• 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.
The official story says an airplane crashed into the south face of the WTC. No debris was seen bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.

You might think this is natural, but it isn't. Steel beams are very strong, and some parts of the plane would have bounced off of these beams, if there had been a plane crash at 9:03AM.

Pointing to debris coming out of the north, east, or west side of WTC 2 isn't relevant, because the official story says a plane crashed into the south face of WTC 2.

No debris? No plane crash.
 
The planes crashed at very high speeds...the momentum of the debris carried most of it into the building. Likely the debris that didnt enter the building was too small to be seen on the videos that captured the event.
Do you have any proof there there was no debris found on the south face of WTC 2? That it wasnt seen on videos doesnt mean there was none IMHO.
Do you have any proof that debris should have bounced off? A mathematical proof would probably be the best start.
Don't you think something more than 'it looked odd' is needed here?
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
You might think this is natural, but it isn't. Steel beams are very strong, and some parts of the plane would have bounced off of these beams, if there had been a plane crash at 9:03AM.
Click to expand...


You're a fraud. My best guess is that you've assumed the name of a willing participant in this charade. Maybe a sister of cousin perhaps?

There isn't a student of the physical sciences on this continent that would be willing to make such blatantly false statements with such arrogance. That fact that you've been shown your mistake and you are incapable of understanding basic physics means you don't understand or you're lying.

It's possible you don't understand, but it doesn't fit with you academic background. A PhD is a demonstrated capacity to learn basic concepts and apply them. Yet here you are saying, without scientific proof of any kind, that visible parts of the plane should have been observed "bouncing off" the WTC. It's completely absurd.

Furthermore, you've compounded this by refusing to observe the conservation of momentum obvious in the trajectory of the plane debris seen exiting the opposite side of the building.

Lastly, you refuse to accept the impact simulation by NIST which matches with startling accuracy the physical and video evidence. That's irrefutable scientific proof that the planes impacted the WTC on 9/11 at 9:03AM in the year of our lord 2001.

The only other plausible explanation is that you have suffered some diminished capacity in mental ability since earning your formal education. This may account for your continued reference to prior achievements "The lady doth protest too much" as the bard once wrote.

So come clean, are you lying or what? ;)
 
WTC Dust said:
The official story says an airplane crashed into the south face of the WTC. No debris was seen bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.

You might think this is natural, but it isn't. Steel beams are very strong, and some parts of the plane would have bounced off of these beams, if there had been a plane crash at 9:03AM.

Pointing to debris coming out of the north, east, or west side of WTC 2 isn't relevant, because the official story says a plane crashed into the south face of WTC 2.

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

Bouncing off? You have to be joking. The plane wasn't a giant racquetball, it was a huge, speeding piece of metal. Since neither object was particularly elastic, of course the kinetic energy is going to be dissipated by deforming the steel columns.

There probably were small pieces of debris that became dislodged and fell straight down, but thinking that something large and noticeable would bounce off instead of continuing into the building is just silly. The larger something is, the more massive it likely is, the more momentum it has. It takes a lot of resistance to fully dissipate the momentum of a large object traveling that fast.
 
WTC Dust said:
The official story says an airplane crashed into the south face of the WTC. No debris was seen bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.

You might think this is natural, but it isn't. Steel beams are very strong, and some parts of the plane would have bounced off of these beams, if there had been a plane crash at 9:03AM.

Pointing to debris coming out of the north, east, or west side of WTC 2 isn't relevant, because the official story says a plane crashed into the south face of WTC 2.

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

Fail, you still need to show where this paper from a peer reviewed journal is wrong:
Wierzbicki, T. & Teng, X. (2003). "How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center." J. of Impact Engrg. 28, pp. 601-625
After all, that's what research scientists do.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
I have a new blog with the four videos I've made so far about 9/11 and an invitation to the seminar on December 1, 2010, at 9 Bleecker Street from 7PM-10PM.

http://wtcdust.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...

From wikipedia:
Bleecker Street is a street in New York City's Manhattan borough. It is perhaps most famous today as a Greenwich Village nightclub district. The street is a spine that connects a neighborhood today popular for music venues and comedy, but was once a major center for American bohemia.
Click to expand...

Seems appropriate. :cool:
 
HMS Sheffield was struck by an Argentinian Exocet Missile. They are made of aluminium and plastic composite.
In the picture you will see that the missile penetrated the Steel Hull of the ship fracturing the Fire Main. Its warhead didn't detonate but the rocket motor and unburned propellant started fires in the Engine Room that couldn't be controlled and the ship burned for 3 days before it sank.

http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/shfld4b.jpg

Why didn't it just bounce off?
 
WTC Dust said:
The official story says an airplane crashed into the south face of the WTC. No debris was seen bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.

You might think this is natural, but it isn't. Steel beams are very strong, and some parts of the plane would have bounced off of these beams, if there had been a plane crash at 9:03AM.

Pointing to debris coming out of the north, east, or west side of WTC 2 isn't relevant, because the official story says a plane crashed into the south face of WTC 2.

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

That is the worst example of logic that I have ever seen.
 
Interestingly, there appear to be wing marks to the left and right of the hole, maybe one below. So cartoonish cut-out images of the weapon are characteristic of both missile strikes and kamikaze attacks (Hinsdale, Sterett, Shefield, Pentagon, WTC) or full-throttle dives into soft ground (Shanksville.)
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Originally Posted by WTC Dust
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.
Click to expand...
What the &(&%&^$^????
Click to expand...

When I was in university taking first year physics we were compelled to take an "Arts" elective course. The purpose for this was explained to me as, "We want our science graduates to be well rounded and capable of expressing themselves in written essays as it is often the case that a scientist must do so to explain their research to non-scientists such as in grant requests"
(it was 30 years ago so I am paraphrasing but the exact words would have been extremely close to this)

WTC Dust did not display such ability in that post so allow me to attempt the possible translations.

She possibly meant:

a ) The aircraft skin shows no plastic deformation as it contacts the tower wall. No ripples down the side, no bunching up of the aluminum at contact.
AND/OR
b ) Long distance and grainy, oft recompressed video shows what looks like the nose cone of the aircraft exiting the far side of the structure.

I believe that you know the factual rebuttals to both of these.
 
TheBigKahuna said:
Wierzbicki, T. & Teng, X. (2003). "How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center." J. of Impact Engrg. Volume 28, Issue 6, pp. 601-625
After all, that's what research scientists do.
Click to expand...

Included further detail on where to find this paper.

The abstract is free to see on the web. The full article must be purchased for a relatively small fee. I am sure that between them WTC Dust, jammonius, J.Wood, and M.Reynolds can come up with the few bucks to purchase a copy and determine where it errs.

After all jammonious is quite vociferous in saying that no one has explained the details the way that J.Wood has. Certainly a paper on one of those details would be of great interest to seekers of the truth.
 
While Dusty keeps on with her notion that the aircraft should have “bounced” off of the building, she forgets one glaring point, and that is; the aircraft, crew, and passengers were completely obliterated in less the 1/3 of a second. A blink of an eye… gone.
 
fess said:
While Dusty keeps on with her notion that the aircraft should have “bounced” off of the building, she forgets one glaring point, and that is; the aircraft, crew, and passengers were completely obliterated in less the 1/3 of a second. A blink of an eye… gone.
Click to expand...
To the conspiracy theorist, real tragedy and human suffering is an abstraction. The fact that the planes that were slammed into the Twin Towers that day in fiery balls of mayhem and death have not turned up elsewhere along with their passengers does not bother people like WTC Dust. They are too busy "analyzing" dust particles and video pixels to concern themselves with such base notions as empathy and reality.
 
chipmunk stew said:
To the conspiracy theorist, real tragedy and human suffering is an abstraction. The fact that the planes that were slammed into the Twin Towers that day in fiery balls of mayhem and death have not turned up elsewhere along with their passengers does not bother people like WTC Dust. They are too busy "analyzing" dust particles and video pixels to concern themselves with such base notions as empathy and reality.
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate the power of denial. I imagine for some there's a feeling of helplessness associated with knowing we're all vulnerable. No planes means no fear. The US is impervious to everything and anything but itself. Denial is well known coping mechanism.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Don't underestimate the power of denial. I imagine for some there's a feeling of helplessness associated with knowing we're all vulnerable. No planes means no fear. The US is impervious to everything and anything but itself. Denial is well known coping mechanism.
Click to expand...

Yes. If they obsess over insignificant details that seem to defy common sense expectations, they magnify and grow to significance in their minds, allowing them to imagine a version of events in which what actually happened couldn't possibly have happened.
 
Which came first, the collapse or the dust?

i.imgur.com/FzPYr.gif

The upper section moved a substantial distance before any dust was produced.

This post was brought to you by the chicken/egg society and the han shot first collective.

[edit: typo]
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom