• 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:
I have provided plenty of proof and will continue to do so. Especially on December 1. Hopefully everything works out on that date, or I'll look like an idiot, but I already have been called much worse. I spent all day today writing a song with a couple of music people.

How's this: WTC "Where's the crash?" WTC "Where's the collapse?" I'm going to try and use my .sig in the song, too, as the refrain.
Click to expand...

Here's another song for your playlist on Dec.1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJmDTnfZr6c
 
So if it was an electrical weapon then could it have been a giant taser? The plane was the thing that gets fired at the target and hooks in, i can't see the wires but that could just be because the wires have been faded out but the media.
 
WTC Dust said:
The pile should have been centered on the footprint, if gravity was what destroyed the towers. Gravity doesn't work sideways. It pulls straight down.
Click to expand...

Well, it does pull things down at a high velocity, but that does not mean that everything on which it acts will move in a steady stream toward the center of the source of gravity. The floors did not all fail as soon as debris hit them. Heat was released with every bit of concrete oe any other substance was pounded and broken. The air expanded and had to go someplace. All that accumlating rubble pushed outward on the perimeter coulms. When the pressure became too great, those perimeter columns were shoved outward, sometimes hndreds of feet. (It does not take much of a shove to get them going a couple miles an hour, which would move them quite a distance during a drop of hundreds of feet.)

The debris that fell within the core also exerted force in more than one direction. As it piled up in the cores, it pushed the core columns outward in all directions. Thus, we have collisions adding a force on all columns in other directions than straight down. The model you have in your head is too simplistic.
 
WTC Dust said:
If there had been a collapse, I'd have expected many toilets and sinks to have survived. This building experienced a pancake collapse. The WTC should have looked something like this, if a collapse had occurred.
Click to expand...

How many toilets and sinks survived in that collapse, then?

In fact, how comparable is that building to the WTC in its general construction, number of floors etc? Do you think it would have looked like that neat stack of concrete pancakes if it had been 20 storeys tall? What about 50? 100?
 
BobHaulk said:
So if it was an electrical weapon then could it have been a giant taser? The plane was the thing that gets fired at the target and hooks in, i can't see the wires but that could just be because the wires have been faded out but the media.
Click to expand...

This is genius.

So the planes weren't a decoy, nor an incredible coincidence - they were deploying the control wires for the MegataserTM to fire into the core of the building, instantly turning all steel columns, toilets and washbasins to dust.

It's all so clear now.
 
WTC Dust said:
Imagine that you are in a small town in England during the year 700 A.D.
Imagine that you shoot somebody dead in the middle of the town square.
The villagers gather around and try to determine what happened to the victim.

The villagers might come up with any number of explanations of the crime,
but none of them would be valid if they were only using ideas and concepts
that they already knew about at the time of the crime.

Some villagers might claim she was stabbed with a thin knife that left
pieces of it in the victim after it pierced the victim (the bullet fragments).
Some villagers might claim that lightning struck her (because they heard
the sound of the gunshot). Whatever. None of them is likely to be true.

Getting back to 9/11...everyone saw video of what looked like a plane
crashing into WTC 2, so they think that must have had something to do
with the destruction. Other people know about bombs, and so they
suggest that bombs were placed in all seven WTC buildings.

Of course, this is incompatible with the plane theory (because a plane
crash would surely dislodge some of the bombs), but never mind that.
We already know about bombs, so it must have been bombs that did it.

No.

This isn't what happened. Explosives did not take down the World Trade Center. An electrical weapon did. You just have to go back to England in 700 A.D. and figure out what happened to the gunshot victim. Then come back to 2010 and realize that 9/11 wasn't something you already knew about on the day that it happened.
Click to expand...

Analogy FAIL.
 
Mikemcc said:
WTC may be onto something...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101109095324.htm

Shame there's about 10 orders of magnitude difference in the mass of the target and it still doesn't affect the inter-atomic distances which is what WTCDust needs for her hypothesis!
Click to expand...

I know you're joking, but for Dusty's 'theory' to work, you'd have to put in enough energy to break the bonds, not just move them around.

Cool article, though, reminds me of the physics lab where I got to move around atoms to spell things :)
 
WTC Dust said:
This building experienced a pancake collapse. The WTC should have looked something like this, if a collapse had occurred.
Click to expand...

Funny! This is actually what it would look like if Dusty's hypothesis -- that all the steel magically vanished and got out of the way -- was correct.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Try a pencil next time; it's considerably less work, and easier to read as well.
Click to expand...

I thought you were talking about the constipated mathematician who worked it out with a pencil for a minute. It sure made the posts that followed this one interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom