• 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.
1337m4n said:
Your theory is born of stupidity and ignorance:


250806rubble1.jpg

Nothing in these pictures but a bunch of dust, right? LOL!
Click to expand...

Well to be honest, I see a figure of a tiny little "dust man" working on a "Dust top" computer.

Finally we have proof!

WTC fell because of the dust fairies.
 
WTC Dust said:
Gravity does not work that way. You can't say that gravity pulls down things at a high velocity, because the velocity is always changing, and it isn't always a high velocity. It starts out zero at the beginning of a fall and slowly accelerates. 10 meters per second is not much to accelerate in one second, which means the top parts of the buildings weren't traveling very fast when they encountered the parts below them.
Click to expand...

If only there were a way to calculate just how fast objects will be moving in a gravity field after a set time............

Following that if there could be devised a way of calculating the momentum of that object and then,,, think of it,,, a system of calculating the effect of transfering that momentum to a stationary object. Maybe there is a theory of how to ,,, I don't know,,,, 'conserve' maybe, the amount of momentum or energy in such a system?:rolleyes:
 
WTC Dust said:
Gravity does not work that way. You can't say that gravity pulls down things at a high velocity, because the velocity is always changing, and it isn't always a high velocity. It starts out zero at the beginning of a fall and slowly accelerates. 10 meters per second is not much to accelerate in one second, which means the top parts of the buildings weren't traveling very fast when they encountered the parts below them.
Click to expand...

It's meters per second2.

After falling for one second the object will be traveling at 10 meters per second.

ETA: that's approx 22 miles per hour.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
It's meters per second2.

After falling for one second the object will be traveling at 10 meters per second.

ETA: that's approx 22 miles per hour.
Click to expand...

Since momentum is a function of both mass AND velocity, it really doesn't tell you much to know how fast something is moving, anyway.

How much would it hurt if a boat pinned you to a dock at 1 mph? A rowboat, not so much. An ocean liner...squish.
 
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.
snip
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 hap...
Click to expand...

Analogy fails because there are plenty of direct witnesses to the 9/11 attacks.

For the analogy to even be remotely relevant, the town witnesses would see you pointing your weapon, and would witness the direct effect of your weapon on the victim.
They would immediately understand the cause and effect, even if they'd never seen a gun. It's not a difficult analogy to make.

Since in the case of 9/11 there is direct evidence of multiple hijackings, plane impacts, large fires, degradation of the buildings affected and eventual collapse, we have a contiguous chain of causal relationships, all easily verified by competent investigation.

Your analogy fails.

I wasn't going to bother responding, but it's irritating to see your handwaving and arrogance.
 
I almost forgot to address your bare assertion 'Explosives did not take down the World Trade Center. An electrical weapon did'

There's no evidence for either hypothesis, explosives or magic electrical weapon. You are invoking magic since you cannot demonstrate that such a weapon even exists, nor can you explain the physics of such a weapon, were it to exist.
You are still very far from forming a testable, scientific theory. But your arrogance allows you to view every brain-fart as an epiphany. You're a terrible scientist.
 
WTC Dust said:
Some of you are slowly starting to see things my way. I'm not talking about inter-atomic distances. I'm talking about inter-molecular distances, and these terahertz rays seem to affect those nicely by vibrating apart molecules without heat.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate on this.

how do you separate the molecules of a solid without adding energy?
 
WTC Dust said:
Some of you are slowly starting to see things my way. I'm not talking about inter-atomic distances. I'm talking about inter-molecular distances, and these terahertz rays seem to affect those nicely by vibrating apart molecules without heat.
Click to expand...

You're saying that they used infared light (frequency of about 10^12) to vibrate apart the structure? Light that the sun emits all the time and doesn't magically destroy steel whenever it touches it?
 
Newtons Bit said:
You're saying that they used infared light (frequency of about 10^12) to vibrate apart the structure? Light that the sun emits all the time and doesn't magically destroy steel whenever it touches it?
Click to expand...

Its special Hutchison terahertz radiation though and maybe all co-ordinated, perhaps amplified by some sort of stimulation of electromagnetic radiation.

So perhaps more like a grocery store UPC reader.
 
Let's face it WTC Dust has been sold a bill of goods and bought into the scam hook line and sinker. She knew nothing of physics beforehand and knows only what she has learned in the recent past from the likes of Judy Wood.
WTCD simply does not have the capacity to understand how ignorant of physics she really is.
 
WTC Dust said:
No. The "inside jobbers" at WeAreChange are wrong because they think that hijackings occurred AND the buildings were preplaced in the WTC. Completely nonsensical. Planes would dislodge any preplaced bombs and endanger the successful denotation of the bombs.

So please don't tell me the US government did 9/11 unless you know what happened on 9/11. I'm not supporting wearechange until they stop the false propagation of the "planes plus bombs" theory.
Click to expand...

Do you have a theory for what set the girders flying in the top portion ? Some were found hundreds of feet away. Judging by the videos they were driven out by some kind of explosive force.
 
bill smith said:
Do you have a theory for what set the girders flying in the top portion ? Some were found hundreds of feet away. Judging by the videos they were driven out by some kind of explosive force.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that even you find infrared light as an improbable means of destruction...
 
Newtons Bit said:
I'm guessing that even you find infrared light as an improbable means of destruction...
Click to expand...

I know that if you vibrate a boeing aircraft frame through 2,000 cycles per second it will fly apart. How many cycles per second is your ten to the power of 12 ?

You should know by now that I never entirely reject any possibilty to do with 9/11 Newton.
 
jaydeehess said:
If only there were a way to calculate just how fast objects will be moving in a gravity field after a set time............

Following that if there could be devised a way of calculating the momentum of that object and then,,, think of it,,, a system of calculating the effect of transfering that momentum to a stationary object. Maybe there is a theory of how to ,,, I don't know,,,, 'conserve' maybe, the amount of momentum or energy in such a system?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are confused because you are adhering to a "collapse" scenario.
 
tsig said:
It's meters per second2.

After falling for one second the object will be traveling at 10 meters per second.

ETA: that's approx 22 miles per hour.
Click to expand...

You can't recognize "meters per second squared" in the phrase "10 meters per second...in one second"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom