Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Jack by the hedge]

My theory is about steel turned into foam. What does thermodynamics say about steel turned into foam?

Steel does not turn into foam.
Thermodynamics maintains a dignified silence.

 

[Gamolon]

The phony, unauthenticated claim that toasted cars were towed to FDR drive is just that: a phony, unauthenticated claim. Certainly, neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission made the claim; but, then again, neither of them investigated the destruction of the WTC complex.

Hey jammonius. Have you read Judy's website? Have you read her list of 41 pieces of principle data that she thinks must be explained?

How about number 27 below.

27. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.

She admits that she knows that 1400 motor vehicles were towed away yet thinks that the vehicles on FDR were toasted in place.



What a complete joke. What's even worse is that you defend her.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I'm trying to figure out why you think thunder is evidence of an electromagnetic field extending from the eye of hurricane erin to NYC.

Because thunder = lightning, and lightning is electromagnetic, DUH.

 

[beachnut]

No clouds on 911. Oops, your dust and foam fantasy now spawns weather fantasy.



Silly theory? Steel turning to dust is not only silly, it is insane. Then steel turns to foam, not only silly but delusional, super insane.
Sonic booms can sound like thunder, and I have heard sonic boom trails that sound like thunder.

Post the reports of thunder, times and observation please. Source your junk. I know there were sonic booms on 911, why are you in the dark? Lack of knowledge? Poor research?

Sonic booms? Do the airports normally report sonic booms as thunder? Silly theory.

 

[Stellafane]

Sonic booms? Do the airports normally report sonic booms as thunder? Silly theory.

Hi WTC Dust. Do you have any views as to why neither Dr. Wood nor anyone else has presented any evidence at all that a spaced-based DEW weapon actually exists, even though it should be readily observable from the ground by everyone in the world?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How do you not understand what I said? It was very simple, especially given the direct quotes I included. I did not deny any weather reports, although I was here on 9/11 and there were no thunderstorms, so I'm curious what reports you're referring to.

Again:

Thunder at each of the NYC airports indicates that the field extended at least that far from the eye of Hurricane Erin.

I'm trying to figure out why you think thunder is evidence of an electromagnetic field extending from the eye of hurricane erin to NYC.

Just as long as you're not specifically denying reports of thunder at all 3 NYC airports, and as long as you're not specifically denying that Hurricane Erin was off the coast of Long Island on 9/11, we're good on these points.

Just... wow. It can't be anymore obvious that you're avoiding the "electromagnetic field" issue.

Also, what reports? No one can really deny something that hasn't been shown to exist; at this point, I'd call it skepticism.

 

[Resume]

Silly theory.

Hmmm.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No I do not. Even your NIST project defines the interval of destruction -- that they did not otherwise investigate -- as being a matter of seconds, as was seen, not minutes.

My NIST project? Nothing whatever to do with me, I assure you.

OK. As you claimed the common story is that gravity and kerosene destroyed the towers in 10 seconds, perhaps you can show me where it's stated that the kerosene was applied to the towers 10 seconds before their destruction.

 

[Gamolon]

True, but even if I'm wrong about the planes, I'm not wrong about the WTC dust. Plane crashes don't produce it.

So you believe that there were plane impacts now?

I thought it was foam, not dust.

 

[DGM]

Hi WTC Dust. Do you have any views as to why neither Dr. Wood nor anyone else has presented any evidence at all that a spaced-based DEW weapon actually exists, even though it should be readily observable from the ground by everyone in the world?

How do you know it would be "observable"? Have you ever seen a "super secret dustification/rustification" weapon in space before?

 

[WTC Dust]

Looks out window at planes in the descent path for O'Hare. I've never seen any wake turbulence, and a huge 747 just went by a minute ago. (Those things are pretty damn cool).

Say, how is the new job, Dusty?

The big difference is that supposedly an aircraft flew very near WTC 1 as it was emitting a huge amount of ... stuff ... into the air. That stuff wasn't disturbed or whipped around like you'd expect if a huge column of air came by.

 

[WTC Dust]

I have an idea what you are thinking of.

Sorry, but it would not be visible in warm, dry air at that altitude, nor does it continue to advance once the aircraft has stopped. Thus, it would not have blown any of the fuel vapors around after impact with the building.

You're joking, right? If an airplane stopped at the south face of WTC 2, you're saying the wake would have stopped at the south face of WTC 2? lol

 

[phunk]

Just as long as you're not specifically denying reports of thunder at all 3 NYC airports, and as long as you're not specifically denying that Hurricane Erin was off the coast of Long Island on 9/11, we're good on these points.

What time was the thunder reported? You don't know do you? You're just parroting something you read on Judy's website, aren't you?

If there were any thunderstorms on 9/11, they were early morning long before the attack. I thought you were living here at the time?

And yes, I'm denying that the hurricane was "off the coast of long island", unless "off the coast" means "most of the atlantic". The eye was over 500 miles from the eastern tip of long island.

 

[WTC Dust]

Actual answer:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_91934f8f6da5caea9.jpg[/qimg]
This is Figure 7-9 in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. Sourcing is given in the report.

The lighter vertical feature at left of WTC 2 is a vortex core, made visible by entrainment of dust, debris, smoke, and atomized fuel thrown off at impact. This vortex core is a result of the aircraft wake -- indeed, there is no other plausible source for this artifact.

Having said that, the photography of the WTC 2 impact is much less clear than it was for the first, WTC 1 impact. This is because WTC 1 was already burning and creating a very complicated flow pattern due to its thermal plume. By contrast, the first impact happened in relatively stable and calm air, and for it we have extremely good photographs of the resulting vortex:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_91934f8f6e694f35d.jpg[/qimg]
Figure 6-2 from NIST NCSTAR1-5A

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_91934f8f6e88a27c2.jpg[/qimg]
Figure 6-3 from NIST NCSTAR1-5A

I imagine that everyone is looking for something that looks like a "wingtip vortex." This is a mistake -- you're not going to find that. The wingtip vortices are in fact a rather minor part of the aircraft wake. The only reason they're familiar to us is because under normal conditions, they're more likely to become visible. The wingtip vortices are much more organized and predictable than the entire wake. But they're small by comparison.

What exactly is the "wake?" The wake is the flow disturbance behind a moving body, and that goes whether the body has wings or not. Think of a large bus barreling past you: You'll feel a gust of turbulent wind as it passes, even though there are no wings and thus no wingtip vortices. This wake is simply a region of entrained air, a mixture of air accelerated along by the body and the complex mixture of vortices shed off of the body, of which the wingtip vortices are only a part.

For an aircraft, the wingtip vortices are also relatively weaker as the aircraft goes faster. This is because these vortices are directly related to circulation around the wings -- in other words, lift -- and lift remains roughly constant with speed, since the weight of the aircraft isn't changing. The rest of the wake, on the other hand, corresponds to drag. Drag does change as the aircraft speeds up, it in fact scales as the velocity squared. On top of this, the wingtip vortices appear weaker at higher speed because, as speed increases, the total circulation stays the same, but it's spread out over a longer distance per unit time.

Since both of the crashing aircraft were moving rather quickly, we therefore do not expect the wingtip vortices to be much of a factor. The overall wake will be dominated by the entrained air.

Now, what about those shapes? Especially in Figure 6-3 above, what we see is a vertical vortex core (actually a pair of them). How does this happen?

Well, this arises because the entrained air is smacking into the building, just like the airplane did. But unlike the airplane, this air is relatively inviscid and carries less inertia. Instead of punching into the building, the wake instead flows around the sides of the building. It can't flow below it because the ground is there, and it mostly won't flow over the top because the buildings are much higher than the impact. So we see the wake split into two turbulent jets, each turning around the sides of the structure.

When they do this, they acquire vorticity. Now, vorticity is conserved just like any other angular momentum, so as the wake sheds from the building, it is rotating in large scale. This generates a so-called "vortex core," just like a dust devil. The rotation also serves to contain the dust and smoke that got mixed in at impact, so as the vortex core moves away from the structure into clean air, we can still see it for a little while.

The vortex core also tends to stretch vertically, and gets thinner as it does so. This is because the vortex will have some vertical velocity dispersion and will ingest more surrounding air, not to mention having now falling objects within it entraining some air downward, and fire nearby causing an updraft. But remember that the total vorticity is conserved, thus as it grows, it slows. This is achieved by a smaller diameter of the core.

All the while, the vortex core will be losing some of its rotation by creating eddies in the surrounding air, and eventually it will no longer be stable, dissipating into pure turbulence. But we can see it for several seconds after impact, as the photographs demonstrate.

There is no mechanism, other than entrainment by a fast-moving object, for these wakes to form. Not unless there was a ten-story Airzooka on the WFC that we all missed.

---

This is an extremely minor footnote and of no practical value in understanding September 11th, but since every single person in the thread got it wrong, I figured it was worth an explanation. Airzooka, incidentally, generates a ring vortex, which is not the same kind as the ones in the photographs.

Well, just to make it clear, the official hijack conspiracy theory DOES say that a fast-moving object (an airplane) was in the area.

 

[WTC Dust]

What was wrong?. The wake turbulence is due to lift, it would stop at impact. The path of wake turbulence would descend as stated. The wake turbulence would be affected by wind. There is still wake turbulence at high speed and it causes problems.

Pilots would be more worried about wake, the disturbed air a plane leaves is not much fun; the engine core exhaust is not nice either when it comes to things that you hit that are air.

Who knows what she is talking about, or why?

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/med...ms/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-OPS_ENV-SEQ07.pdf

OMG I really laughed out loud at this one. I actually cackled. Whew! The wake stops at impact. Heeeheheee!

 

[Gamolon]

That image is pretty good evidence that a car crash took place on that spot. UNLIKE Shanksville, where there was no good evidence of this type.

It's pretty good evidence that she doesn't have a grasp on reality to suggest that the car in that photo was lifted above the tree and then skewered by it due to "mysterious" forces.

It's all in the name of creating an air of "intrigue and mystery" so that she can apply her own "mystical and fantastical" theory that supposedly explain these strange happenings/occurrences. While all the while ignoring more reasonable and rational explanations.

I mean look at her website.

1. Holy crap!!!! A car that was lifted up in the air and then skewered. There isn't even a mark on the tree above the vehicle!!!!! That's weird!!!!

Rational explanation: It looks like the car was slammed into the tree from the side.

2. Holy crap!!!! That car was levitated and gently placed on the fence as not to damage it.

Rational explanation: The car floated there (evidenced by the flood lines on the garage behind it)

The more she makes things look impossible and mysterious, the more her outrageous theory can be used to explain them.

 

[DGM]

Well, just to make it clear, the official hijack conspiracy theory DOES say that a fast-moving object (an airplane) was in the area.

And they hit the towers. You're catching on. Yes the wake would stop a the tower face, it has to, the plane is no longer there to create it(no, it won't be "dragged along").



(O/T How the new job going?)

 

[WTC Dust]

Your query does has not been answered thus far, WTC Dust.

Some posters have relied on segment 1-5A of Ncstar1. However, the word "vortex" appears 8 times in that 392pg. Ncstar segment. Not one of those references refers to WTC2; instead, all refer to NIST assertions concerning the fireball and explosion at WTC1.

You have plainly asked for visual evidence of wake vortex at WTC2 that should have affected the column of light to medium gray smoke emanting from WTC1 at all relevant times, at and prior to 9:03am. What you appear to be questioning is the lack of visual vortex disturbance of that smoke column when the second explosion occured. Is that correct?

If so, your query has not been answered.

Reliance upon Ncstar 1-5A as a source is unpersuasive. NIST, itself, made no such finding or claim. It is odd, therefore, that some posters have lifted photos from that source, without acknowledgment that their claims are unsupported and are no more than speculation that presumes as factual the claim a jetliner was involved at WTC2 without proof and without reliable data, visual or otherwise of a vortex.

Thank you for raising an interesting issue.

Thank you for politely considering it and also reviewing the posted photographs. I continue to search for clear and obvious visual evidence of a wake at 9:03AM. Visible disturbance of the .... stuff .... being emitted from WTC 1 at that moment would be acceptable. Visible disturbance of the explosion that was emitted from WTC 2 as it grew out from the building would also be acceptable.

Air is normally invisible, but it wasn't invisible near the tops of the WTC. It was full of particles.

 

[Gamolon]

What field?

Exactly.

 

[WTC Dust]

Actually, Makey's post was the kind of well-thought out response that you folks tend to ignore completely and are seemingly unable to produce to support your own positions.

I certainly didn't ignore Mackey. I read what he had to say. Adding a condition to a theory and then debunking that theory based on your addition is the strawman technique.

Besides, I'm just looking for evidence of a wake. Mackey doesn't have this evidence, does he?