WTC dust

[WTC Dust]

You got any good evidence that hijackings took place on 9/11?

 

[WTC Dust]

Are you trained in research science?

I am.

I am not a plane expert, but that's fine. I'm not the one who is saying a couple plane crashes destroyed the entire WTC ++. You are.

I have studied the mechanism of destruction of the WTC for these many years. My results do not involve any sort of airplane or any object physcially impacting the WTC.

Her Phd is in biology apparently, this clearly makes her think she's an expert on everything. I trained as a flight attendant and also worked on airline check in desks, I guess by Dusty's logic that makes me qualified to fly too.

 

[dtugg]

You got any good evidence that hijackings took place on 9/11?

Of course. For starters, people on those doomed flights called loved ones and reported what was happening.

Sure, you can always claim those people are liars. But no rational person will take you seriously. Kinda like it is now.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Those are stories.

Ignoring the fact that there are audio recordings, tell us what compels the surviving family members to tell "those stories" if they didn't in fact lose their loved ones to a plane hijacking.

...the physical evidence I have that proves planes didn't destroy the WTC?

Nobody in the world anywhere ever has made the claim: 'planes destroyed the WTC'. Stick that straw man in your bong and smoke it once and for all. Stop being deliberately dense. If you can.

 

[WTC Dust]

So why don't you discuss this phenomenon appropriately using the word "drag" to explain the physcial movement of both the air and the airplane? What do you think "drag" means? If air exterts a drag on the airplane, doesn't the airplane exert the precisely same force on the air? Y'all are just wrong on this.

A huge column of air follows an airplane. It's caused by the drag force. You should see this column of airplane in the fume clouds coming from WTC 1 and WTC 2, but you don't....another of many disproofs of hijackings on 9/11.

Airplanes don't drag columns of air around behind them, and neither do boats. And yes, air is different from water, as well.

ETA: Repeating this from previous post:
A wake is a series of waves set up in the water by the passing boat. They are not "dragged" by the boat. There is no indication that the waves from the plane's wake should do anything noticeable to the building or to the smoke from the other fire or the explosion. You have no data on how large the wake should be or how long it's effects would last once the plane crashed and stopped moving.

 

[dtugg]

Are you trained in research science?

I am.

I am not a plane expert, but that's fine. I'm not the one who is saying a couple plane crashes destroyed the entire WTC ++. You are.

I have studied the mechanism of destruction of the WTC for these many years. My results do not involve any sort of airplane or any object physcially impacting the WTC.

You've wasted years of your life. Nobody cares about your PhD in a totally unrelated field. It is a fact the WTC was destroyed because some evil nutjobs flew a plane into each tower.

 

[WTC Dust]

September Clues is crap. You never heard me advocating this video, because I won't. For one thing, this video calls all the eyewitnesses liars and anyone who sumitted photographic evidence as complicit with the terrorists.

The video showing the nose-out was broadcast. This isn't in question.
THE ANALYSIS is in question. I say it's further evidence of a projected image of an airplane. You, presumably, say "Nothing to see here. Move along."

I choose not to.

Do you like being laughed at or something? Trust me we are laughing at you, every post you make is just jaw-droppingly ridiculous!
I saw and heard a real plane, "holograms" or whatever you're implying make jet engine sounds do they? I know a plane when I see one, I used to work for British Airways. As for the nose out thing... quit watching September Clues, it's bullcrap. It's a cloud of dust and debris ejecting from the building, it changes shape and gets larger, you can even see flaming debris trailing smoke.

You are ignorant and disrespectful, people died on those planes and you treat it all like one big joke. Where were you on September 11 anyway? What was your initial reaction? I'll tell you mine Dusty... I was freakin' SCARED and crying, after I saw the plane hit. For weeks all I could think about were the people on those planes, how frightened they must have been. I had nightmares about being on that second plane and seeing the burning north tower from the windows as we flew towards it, the horror of what was about to happen.

 

[WTC Dust]

I would have given a reasoned response had your message included anything of value.

I was being very polite, you on the other hand have proclaimed yourself a serious researcher and rudely proclaimed everyone else to not be serious.

I was very serious in that I wasnt to see your reasoning, not just empty claims. I asked you a few pretty simple questions and you answered none. You claim you're not here to convince anyone yet if what you claimed was true would that not be the purpose and goal of your research?

To convince others that the US government lied?

Again, how is it that you can reach a conclusion stating no planes hit the towers based on video we've all seen but can't answer how the frame rates and resolution would affect your ability to see and confirm plane pieces bouncing off the buildings at impact?

And what artifacts in your bullet videos translate into confimation of your claim that "no wake=no impact"? If there's no wake in the bullet impact videos should we conclude those were faked too? As a scientist can you not identify fallicious reasoning led by conclusion rather than evidence?

What's sad is there's poor mis-informed kids running around making fools of themselves based on the kind of crap the scholars (and I use that term loosely) in the 911 truth movement spoon feed them and none of you even care enough to tell the truth.

 

[WTC Dust]

I'm not the one bringing up airplanes. You people are.

My main research that involves the physical remains of the WTC.
When the correct story of 9/11 is told, it will not include planes (except as a part of the cover story).

I'd be happy to never speak of planes again, but 19 Arab-conspiracists usually bring it up.

Gee, Dusty ignored this post. What a shock.

Y'all are posting in a No Planer troll thread.

/Somebody kindly PM me if the troll emerges from the smoke den to address this.

 

[dtugg]

I'm not the one bringing up airplanes. You people are.

My main research that involves the physical remains of the WTC.
When the correct story of 9/11 is told, it will not include planes (except as a part of the cover story).

I'd be happy to never speak of planes again, but 19 Arab-conspiracists usually bring it up.

It is a fact that the WTC was destroyed because some Arab psychos flew planes into it. You are wrong.

 

[dafydd]

I'm not the one bringing up airplanes. You people are.

My main research that involves the physical remains of the WTC.
When the correct story of 9/11 is told, it will not include planes (except as a part of the cover story).

I'd be happy to never speak of planes again, but 19 Arab-conspiracists usually bring it up.

We are not 'bringing up' airplanes as if they had never figured before,we talking about reality. You have an insane fantasy.

 

[Dash80]

September Clues is crap. You never heard me advocating this video, because I won't. For one thing, this video calls all the eyewitnesses liars and anyone who sumitted photographic evidence as complicit with the terrorists.

The video showing the nose-out was broadcast. This isn't in question.
THE ANALYSIS is in question. I say it's further evidence of a projected image of an airplane. You, presumably, say "Nothing to see here. Move along."

I choose not to.

You are just as bad as the september clues kooks. You imply that lots of people are liars too, the same people and organizations I mentioned before.

The nose-out footage IS in question, because it's not the freakin' nose! Or some "projected" nose either.

Don't presume to know what I'd say, you forget I saw that plane HIT the building, a real plane screaming across the sky and visibly and audibly crashing into it. You say I did not, so what is that if it's not accusing me of lying?

 

[dtugg]

I also saw the plane fly into the WTC. In real life. It was probably just some super amazing projected hologram. Yeah, that is the most likely answer.

 

[Kid Eager]

I'm not the one bringing up airplanes. You people are.

My main research that involves the physical remains of the WTC.
When the correct story of 9/11 is told, it will not include planes (except as a part of the cover story).

I'd be happy to never speak of planes again, but 19 Arab-conspiracists usually bring it up.

Well how about you speak of something that you do have? Your entire story in this thread has been evidence-free so far.

I'll check in again in a week to see if there's been anything substantive presented. Meanwhile you're back on ignore.

 

[Dash80]

Are you trained in research science?

I am.

I am not a plane expert, but that's fine. I'm not the one who is saying a couple plane crashes destroyed the entire WTC ++. You are.

I have studied the mechanism of destruction of the WTC for these many years. My results do not involve any sort of airplane or any object physcially impacting the WTC.

I'm saying planes hit the towers because THEY DID! I didn't see the first crash but I heard the boom and I saw aircraft parts, I saw the second one hit.

You are a no-planer and a poor researcher, you simply ignore evidence because it doesn't fit your nutty theory. To be honest I don't understand why it's so important to you that planes did not crash, wouldn't it make more sense for these weapons of yours to be used in tandem with plane crashes? Tell me, was it your "dust research" that came first or your ridiculous assertion of no planes?

 

[bill smith]

If the no-planes argument is rejected and we know that the nose-out footage is the real thing (as I certainly do because I saw that footage myself on 9/11) Then we have to assume that a real aluminium plane destroyed the massive steel barrier that was the wall of the WTC. That or the columns were doctored.

 

[chipmunk stew]

You got any good evidence that hijackings took place on 9/11?

Yes.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

we have to assume that a real aluminium plane destroyed the massive steel battier that was the wall of the WTC. That or the columns were doctored.

The columns were doctored...if you call bolting them together doctoring them.

 

[TheRedWorm]

This means that you're not aware of the science I've been conducting.

It's as bad as, if not worse than the 'science' creationists are 'conducting'. Seriously, You probably can't see this because the subject is way too close and way to personal to you, but just step back. Really think about the analogy that I used. I chose it for a very specific reason, can you think of why?

 

[dtugg]

It's as bad as, if not worse than the 'science' creationists are 'conducting'. Seriously, You probably can't see this because the subject is way too close and way to personal to you, but just step back. Really think about the analogy that I used. I chose it for a very specific reason, can you think of why?

At least they do not excuse mass murderers. Nevermind, this god they worship, if it existed would be the most evil being in the history of the universe.