• 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.
I can't tell. Do you like me, or do you not like me? Because you want me to change so many things about myself, and I'm not sure if you've got my best interests in mind.

brazenlilraisin said:
Because Dr. Dusty was in the unique position of residing in Manhattan (haw haw) she made the unique discovery that the twin towers became metallic foam. Shouldn't she change her handle to WTC Foam?

Maybe not, because ISTR that a lot of people who couldn't get out of the way of the collapse cloud in time were covered in dust--not foam.

I do think she should change her sig line though. The towers turning to dust in midair doesn't explain the destruction of the surrounding buildings very well....
Click to expand...
 
Heck no. But the type of damage done would be the same. The amount would differ. Why would you suggest an exact match with different parameters?

NoahFence said:
So you think a Cessna travelling at full speed would cause EXACTLY the same amount of damage as a 757 travelling at its full speed?
Click to expand...
 
I think I can see where you're going on this one.

Craig4 said:
Have you seen a mental health professional qualified to diagnosis mental illness and been told you do not have symptoms for any condition associated with delusions? If so what were the diagnostic tools used?
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm an expert on what destroyed the World Trade Center, and since it wasn't planes, I can't claim to be an expert on planes, although I certainly am compared to you and most!

Planes did not destroy the WTC. Something else did. I'm working on that something else. The only reason I ever talk about planes is because other people bring it up. They are laboring under false information, not me, and it's rather tedious to have this constantly brought up.

You don't need to tell me the official story of 9/11. I've already heard it. You don't need to tell me that an object that appeared to be a plane was in the sky on 9/11, because all evidence points in this direction.

You can't tell me there was a plane crash at the south face of WTC 2 on 9:03AM. Unless you can. If you can, then things will be easy. Show me a video of 9:03AM that shows evidence of a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2, and I will change my story. What needs to be in evidence is debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2 (because while some parts of a plane would continue on into the building, surely at least some parts of the plane would bounce off the south face (the site of impact)), and also evidence of the wake that follows every airplane. You know, that big column of air that follows an airplane in flight? This wake would have slammed up against both WTC 1 and WTC 2 and caused a dramatic mixing of the explosions and fumes.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdSheSsNays&feature=related
Done and done. You're a liar. Your claims are lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjQ8LXayc1w

Watch the second video with the sound on. Listen to the anguish. This is what you're making a stupid game out of. You aren't an expert and I don't care that you find getting told the truth tedious. Find the woman screaming in the video and tell here she didn't see a plane. Despicable. Disgusting.
 
WTC Dust said:
Heck no. But the type of damage done would be the same. The amount would differ. Why would you suggest an exact match with different parameters?
Click to expand...

YOU said they'd be the same, sister. Not me.


get a new hobby. Seriously. One of these days you're gonna piss off the wrong person. I wouldn't want to be there when that happens.

People died. REAL people. On REAL airplanes and in REAL buildings. This fantasy of yours does nothing but piss on their graves. I got a funny feeling when you finally kick the bucket, you're going south, kiddo.

STOP IT.
 
You added the word "intact" not me.

At the site of every plane crash, there is a plane found.

A complimentary rule is that if you don't find a plane at the site,
there was no plane crash.

To put it into an equation:

plane crash = plane



You could say, "But what if the plane crashed into the water, and they couldn't find it?" and I'd say they better dredge that water and find the plane, because it will be there somewhere.

A plane doesn't crash into the ground and then go bye-bye. The tail section usually survives without much damage. But you have all kinds of small items inside the plane like luggage and things that would not be obliterated into shreds if a plane merely crashed into the ground.

Mainly, you'd find the pieces of a plane if there were a plane crash.

plane crash = plane (in all cases)

You do the math.



aggle-rithm said:
Crashed planes are reconstructed to determine why they crashed. That's because, in most cases, when a plane crashes there aren't hundreds or thousands of people watching it happen.



An INTACT plane? Really?

Can you provide an example of a plane crash that left an intact plane behind?
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm an expert on what destroyed the World Trade Center, and since it wasn't planes, I can't claim to be an expert on planes, although I certainly am compared to you and most!

Planes did not destroy the WTC. Something else did. I'm working on that something else. The only reason I ever talk about planes is because other people bring it up. They are laboring under false information, not me, and it's rather tedious to have this constantly brought up.

You don't need to tell me the official story of 9/11. I've already heard it. You don't need to tell me that an object that appeared to be a plane was in the sky on 9/11, because all evidence points in this direction.

You can't tell me there was a plane crash at the south face of WTC 2 on 9:03AM. Unless you can. If you can, then things will be easy. Show me a video of 9:03AM that shows evidence of a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2, and I will change my story. What needs to be in evidence is debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2 (because while some parts of a plane would continue on into the building, surely at least some parts of the plane would bounce off the south face (the site of impact)), and also evidence of the wake that follows every airplane. You know, that big column of air that follows an airplane in flight? This wake would have slammed up against both WTC 1 and WTC 2 and caused a dramatic mixing of the explosions and fumes.
Click to expand...
nm, Craig got it.

Eta, you do realise that in almost every other crash the pilots were trying not to crash right?
 
Last edited:
The tail section usually survives without much damage
Click to expand...

Usually? So, not always?

But you have all kinds of small items inside the plane like luggage and things that would not be obliterated into shreds if a plane merely crashed into the ground.
Click to expand...

So none of those smaller items were found? None? You're 100% Sure about that - in all 4 cases - nothing?
 
Oh, poo. Do you really think I'm desecrating the names of the victims?

I think I'm helping the survivors. They breathed in a lot of the dust, and
up until now, this dust has been mischaracterized.

I think they deserve at least one person "on the case".
And I suffered, too. Don't forget I am a person, too.

You're convinced of the official story, fine, but what I also think you are convinced about is that anyone who would dare to question the story is morally bankrupt in some way, and I assure you that I'm not.

I'm a pink-haired biology researcher who got caught up in 9/11.
It was an accident. I smelled and saw and tasted the damaged World Trade Center, and I knew right away that what I was observing was not an ordinary fire. It had an almost unbelievable smell and character to it. Nobody was explaining this properly, so I had to continue to search.

You don't read me posting in other conspiracy threads because I'm not a conspiracy theorist. You must note that I haven't revealed to you who I think did the deed. I'm only talking about what was done.

The buildings were turned into a rather dusty foam. Parts of the buildings remained behind, strangely damaged.


Craig4 said:
I'd rather take all the skin off my left leg with a dull potato peeler.
Click to expand...
 
An impact involves bounce-back. No bounce-back? No impact.
Click to expand...

It would appear not.

What if I'm driving an 18 wheeler at 70mph, and I impact a roll of paper towels. You think you're gonna get bouce-back from that?

A plane drags a huge wake behind it. No evidence of a wake?
No plane.
Click to expand...

Oh, there was a wake alright. If you were behind that plane you'd be thrown for a loop. Who knows, maybe you were. That would explain quite a bit.

If you're looking for a contrail, you'll need more moisture in the air to make it visible, and it would have to be a bit colder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom