• 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.
And may I point out that birds do not always bounce off of aircraft? Somewhere around here, I think I saw a picture of what appeared to be a grebe imbedded in the wing of a small aircraft.
 
3bodyproblem said:
direction the debris flies is (on average) in the opposite direction of the travel path.
Click to expand...
You're a fraud. I don't care how many PhD's you have you don't know anything about physics. Even my 4 year old nephew knows this isn't true.

He's a bowler. Perhaps I should get him to explain to you why the bowling pins don't come flying back down the alley?

This is an unbelievably stupid statement that even children know isn't true.
Click to expand...

I have to admit that statement took me aback.

One wonders about the conservation of momentum in such a statement.

"Bouncing back" requires that the material 'bouncing' deform elastically and then release this energy by rebounding. That is the definition, is it not, of a 'bounce'. If the material is more plastic than elastic then all energy should go into the deformation but there is no mechanism for rebound and the material ceases forward movement(and heats up).

Even small items that are not flush with the fuselage or wing and would have hit the side of the building and possibly come off, the VHF antenna for instance, would stand a very good chance of following the rest of the aircraft through into the building. If they did not they might fall down and land close to the impact side. One would be hard pressed to make any of them out in the videos or to separate them from the shards of glass follwoing the same trajectory and one is not likely to find pictures of them lieing on the ground since cameras were understandably pointed elsewhere.(for several reasons)
 
beachnut said:
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtcengine4.jpg[/qimg]
Aircraft debris in NYC falling from the towers after aircraft crash at the WTC towers.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1westRectorStreet.jpg[/qimg]
Part of an aircraft crashing through the WTC landing in NYC on 911, proof a aircraft crashing into the WTC, tracked by RADAR to the WTC from takeoff.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1planepartwtc.jpg[/qimg]
Debris from an aircraft which crashed into the WTC.

.
Click to expand...

All of which, of course, J.Wood and Dr.Babs will claim was 'planted', some ahead of time(such as the fuselage parts on the roof of nearby buildings - no one noticed) and some while people were distracted, such as the wheel and engine ("Quick agent Orange get that several hundred pound engine core off the truck before those people standing 10 feet away turn this way"):rolleyes:
 
WTC Dust said:
I'll bet the plane that crashed into that ship was itself damaged by the impact, wasn't it?

I don't know how many times I have to say this.

I AM NOT SAYING that an airplane can't damage steel if it crashes into it.
I AM SAYING that an airplane can't damage steel WITHOUT DAMAGING the plane itself.

If an airplane crashes into some steel beams, yeah, there will be damage to the steel beams, BUT there will also be damage to the plane.

Videos of 9:03AM do not show damage to the plane, therefore those videos do not depict a plane crashing into steel beams at the south face of WTC 2.

It's no good saying, "Yeah, but the plane parts continued in the same direction that the plane was flying and flew out the other side of the building," because you're forgetting what you're saying was a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2. If it had been a plane crash, there would have been debris bouncing off the building.

No debris? No plane crash.
Click to expand...

Can you see what is going on inside? Do you have X-Ray vision?

Basic thinking skills tells tells us that the plane is not remaining intact inside the building.

There was certainly some debris that landed outside of the building. Sure. Do you have close up footage showing there wasn't?
 
WTC Dust said:
If you think scientists aren't biased, think again. It's not good to be biased before you come to some reliable conclusions, but after that? You bet scientists are biased. They are biased towards their own theories because they think their theories are better than those of other scientists.

It always cracks me up when non-scientists fail to address the scientific points of my work, but claim it isn't scientific. Listen up, it's not for you to tell me what is and is not science.
Click to expand...

You HAVE no scientific points. You have a bunch of dust, and ph reading.

What you have doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
 
jaydeehess said:
Even small items that are not flush with the fuselage or wing and would have hit the side of the building and possibly come off, the VHF antenna for instance, would stand a very good chance of following the rest of the aircraft through into the building. If they did not they might fall down and land close to the impact side. One would be hard pressed to make any of them out in the videos or to separate them from the shards of glass follwoing the same trajectory and one is not likely to find pictures of them lieing on the ground since cameras were understandably pointed elsewhere.(for several reasons)
Click to expand...

Between the momentum and the vacuum I doubt if even small pieces would "bounce off". Tough call, but like you say, they wouldn't be big enough to be seen and wouldn't be distinguishable from stuff like the cladding.

The wing tips probably "bounced off" the exterior. I forget, but the NIST simulation had about 4 feet of the tips not penetrating the exterior. The window openings were less than that. Assuming a slice of the wing tips bounced off, and given the density of the jets you could get a rough estimate of the material that may have bounced off the exterior. I'd guess less than 100 lbs from each wing tip was compressed, not entirely vapourized, and bounced off.

That's my best guess using a little bit of logic and some rough estimating. If Dust wants to refute any of this I'd like to see her use just a little bit of her science background. Who knows, maybe she's just confused and will possibly recant when she looks at it from a scientific standpoint?
 
WTC Dust said:
If you think scientists aren't biased, think again. It's not good to be biased before you come to some reliable conclusions, but after that? You bet scientists are biased. They are biased towards their own theories because they think their theories are better than those of other scientists.

It always cracks me up when non-scientists fail to address the scientific points of my work, but claim it isn't scientific. Listen up, it's not for you to tell me what is and is not science.
Click to expand...

Like you I'm not a scientist either but I have every right to tell you that your theories have no base in reality let alone in theory.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
JREF isn't a peer reviewed journal. The purpose of me joining JREF was not to get traditional peer review. It was to check out what the zealot debunkers had to say.
Click to expand...

Is that an agenda I see there? Sounds like you started out with your conclusion the cut the facts to fit.
 
WTC Dust said:
If you think scientists aren't biased, think again. It's not good to be biased before you come to some reliable conclusions, but after that? You bet scientists are biased. They are biased towards their own theories because they think their theories are better than those of other scientists.

It always cracks me up when non-scientists fail to address the scientific points of my work, but claim it isn't scientific. Listen up, it's not for you to tell me what is and is not science.
Click to expand...

We haven't seen any of your work.
 
*facepalm*

Epic.

Fail.

Has anyone else claimed that Stundie? 'Cause if not, I'm gonna.
 
WTC Dust said:
JREF isn't a peer reviewed journal.
Click to expand...
Wow! Really??!!? I had absolutely no idea that this website wasn't the interface to the International Super Dooper Peer Reviewed Journal Of James Randi's Ass Hair! You, ma'am are the smartest person alive!
The purpose of me joining JREF was not to get traditional peer review. It was to check out what the zealot debunkers had to say.
Click to expand...
Then you're wasting your time, and you appear to be happy to waste your time. We're not debunking anything new, and we haven't been for about the last 3 years. You could have just as easily read the archives of this forum for the information you're interested in. So either:

1) You have nothing to say that could stand up to a review of credentialed experts, and you know that, so you're reinforcing your delusions by "beating" internet denizens in pretend debates.

or

2) You're a fraud who is interested in the notoriety, but not in the truth.

Also, since you chose to ignore the bulk of my previous post, I'll assume that my point still stands. Your PhD is meaningless in matters pertaining to your magic space microwave theory. If you've got data, get it published in Analytical Chemistry. Until then, you're just a charlatan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom