WTC dust

[Dash80]

I would point out the obvious fact that this particular nuclear detonation is purported to have taken place deep under the foundations of the buildings. 77 feet under the base floor of the Towers in fact. This would not have anything like the impact a classical atmospheric detonation would have. Watch the videos on the previous page for all the detail you need..

However I am not in this thread to discuss Dmitri Khalezov's explanation in depth beyond where certain statements of his may align themselves with those of Professor Blevins,

So what are you in this thread for then? To troll me thinks.

*cough* An underground device powerful enough to completely destroy the towers would still throw out quite a lot of energy and radiation. It's likely that such a thing would obliterate the bathtub and flood the area.

 

[Dash80]

Yea, but it's nowhere near as laughable as a 'scientist' declaring the dust uncontaminated after EIGHT YEARS of sitting in an alley in NYC. I doubt anybody could be that stupid.

Unfortunately WTC Dust really is that stupid, that or just plain mental. Perhaps both.

 

[Kid Eager]

I would point out the obvious fact that this particular nuclear detonation is purported to have taken place deep under the foundations of the buildings. 77 feet under the base floor of the Towers in fact. This would not have anything like the impact a classical atmospheric detonation would visibly have on the city. Watch the videos on the previous page for all the detail you need..

However I am not in this thread to discuss Dmitri Khalezov's explanation in depth beyond where certain statements of his may align themselves with those of Professor Blevins,

Any alignment is of the same order of magnitude as two lines at 90 degrees to each other. This assertion is too stupid to even be considered a troll or a Poe.

Think about it for a second - a 150KT nuclear device detonated at 77 feet underneath a building acts, for all intents and purposes, like a surface blast. You would have seen a huge fireball. Earthquake sensors would have recorded it. The satellite-based nuclear detonation detectors would have detected it. New York would have detected it by virtue of being partly atomised.

 

[NoahFence]

I would point out the obvious fact that this particular nuclear detonation is purported to have taken place deep under the foundations of the buildings.

You mean in the subway?

 

[000063]

I would point out the obvious fact that this particular nuclear detonation is purported to have taken place deep under the foundations of the buildings. 77 feet under the base floor of the Towers in fact. This would not have anything like the impact a classical atmospheric detonation would visibly have on the city.

No radiation sickness, or symptoms consistent with it. Any sort of "mini-nuke" powerful enough to take down the towers would spread radiation everywhere. In fact, if it was somehow contained within the building, only to emerge and destroy the impact zone, that would disperse it in the air over Manhattan, exposing far more people than a detonation at ground level or below it.

 

[BStrong]

Pesky little things these Invisa-nukes right? I was right in lower manhattan on and after 9/11, I haven't grown any extra limbs and my daughter born two years later didn't come out mutilated. Wow those nukeless nukes are so kind to people!

(wipes up the sarcasm drips)

It was a patented Hush-a-Bomb.

 

[dafydd]

So what are you in this thread for then? To troll me thinks.

*cough* An underground device powerful enough to completely destroy the towers would still throw out quite a lot of energy and radiation. It's likely that such a thing would obliterate the bathtub and flood the area.

Perhaps you are not familiar with Bill,who is a troll who will say anything and give any insane theory credence just to get a reaction. Ignore.

 

[starri]

This kind of stuff doesn't happen when a plane crashes into a building and starts it on fire. That kind of thing happens all the time, and the building survives. They put the fire out, and the building survives. It doesn't go poof. Just research the Bellaire Apts in New York City for a similar plane-hits-building story, and see for yourself.

Dr. Blevins, if I'm not mistakened, I believe you were also asserting that when the B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945 that the people aboard the plane merely got off and went about their lives, despite the fact in reality, fourteen people (three on the B-25 and eleven in the building) were killed. Please understand why I find your understanding of the mechanics involved in a jumbo-jet crash into a super-block skyscraper a little less than compelling.

I asked you this once before, and I don't really expect you to answer me this time either, but for the sake of doing it: When you were awarded your Ph.D, I assume you presented your dissertation and had to defend it. So, if you were judging your own data in that kind of environment, do you think the person conducting the research had earned his/her doctorate?

 

[Scott Sommers]

No, her comparison is actually much more stupid than the 1945 Empire State Building crash. She's referring to the 2006 crash of a small plane into the Bellaire apartment complex.

On October 11, 2006, a four-seat, Cirrus Design SR-20 single-engine, fixed-wing aircraft owned by New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle[9] crashed into the apartment building, killing both occupants, Lidle and his flight instructor Tyler Stanger, and severely injuring one resident in the post impact fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_New_York_City_plane_crash

 

[sylvan8798]

Think about it for a second - a 150KT nuclear device detonated at 77 feet underneath a building acts, for all intents and purposes, like a surface blast. You would have seen a huge fireball. Earthquake sensors would have recorded it. The satellite-based nuclear detonation detectors would have detected it. New York would have detected it by virtue of being partly atomised.

And somehow these amazing devices were detonated in the BASEMENT, yet didn't actually do any damage until the pressure wave reached the floors where the plane damage was (which differed by some 150 feet between 1 and 2), whereupon they made it APPEAR as if the damage was being done by the fires by PULLING INWARD on the exterior columns. And then damaging the building downward through the same path by which they had just come UP. And no big blinding flashes of light.

 

[Dash80]

No, her comparison is actually much more stupid than the 1945 Empire State Building crash. She's referring to the 2006 crash of a small plane into the Bellaire apartment complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_New_York_City_plane_crash

That is a ridiculous comparison, like comparing a mountain with a mole hill.
If there's any kind of comparison this is it:

747 crash in Amsterdam

The El Al cargo jumbo crashed in to a high rise apartment complex, which partially collapsed in on itself as a result.

 

[WTC Dust]

Watch any video of the destruction of WTC 1 or WTC 2. The dust cloud (that I discovered to be a foam) goes up. Lots of it fall to the ground, but much of it goes up. Up into the sky, never to be sampled.

Foamed "up"?

Um, no. The dust cloud did not go "up".

WTC Dust, when you state the pile was, in your opinion, not big enough, please do the calculations that quantify how big it should have been, and how big it actually was. Hint, the LiDAR data that is publically available gives a good starting point for the actual height of the debris.

For all of the CTists who make similar claims, very few have any sort of grasp on just how little material there is in a steel-frame building, and just how compressible that material is.

 

[WTC Dust]

Even the official story of 9/11 says that the building didn't fall straight down. If it falls "outside the footprint" then it didn't fall straight down and did not pile up. My eyewitness testimony confirmed.

Yes, there were a few tall pieces sticking up from Ground Zero on Day 3, but they weren't where WTC 1 and WTC 2 used to be! You could see nothing in those areas above the fence, except heavy rising fumes.

Good catch. Dusty plays fast and loose (and is frequently grossly inaccurate) w/the facts.

 

[Craig4]

Watch any video of the destruction of WTC 1 or WTC 2. The dust cloud (that I discovered to be a foam) goes up. Lots of it fall to the ground, but much of it goes up. Up into the sky, never to be sampled.

How did you discover it to be a foam? Tell us and please show your work.

 

[WTC Dust]

I got the dust as soon as I found it, within minutes. It took me a long time to find dust that I could myself collect, but I saw it all around in the early days. It was just not on street level. They cleaned all that up really well. You could see it on second story ledges and above, though, but I couldn't think of how to reach it.

This is a question I would dearly like the answer to.

Doubt it will be forthcoming, mind you, but I'd sure like the answer to it.

 

[WTC Dust]

I really did find some WTC dust in a little nook in my apartment building.

Everyone has also forgotten that, in addition to being a acolyte of Dr. Judy Wood, Dusty is a no-planer. I posted several paragraphs explaining how easily an airframe could penetrate steel beams to which she replied "assumes a plane".

I believe that her cheese has slipped off of her cracker. Either that or she's giving us the best chain-yanking in the history of the forum.

 

[Craig4]

I got the dust as soon as I found it, within minutes. It took me a long time to find dust that I could myself collect, but I saw it all around in the early days. It was just not on street level. They cleaned all that up really well. You could see it on second story ledges and above, though, but I couldn't think of how to reach it.

The dust was all over New York and it took you a while to find some you could collect? Please.

 

[NoahFence]

She collected it after EIGHT YEARS from the side of the road in NYC.

Even the official story of 9/11 says that the building didn't fall straight down. If it falls "outside the footprint" then it didn't fall straight down and did not pile up.

Twoofer fight!!

 

[WTC Dust]

I don't discount your testimony, nor do I discount the testimony of other people who say they saw a plane with their own eyes and not on TV.

Fine. You saw what looked like a plane.

What I continue to say is that there is no evidence of a plane crash.
There's some good evidence that a plane was flying through the sky, including video evidence and personal testimony such as your own.

But...nothing crashed against WTC 2 at 9:03AM. Not a plane. Nothing. There was an explosion there, and what certainly looked like a plane flying nearby, but that object did not impact the building (otherwise there would have been some debris bouncing back at the site of impact at the moment of impact).

My conclusion is that it was a faked plane. But I'm willing to change my mind on this. I could be convinced, somehow, with better evidence than that which is already out there, that a plane was involved, but nothing about a plane crash can produce metallic foam.

My conclusion that an airplane crash didn't destroy the WTC? You'll have to show how a plane crash could produce the kinds of metallic foam that I found, and I don't see how you can.

WTC DUST: I was there that day, my sister's apartment was covered in dust. I remember the smells down there too, absolutely horrible. But what do you expect from a burning collapsed building full of office equipment and PEOPLE? Yes, the smell WAS strange but the cocktail of stuff involved isn't something anyone smells regularly, is it?

I see you're also a no-planer, ugh. You won't take on board anything I say but I'm saying it anyway.

I saw the second plane, with my own eyes. It's something that will stay with me forever, no photo or video can ever truely live up to seeing that thing with my own eyes. Even now I get panicky if a plane flies over pretty low (I live on flight path where they can get pretty low sometimes). The sight and sound of it will never leave me, or the smell of jet fuel and burning flesh. We SAW aircraft parts on the streets, and bits of what were once PEOPLE.

YOU come here and spew out crap at an alarming rate, but you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Really, you haven't. Yes I saw the buildings come down and that too is something I can recall like it was yesterday. They did not turn to dust, there were thousands of tons of steel slamming down, it literally shook the ground as it hit the floor.

 

[WTC Dust]

Judy Wood's "advanced science" is so advanced it doesn't even exist, except in theoretical terms.

Sabrina: How well do you know the work of Judy Wood? Do you have a passing familiarity with it, or do you know it inside and out? How much time have you spent studying Judy Wood? I'm guessing not much.