Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

Photograph from the intact mall or first sub-basement:

Image311.jpg
 
jammonius said:
This one shows the store INNOVATIONS. You can now use a map of the mall in conjunction with the WTCcomplex that was right atop the mall to see where these persons were walking.

[qimg]http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image312.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Still supports nothing about what you claim about "Vaporized" steel or GZ being "flat".

All you're doing is dodging! Now be like Alice & go back into that rabbit hole to see how far you go with your paranoia.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
:dl:

Boy, he's gonna be in for a big surprise when he gets to the Battle of Yavin!
Click to expand...

Commander,

Jammonius is using grenades to destroy the power station under WTC7 so that the force field surrounding WTC 1 & 2 would be disabled & so he can ram 2 TIE fighters into the buildings. I suggest that we use our X-Wing fighters & Y-Wing bombers to counter his assault.

Han Solo & Chewbacca!
 
parky76 said:
i think the "dustification" hypothesis has been turned to dust.
Click to expand...

I have a theory, maybe the only reason why Jammonius, Judy Wood & James Fetzer assumes that the steel turned to "dust" by a Death Star based weapon in space is because their brains have turned to dust?

It's a sound theory, I know, but ponder the thought for a moment! :D
 
parky76 said:
Originally Posted by jammonius [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
I challenge the validity of the source of the above information.

here is the web page, which links to the FEMA page.

prove it wrong.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

you challenge it being correct? prove its wrong.
Click to expand...

Wait, let's see. The first reference to the 350 tons was in post # 208, containing the following link:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...o/cleanup.html

That is what I challenged and I did so because the source cited in that link was the freakin' NYDailyNews.

Now you are apparently providing a different link, that I have not seen or challenged. parky, why are you doing this? What proposition are you asserting is established by the second link, namely:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

And, what part of that rather lengthy page are you even referring to?

Can you please post up the information, rather than a link to a lengthy page?

Just so you know, I am not here trying to make it difficult for you. What is it you're seeking to engage on?

Is it the amount of steel shipped to China? If so, that claim is extremely poorly supported. The source is all hearsay and quoted in stupid journals like the Beijing Youth Daily:

"Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris


A shipment of scrap steel from New York's collapsed World Trade Center will arrive in Shanghai tomorrow, according to media reports. The steel was bought by Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp. and several other domestic mills, which are always eager to buy scrap metal.
Baosteel Group, the nation's largest steel firm, has purchased 50,000 tons of the scrap steel from "Ground Zero," the ruins of the September 11 terrorist attack, at no more than US$120 each ton, according to yesterday's Beijing Youth Daily."

Once you realize that all this is just hfearsay sourcing for important claims, I think you begin to see why the lack of a proper investigation is important.

thanks in advance
 
jammonius said:
Wait, let's see. The first reference to the 350 tons was in post # 208, containing the following link:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...o/cleanup.html

That is what I challenged and I did so because the source cited in that link was the freakin' NYDailyNews.

Now you are apparently providing a different link, that I have not seen or challenged. parky, why are you doing this? What proposition are you asserting is established by the second link, namely:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

And, what part of that rather lengthy page are you even referring to?

Can you please post up the information, rather than a link to a lengthy page?

Just so you know, I am not here trying to make it difficult for you. What is it you're seeking to engage on?

Is it the amount of steel shipped to China? If so, that claim is extremely poorly supported. The source is all hearsay and quoted in stupid journals like the Beijing Youth Daily:

"Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris


A shipment of scrap steel from New York's collapsed World Trade Center will arrive in Shanghai tomorrow, according to media reports. The steel was bought by Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp. and several other domestic mills, which are always eager to buy scrap metal.
Baosteel Group, the nation's largest steel firm, has purchased 50,000 tons of the scrap steel from "Ground Zero," the ruins of the September 11 terrorist attack, at no more than US$120 each ton, according to yesterday's Beijing Youth Daily."

Once you realize that all this is just hfearsay sourcing for important claims, I think you begin to see why the lack of a proper investigation is important.

thanks in advance
Click to expand...


You know what's poorly supported Jam? You're lack of physical evidence that 2" solid steel would just turn to "dust" because you say it did so.

What's completely hearsay is your garbage which has been debunked since 2006. Unless you're an uneducated college kid caught up in the mayhem of the Truth Movements paranoia.
 
jammonius said:
No parky, the Twin Towers were turned to dust, as shown, again and again in this thread. Here's another:

[qimg]http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/1598/01vr3.gif[/qimg]
Look!
Click to expand...

You have no evidence to support the steel turning to "dust" Jam. You lie between your teeth & you're blind as a bat.

You're still 100% WRONG!

Falling steel sections doesn't support your crazy & insane theory that steel turned to "dust".

EPIC FAILURE!
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
I challenge the validity of the source of the above information. Weighing of steel is a fairly exacting task. When and how was that done?

And, compare the weighing assertion with this contradictory information:

"The New York Times reports that “some of the nation’s leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts” believe the investigation into the collapse of the WTC is “inadequate” and “are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.”

[New York Times, 12/25/2001]
Click to expand...

You've quoted an article that is no longer accurate. The study it calls for was completed and delivered in Sept 2005.

Do keep up.
 
Rocket_Scientist said:
Had to answer this as we just got back from my daughters girl scout international night. In a word MAGz......no. But an excellent question as compared to the tripe that Bill and jammonius are just throwing out there.

Again it all comes down to size and weight. You should see the size of the solar panels that are required for a 25Kw spacecraft bus. The space industry uses the most efficient solar cells available. The type of solar array that you're referring to would be measured in tens if not hundreds of square miles to provide that kind of power not to mention the losses involved in "beaming" it down from space. It would take years to build an array like that. Just look at the ISS and how long it took to get it built

Microwave energy is still RF energy and no matter how tightly focused the beam, the recieved energy is still going to be just a small fraction of the transmitted energy when it travels a few hundred miles. But in order for something like that to work, the solar arrays would have to be in a GEO orbit to maintain their position above the receiver, which means a 22,000 mile orbit...so even bigger losses.

I'm not even going to address jammonius's post about what someone saw up in the sky or his coy reference to "secret" or classified projects ( I know a friend of a friend of a friend who knows someone nonsense). The type of weapon that's being implied here requires power that just can't be produced on a scale that would make it portable (as in aircraft) or launchable into space. The ABL the Judy woods keeps showing as "proof" of DEWs can only punch a small hole through the very thin skin of a missle...not "dustify" steel.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer. It appears that for now, harvesting solar energy in space for use on Earth is just science fiction.

As they said two years ago... welcome to the forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom