• 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.
Let me put it to you this way, Dusty:

What you are doing, is the equivalent of a creationist.

What you are doing, is the same as someone telling you that not only is evolution an obvious hoax, but people aren't comprised of cells, but rather plasma (the ionized gas kind).
 
WTC Dust said:
You can do all the internet research you want. I'll be mixing chemicals and taking measurements of the dust recovered from near Ground Zero.

People can say anything. It's easy to type words into a computer and make a website. Boring. Lies go all over the map. The truth is simple and beautiful, and I recognize it like a lover.
Click to expand...
May I remind you I saw the second plane hit the south tower, along with many others.
 
WTC Dust said:
Haven't you ever heard of the word "drag" in relation to planes and boats?

What do you think that is? Drag. It's the force pushing backwards on the airplane from the air, but it's also the force of the plane on the air.

Air exerts a drag on an airplane, but in an opposite and equal way, airplanes exert a drag force on the air.

Why is it harder to fly an airplane at ground level? Because the air is thicker there, and the engines have to work harder to push the airplane through the air. But that pushing of air has an effect on the air. It's force in the direction of flight of the plane. A plane crash wouldn't stop the wake from moving forward.

Think of a boat crashing against a dock. The water also slaps up against the dock, which means that the water was moving in the direction of the boat. The wake is being dragged behind the boat, just like the air is being dragged behind the airplane.

Any pilots around want to speak up?
Click to expand...

I am only one of a number of pilots on this board, but I’ll bet there are a number of them that feel the same way I do…you had better stick with biology.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
Not really, because if an airplane hit a single beam it would have shown deceleration.

No plane could have pierced through even one single steel beam of that size.

It might bend it if it rammed into it, but not pierce straight through it.
Click to expand...

The use of the word "deceleration" exposes you as a layman. In physics, any change in velocity is called "acceleration". Where there is acceleration involving massive objects, there is force. In this case, a LOT of force, enough to sever steel beams.

You're clearly out of your league here.
 
WTC Dust said:
Hey Edx,


The solution to the lack of plane debris or a wake at the supposed site of impact is a fake plane. The explosions are real. The damage to the building is real. The deaths were real. But the plane was fake. I
Click to expand...


No plane debris.......right.....only to to the willfully ignorant and terminally stupid





Note St. Nicholas Church still standing in the background....which means the photo was taken before the collapse :rolleyes:
 
Animal said:
No plane debris.......right.....only to to the willfully ignorant and terminally stupid


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_481644e2ccb7d3c0cf.jpg[/qimg]


Note St. Nicholas Church still standing in the background....which means the photo was taken before the collapse :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And that is, quite fantastically, a chunk of the SOUTH wall of WTC 1 with the plane tire embedded in it, showing the tremendous force of the impact. I would like WTC Dust to explain exactly what she thinks this is a photo of and how she thinks it got there.
 
sylvan8798 said:
And that is, quite fantastically, a chunk of the SOUTH wall of WTC 1 with the plane tire embedded in it, showing the tremendous force of the impact. I would like WTC Dust to explain exactly what she thinks this is a photo of and how she thinks it got there.
Click to expand...

Honestly, who really cares what she thinks? She's so far off the mark that one cannot have an intelligent discussion about it with her.
 
DGM said:
You might want to watch this. Not a lot of "dragging along" going on.
Click to expand...

Because a youtube video of something only marginally related to the argument is a surefire way to convince a Truther of the error of their ways...you have to talk to them in a language they understand, I guess.

aggle-rithm said:
The use of the word "deceleration" exposes you as a layman. In physics, any change in velocity is called "acceleration". Where there is acceleration involving massive objects, there is force. In this case, a LOT of force, enough to sever steel beams.

You're clearly out of your league here.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, etymologists chortle at physicists:
acceleration: 1530s, from L. accelerationem (nom. acceleratio) "a hastening," noun of action from pp. stem of accelerare (see accelerate).
 
alienentity said:
That plane is obviously fake. I know this because I have training in an unrelated field, making me uniquely qualified.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am mor qualifized cause i ahz no tranning whatzorvr so data enerz my mind derecly witout any ho falutn thoughts inerfenz.
 
jiggeryqua said:
Because a youtube video of something only marginally related to the argument is a surefire way to convince a Truther of the error of their ways...you have to talk to them in a language they understand, I guess.



Meanwhile, etymologists chortle at physicists:
acceleration: 1530s, from L. accelerationem (nom. acceleratio) "a hastening," noun of action from pp. stem of accelerare (see accelerate).
Click to expand...

Can you show us an example of a column of air being dragged behind an aircraft? Oh and while you're chorteling,
http://physics.info/acceleration/

Anything else you are concerned about?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/iphone/#define?term=concern troll
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom