• 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.
Sabrina said:
Speaking from a tactical perspective, the notion that some entity (governmental or private) would possess such a weapon and would only use it once is sheer stupidity. You have a weapon capable of destroying 110 story buildings practically down to the ground; why only use it once?
Click to expand...

Actually it's been used many times. You can change the setting from "dustify 110-story building" to "lose car keys".
 
aggle-rithm said:
Actually it's been used many times. You can change the setting from "dustify 110-story building" to "lose car keys".
Click to expand...
Hell, they've been dustifying things for decades. What do you think happened to Amelia Earhart and Judge Crater?
 
WTC Dust said:
Is a big plane made up of any substantially different materials than a smaller plane? No.
Click to expand...

But an aluminum skiff can bump up to the dock and the Queen Mary can't. They're both made of metal, so there should be no difference, right? /Planet dust mode

Nothing about a plane crash is sufficient to cause the heavy, long term fuming that came from Ground Zero in the aftermath of 9/11.
Click to expand...

Bare assertion, zero math to support it. Fail

Airplane crashes cause fires that are containable, as is seen with the Bellaire Apartment example and which was also seen when an airplane crashed into the Empire State Building.
Click to expand...

You've left out the 220 stories of burning debris in the WTC collapse piles. Oops! Fail..


There is no published journal article that meaningfully describes the destruction of the World Trade Center, and only one book "Where Did the Towers Go?"
Click to expand...
Only if the word 'meaningfully' has been altered to mean 'whatever fits WTC Dust delusions'. Then, no, there is no book or article which 'meaningfully' describes the event.



I'm only studying 9/11 because nobody could explain to me what kind of "fire" burns for 100 days in Lower Manhattan.
Click to expand...
Wrong, both an illogical and dishonest statement. Well, a fraudulent statement, really (to add to all the other fraudulent statements you have made).
There are plenty of people who could explain it to you, that's not the problem. The problem is you're too delusional and warped to accept any rational, evidence-based explanation.

There is nothing rational about your inquiry, nor anything honest about it. Because your central 'claims' are blatantly fraudulent.
 
WTC Dust said:
Look at the evidence again. Much of the foam went up.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You have no evidence that any foam went up anywhere. Zero evidence in fact.

The only foam you found was deposited on the ground, meaning it went DOWN.

You are completely illogical. And you don't care, since it's all a joke to you apparently. However, it is you who are the joke.
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm an expert on what destroyed the World Trade Center
Click to expand...

Directly contradicted by your apparently inability to process information correctly if it has anything to do with 9/11. You're an expert at dissembling, for sure.

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.
Click to expand...

Done. Oh, but of course you're dishonest, so you're going to excuse yourself from allowing any real evidence. Just a hunch. Oh look! You've done it in the next paragraph. Could you be any more phony and insincere? I doubt it...:(




And the dodge (required to maintain the delusion)

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...

Wait a sec.... she admits she's not an expert on planes, so then why is she pretending to be an expert later, just here?

Oh, I know this one!! She's dishonest and duplicitous, that's why! That was easy...:D
 
chipmunk stew said:
This is a good sign. There were two likely outcomes of Dr. Wutzerface's performance here: She'd cling ever more tightly to her wackadoodle ideas by continuing to pursue creative defenses of them, or she'd skulk off either without a word or with a weak waving of the hands, which may signal a tacit acknowledgment of her ideas' wackadoodliness.

The latter outcome is far more likely to lead to her eventual coming to grips with the reality of what happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
 
What you're missing, I think, is what my role is shaping up to be in the 9/11 research thing. I haven't ever thought that I would be the person who discovered the weapon, found the evil-doers, put them on trial, etc.

What I do know is that the destruction of the World Trade Center is the key issue that needs to be addressed, and that I can recognize the correct answer to a question, once I've heard it. It takes much less technical training and knowledge to recognize the correct answer if someone else has made the discovery than it takes to make the discovery on your own.

You all haven't paid much attention to Judy Wood, except for possibly Bill, but even he didn't have the intellectual attitude that recognizes the correct answer. He hasn't cottoned on to the fact that it was a low heat process, despite me saying so and despite pointers to Judy's website. Therefore, in my opinion, he's not really searching for the correct answer. He's just diddling around, I guess.

Most of the rest of you thought you heard the right answer on the day of 9/11 itself, without a moment of effort or independent thought on your own part. Airplane crashes can't do that to buildings, people. No amount of calculation and mathematical modeling is going to make it so. So you all basically get on my nerves in a big way, but I'm still mostly polite.

Why you all believe the story you heard 10 years ago is a very long subject. What happens when stuff happens and the government doesn't explain it correctly? You just go, "OK. Whatever they say, it's true." Bollocks.



DGM said:
Yes there is.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical of their work. Is this "device" land based or space? Both create problems she has not addressed,
Click to expand...
 
This response means that you are planning not to follow this thread any more? (fingers crossed)

aggle-rithm said:
If you really believe that, then there is no sense having a rational discussion with you.

The same applies if you're just trolling.

Either way, good luck to you.
Click to expand...
 
Let's see the jpeg so I know exactly what objects you're talking about. Circle this debris. It must be coming from the supposed site of impact, and it must appear at the moment of impact. That's how physics works.

Craig4 said:
We see the planes penetrating the building. We watch it happen. Now that you know what happened you need to change your hypothesis. Also now that you know it happened further insistence that planes did not crash into the WTC are correctly identified as lies. You have been informed of your error and you knowingly present false information. This is the definition of a lie.

For the record we do see material flying away from the building at impact.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
What I do know is that the destruction of the World Trade Center is the key issue that needs to be addressed, and that I can recognize the correct answer to a question, once I've heard it.
Click to expand...

Is it like a "tingling sensation" or a "overwhelming sense of euphoria"?


You'll have to excuse me if I sound skeptical, I've never been a fan of intuition over expertise.

:rolleyes:
 
It's clear as a bell to me. What's missing in your understanding?

I seek an image with
1. debris that could be from a plane
2. bouncing backwards in the opposite direction of flight
3. at the site of impact on the south face of WTC
and
4. beginning at the moment of supposed impact.

If what you give me doesn't have all four qualities, it's not what I'm looking for. You won't have shown me debris bouncing back from a plane crashing into a building. You'll be showing me something else, and you won't have proved me wrong.


Alternatively, you could show me the same type of image with noticeable disturbance of the explosion coming from WTC 2 and the fume cloud coming from WTC 1 that would have resulted if a plane had crashed into WTC 2 at 9:03AM.

At least I'm giving you the answers. You not being able to find these images may not change your mind, but at least you'll know what to look for.

Craig4 said:
Everyone else is talking about the planes that crashed into the WTC. What you're talking about is not entirely clear.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom