. He is a musician. Today he is here to explain how the steel in the twin towers turned to dust when the buildings collapsed.

ACE: Thanks Ron.

RON: So ACE, please tell us.

ACE: Ok. So the USA secretly developed these enormously powerful High energy beam weapons. These weapons, in space, sent down to earth very powerful beams of energy which caused the collapses of the towers. As a result, as the steel fell to the earth, it created "FIZZIES" which are the dustified trails created by steel as it turns to dust.

RON: okie dokie. (turns to producer) Can we go to commercial?

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


TAM, this is precisely why I pulled the plug. As soon as he opens his mouth, he establishes beyond dispute that he is mad. The two other people present become superfluous. I'm left to explain to the producer and angry letter-writers why I felt this drivel was worth airing. It would be a half-hour of Ace conjuring up fantastic interpretations of the video being shown, Greening patiently trying to explain why Ace's fantasies are nonsense, and yours truly repeatedly asking Ace if anything is sinking in. A freak show, pure and simple.
 
pomeroo said:
TAM, this is precisely why I pulled the plug. As soon as he opens his mouth, he establishes beyond dispute that he is mad. The two other people present become superfluous. I'm left to explain to the producer and angry letter-writers why I felt this drivel was worth airing. It would be a half-hour of Ace conjuring up fantastic interpretations of the video being shown, Greening patiently trying to explain why Ace's fantasies are nonsense, and yours truly repeatedly asking Ace if anything is sinking in. A freak show, pure and simple.
Click to expand...


Not quite. You're assuming I was there to present a postive case, and Greening was there to debunk it. Not so. Greening was to be there to present his positive case for a gravity collapse, and I was there to debunk it.

It would have been a half hour of Greening claiming that a top block crushed down through the undamaged structure, and me showing video that clearly shows the top block becoming half its height before the lower structure moves an inch. Greening claiming only 10-20 percent of the mass landed outside the footprint, I show video of the towers exploding, and photos of the footprint afterwards. Etc.

Wieck backed out because he is an intelligent man.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Not quite. You're assuming I was there to present a postive case, and Greening was there to debunk it. Not so. Greening was to be there to present his positive case for a gravity collapse, and I was there to debunk it.

It would have been a half hour of Greening claiming that a top block crushed down through the undamaged structure, and me showing video that clearly shows the top block becoming half its height before the lower structure moves an inch. Greening claiming only 10-20 percent of the mass landed outside the footprint, I show video of the towers exploding, and photos of the footprint afterwards. Etc.

Wieck backed out because he is an intelligent man.
Click to expand...

.... HHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Damn dude!
 
pomeroo said:
TAM, this is precisely why I pulled the plug. As soon as he opens his mouth, he establishes beyond dispute that he is mad. The two other people present become superfluous. I'm left to explain to the producer and angry letter-writers why I felt this drivel was worth airing. It would be a half-hour of Ace conjuring up fantastic interpretations of the video being shown, Greening patiently trying to explain why Ace's fantasies are nonsense, and yours truly repeatedly asking Ace if anything is sinking in. A freak show, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Yes. I guess I had my focus on allowing the CTers to discredit themselves on TV. I hadn't thought, as I should have, that your viewers are actually articulate watchers who would actually like to see a valid debate on the issue. Given this is the case, I am glad you "pulled it". Perhaps Greening vs Jones (stephen) or Greening vs Ross (Gordon) then, at some point...hopefully.

TAM:)
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
It would have been a half hour of Greening claiming that a top block crushed down through the undamaged structure, and me showing video that clearly shows the top block becoming half its height before the lower structure moves an inch.
Click to expand...



Still don't get the concept of "model", huh?

Hey, pomeroo, has Dr. Greening been able to sign up here yet? I'd really, really, like him to put TS straight on his "beliefs" about the top block. So far, I haven't been able to get it across. Big surprise, I know....
 
Horatius said:
Still don't get the concept of "model", huh?

Hey, pomeroo, has Dr. Greening been able to sign up here yet? I'd really, really, like him to put TS straight on his "beliefs" about the top block. So far, I haven't been able to get it across. Big surprise, I know....
Click to expand...

Somehow, I don't think Greening will have much success either.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Not quite. You're assuming I was there to present a postive case, and Greening was there to debunk it. Not so. Greening was to be there to present his positive case for a gravity collapse, and I was there to debunk it.

It would have been a half hour of Greening claiming that a top block crushed down through the undamaged structure, and me showing video that clearly shows the top block becoming half its height before the lower structure moves an inch. Greening claiming only 10-20 percent of the mass landed outside the footprint, I show video of the towers exploding, and photos of the footprint afterwards. Etc.

Wieck backed out because he is an intelligent man.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You are a raving lunatic and a complete ignoramus, but you stumbled on a great truth in your last sentence.
 
For those interested in Greening's discussion, he is NEU-FONZE on

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1620

Says Greening:

The [NIST] fire models cannot explain the formation of vaporized zinc or the molten iron!
Click to expand...

Dr. Greening has informed me quite clearly that he does not support the government theory of 9/11, that he is an "independent thinker". Currently he is ripping the NIST report to shreds.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
For those interested in Greening's discussion, he is NEU-FONZE on

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1620

Says Greening:



Dr. Greening has informed me quite clearly that he does not support the government theory of 9/11, that he is an "independent thinker". Currently he is ripping the NIST report to shreds.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No, he is pointing out minor discrepancies. But, then, that would be an accurate statement and we are well-acquainted with your attitude toward accuracy.
 
Good TS. Maybe you can convert him into a "No Planer"...lol

We will see what happens with Dr. Greening. Don't get your hopes up.

TAM:)
 
He calls the NIST report a joke. Greening:

Look at the temperatures quoted in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F, which are different to NIST NCSTAR 1-5G, which are different to NIST NCSTAR 1-5, which are different to the paper by S. K. Choi...

The joke is ALL THESE MODELLED TEMPERATURES IGNORE THE FLOOR PAN COMPLETELY!

They ASSUME it simply wasn't there.....

(Perhaps they too think it was VAPORIZED!!!!)

So Arthur, and all you NIST APOLOGISTS, pick a number, any number will do, then tell me that was the temperature of the floor pans on floors, 92, 93, 94, 95 96, 97, 98 and 99 in WTC 1 and on floors 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 in WTC 2.

Tell me it was 900, or 911, or 950, or 1050 deg C.....

You HAVE TO ADMIT these are all guesses - wild guesses - with different assumptions that may or may not be valid. Choi ASSUMES a completely unprotected composite truss. I doubt if all the insulation was blasted off.

Arthur says there was NO thermal insulation on the floor pans - complete and utter BS!

Simply put:

The fire models cannot explain the formation of vaporized zinc or the molten iron!

NF
Click to expand...


Ignoring vaporized zinc, molten iron, ignoring the steel floor pans (which disappeared by the way), these are minor discrepancies? Would a serious scientist such as Dr. Greening call NIST a "joke" based on minor discrepancies?
 
well now your just flaunting your stupidity Ace. The example of yours in the little gif animation clearly show steel more apparent to be intact as it "dustifies in fizzies" the closer it gets to the ground!!! You know these exterior box columns had spray on fireproofing on three of their four sides correct? and that it had the consistency of thirty year old wedding cake?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom