WTC dust

[Jrrarglblarg]

I've seen these images, and have concluded that a better explanation is
a "fake plane" rather than a missile. But I could be convinced otherwise.
A real plane? Nope.

I was gonna skip it, but since this is your thread and you addressed it, here goes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

This video contains "all known footage of the second plane." If the plane was "fake" the following must be true:

a) every single one of these videos, taken at distances ranging from 1 block to 5 miles away from a multitude of angles and directions, would be fake, consistently, and with out any errors

and

b) not one single New Yorker shot independent footage out the window of their high-rise apartment.

The "nose" only looks like a nose for about 2 frames of video. Then it bursts into flames, suggesting it's composed of (among other things) fuel from the center tanks.

Placement of the "nose" matches the blackened "where's the hole" zone seen in pix taken after the fuel-air explosion on the exit side of the building and also matches the predicted trajectory of the fuel from the center tanks. It also reaches the exit side at the right time for the initial velocity of impact.

Not fake plane. Sorry.

 

[dafydd]

I was gonna skip it, but since this is your thread and you addressed it, here goes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

This video contains "all known footage of the second plane." If the plane was "fake" the following must be true:

a) every single one of these videos, taken at distances ranging from 1 block to 5 miles away from a multitude of angles and directions, would be fake, consistently, and with out any errors

and

b) not one single New Yorker shot independent footage out the window of their high-rise apartment.

The "nose" only looks like a nose for about 2 frames of video. Then it bursts into flames, suggesting it's composed of (among other things) fuel from the center tanks.

Placement of the "nose" matches the blackened "where's the hole" zone seen in pix taken after the fuel-air explosion on the exit side of the building and also matches the predicted trajectory of the fuel from the center tanks. It also reaches the exit side at the right time for the initial velocity of impact.

Not fake plane. Sorry.

Only fake scientists.

 

[Myriad]

I haven't actually sold any of it, yet, as you probably know. But I would be willing to overcome my natural disinclination to do this if it would serve a larger purpose. I need better equipment, after all, and rather than wait for an appropriate collaborator, I could just buy it myself with the proceeeds from the sale.

But an appropriate collaborator could also complicate things unintentionally. Be careful about ending up with a tragic yet hilarious "gift of the magi" scenario.

"Look honey, I sold my medical marijuana to buy you a mass spectrometer for your dust samples."

"But darling, I sold my dust samples to buy you a designer bong for your medical marijuana!"

So poignant, yet heartwarming...

 

[bill smith]

I was gonna skip it, but since this is your thread and you addressed it, here goes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

This video contains "all known footage of the second plane." If the plane was "fake" the following must be true:

a) every single one of these videos, taken at distances ranging from 1 block to 5 miles away from a multitude of angles and directions, would be fake, consistently, and with out any errors

and

b) not one single New Yorker shot independent footage out the window of their high-rise apartment.

The "nose" only looks like a nose for about 2 frames of video. Then it bursts into flames, suggesting it's composed of (among other things) fuel from the center tanks.

Placement of the "nose" matches the blackened "where's the hole" zone seen in pix taken after the fuel-air explosion on the exit side of the building and also matches the predicted trajectory of the fuel from the center tanks. It also reaches the exit side at the right time for the initial velocity of impact.

Not fake plane. Sorry.

I'm not so interested in the plane thing these days. After all it doesn't really matter what caused the damage. Still this video is curious. There no doubt that something flies out of the building at about 5 seconds and it looks like it's going far faster than the plane ever did or could. [It resembles a long thin projectile of some kind What caused that ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fae3DDYHiHA

 

[paperboy05]

I'm not so interested in the plane thing these days. After all it doesn't really matter what caused the damage. Still this video is curious. There no doubt that something flies out of the building at about 5 seconds and it looks likes it's going far faster than the plane ever did or could. [It resembles a long thin projectile of some kind What caused that ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fae3DDYHiHA

See:

My opinion on the passport

 

[bill smith]

See:

That's amazing. Who would have thought about the air in the plane being so powerful. And the vacuum behind the plane.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm not so interested in the plane thing these days. After all it doesn't really matter what caused the damage. Still this video is curious. There no doubt that something flies out of the building at about 5 seconds and it looks likes it's going far faster than the plane ever did or could. [It resembles a long thin projectile of some kind What caused that ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fae3DDYHiHA

I believe it's one of two things.

A) A "tire"

B) An "Engine"

or parts of the above.

 

[Dash80]

I'm not so interested in the plane thing these days. After all it doesn't really matter what caused the damage. Still this video is curious. There no doubt that something flies out of the building at about 5 seconds and it looks likes it's going far faster than the plane ever did or could. [It resembles a long thin projectile of some kind What caused that ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fae3DDYHiHA

Actally yes it DOES matter what caused the damage. It matters because people DIED on board the planes you show no interest in, you're a VicSimmer anyway so your attitude is no surprise.

 

[WTC Dust]

Uh YES Dusty there is!

1. Air Traffic Control lose radio contact and transponder signals from these aircraft.
2. Suspicious transmissions are heard from 2 of these aircraft, obviously not from their original pilots.
3. Betty Ong a flight attendant on American 11 calls the ground, her plane is hijacked. She reports 2 people stabbed and that the hijackers are in the cockpit. Part of Ong's call has been released.
4. Both Betty Ong and her fellow attendant Amy Sweeney report by airphone that flight 11 is flying low and erratic. Their calls end as the plane impacts the North Tower.
5. United 175 changes it's transponder code after losing radio contact, this makes it easier to track it. Calls were made from this flight also. Newark Tower witness the aircraft flying fast and low and see it crash in to the South Tower.
6. Flight 77 hijackers were also captured by CCTV cameras at Dulles airport.
7. Aircraft debris, body parts and DNA of both passengers and hijackers were found at the crash sites.
Plane debris was photographed, black boxes were recovered in Shanksville and the pentagon.
8. The hijackers martyrdom videos and Al Quada confessions.


These things are not hear-say, many are readily available on the net for you to see for yourself. Others are TESTIMONY and you dismissing them as stories means you're accusing people of lying.

Anything else I can help you with Tracy?

Anneliese.

Anneliese,

How many of these bits of evidence are verifiable?

Stories are stories. Audios are audios. You want to take issue
with the authenticity of the dust that I found, so I hope you
cast as critical eye on the authenticity of the items you mentioned.

I've examined those bits of evidence. They amount to a story.

There's nothing to verify. You just sorta have to believe the
tapes are authentic. Where are the video tapes of the
hijackers for flight 77? That's the only bit I haven't seen
already, and I'd like to see it.

Tracy

 

[WTC Dust]

I'd be willing to bet I've spent 100x more time in boats and in the water around boats than you have. Your understanding of wakes is nonsense.

In what specific way am I misunderstanding wakes, then? Do they come in front of the craft? No. Are they caused by the drag of the craft? Yes. Is there any evidence of a wake in the 9:03AM videos? No.

I just don't see what you might be talking about. What I'm claiming
about wakes is real.

 

[WTC Dust]

That you would be a scumbag if you considered selling WTC debris, and even worse if that debris is not verified to be related to the WTC in any way but you claim it is.

Scumbag? Would you like to explain why?

 

[WTC Dust]

I was gonna skip it, but since this is your thread and you addressed it, here goes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

This video contains "all known footage of the second plane." If the plane was "fake" the following must be true:

a) every single one of these videos, taken at distances ranging from 1 block to 5 miles away from a multitude of angles and directions, would be fake, consistently, and with out any errors

and

b) not one single New Yorker shot independent footage out the window of their high-rise apartment.

The "nose" only looks like a nose for about 2 frames of video. Then it bursts into flames, suggesting it's composed of (among other things) fuel from the center tanks.

Placement of the "nose" matches the blackened "where's the hole" zone seen in pix taken after the fuel-air explosion on the exit side of the building and also matches the predicted trajectory of the fuel from the center tanks. It also reaches the exit side at the right time for the initial velocity of impact.

Not fake plane. Sorry.

Oh, no no no no no you don't.

Do not confuse what I'm saying with anything related to fake video.

The videos, as far as I'm concerned, are 100% genuine unless specifically
proved otherwise, and none of the important videos have been proved
a fake to my satisfaction.

I think all the videos are real and not faked in any way. Same with the
still photographs.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I've seen these images, and have concluded that a better explanation is
a "fake plane" rather than a missile. But I could be convinced otherwise.
A real plane? Nope.

Oh, no no no no no you don't.

Do not confuse what I'm saying with anything related to fake video.

The videos, as far as I'm concerned, are 100% genuine unless specifically
proved otherwise, and none of the important videos have been proved
a fake to my satisfaction.

I think all the videos are real and not faked in any way. Same with the
still photographs.

Are there ANY honest truthers? Diogenes? Can I borrow your lamp?

 

[WTC Dust]

Actally yes it DOES matter what caused the damage. It matters because people DIED on board the planes you show no interest in, you're a VicSimmer anyway so your attitude is no surprise.

If there were rock solid evidence of hijackings, I'd change my mind.
If the videos showed bounce-back or evidence of a plane's wake, I'd
change my mind.

But I wouldn't change my mind about what caused the damage to the
WTC, even if you provided rock solid evidence of these things.

What is clear beyond any shadow of a doubt is that airplane crashes
did not destroy the World Trade Center.

If you convince me that planes were actually hijacked and flown into
the WTC, that still doesn't explain the damage to the buildings.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "I don't know why so many people talk about planes!"

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Oh, no no no no no you don't.

Do not confuse what I'm saying with anything related to fake video.

The videos, as far as I'm concerned, are 100% genuine unless specifically
proved otherwise, and none of the important videos have been proved
a fake to my satisfaction.

I think all the videos are real and not faked in any way. Same with the
still photographs.

Wow are you really this dense? He just explained how and why all the known video corresponds to physical evidence--of plane parts and how they ended up where they did.

You can't accept the video evidence and deny the physical evidence. Well, you can, but that would make you mad as a hatter.

Oh, wait....

 

[twinstead]

What exactly is a fake Plane in a real video, and how is it different than a real plane in a fake video?

 

[beren]

Dusty:
Just so we are clear: you didn't know of a single hardware store in New York, didn't know anyone who could tell you where one was, didn't have access to a phone book or the internet, had no friends who could lend you one, right?


Also, there was a cop on every corner in all of New York who would immediately stop you from climbing a ladder, right?

All this msut be true, because you never give up, right?

 

[DC]

If there were rock solid evidence of hijackings, I'd change my mind.
If the videos showed bounce-back or evidence of a plane's wake, I'd
change my mind.

But I wouldn't change my mind about what caused the damage to the
WTC, even if you provided rock solid evidence of these things.

What is clear beyond any shadow of a doubt is that airplane crashes
did not destroy the World Trade Center.

If you convince me that planes were actually hijacked and flown into
the WTC, that still doesn't explain the damage to the buildings.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "I don't know why so many people talk about planes!"

stop sniffing dust.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

No, it's the scientific "we". As in, now that I've made this discovery, "we all" know that foaming is the proper term for the process, as opposed to dustification, which was an invented word.

So if this happened in California would the proper term be "Califoamication"?

Not that I have a problem with that as my wife and I foamicate as often as we can. Although with three kids under the age of 10 it's quite difficult to find the time and privacy the foamicate every time the urge strikes us.

 

[dafydd]

So if this happened in California would the proper term be "Califoamication"?

Not that I have a problem with that as my wife and I foamicate as often as we can. Although with three kids under the age of 10 it's quite difficult to find the time and privacy the foamicate every time the urge strikes us.

With an energy beam weapon.