Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

Yes, but what is your point about the carbon?

The combustion of carbon is relevant to the official hijack conspiracy. Carbon only gets so hot when it burns, you see, and pretty much all you have to work with inside the WTC is carbon-based materials.

All hydrocarbons have the same maximum temperature of combustion, or similar. It's not to say that all carbon materials achieve that maximum temperature, but rather they can't get any hotter than the maximum temperature when burned.

Basic chemistry is important here. Those of you who support the official hijack conspiracy have to take a steel building, damage it somewhat, and then add in a hydrocarbon fire to get the devastating results that were seen.

It doesn't add up. Open air carbon fires just don't get that hot.

 

[Craig4]

The combustion of carbon is relevant to the official hijack conspiracy. Carbon only gets so hot when it burns, you see, and pretty much all you have to work with inside the WTC is carbon-based materials.

All hydrocarbons have the same maximum temperature of combustion, or similar. It's not to say that all carbon materials achieve that maximum temperature, but rather they can't get any hotter than the maximum temperature when burned.

Basic chemistry is important here. Those of you who support the official hijack conspiracy have to take a steel building, damage it somewhat, and then add in a hydrocarbon fire to get the devastating results that were seen.

It doesn't add up. Open air carbon fires just don't get that hot.

And how does this make you feel?

 

[WTC Dust]

No. It isn't really.

It uses electrical energy.

Do you know much about "electrical" energy? If you do a quick Wiki check, you'll discover...

"Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field generates an electric field. This effect is called electromagnetic induction..."

Intrinsically related, bro.

 

[phiwum]

The combustion of carbon is relevant to the official hijack conspiracy. Carbon only gets so hot when it burns, you see, and pretty much all you have to work with inside the WTC is carbon-based materials.

All hydrocarbons have the same maximum temperature of combustion, or similar. It's not to say that all carbon materials achieve that maximum temperature, but rather they can't get any hotter than the maximum temperature when burned.

Okay, so if everything burning was "carbon-based", then it couldn't soften steel. That's your claim, right?

I wonder what blacksmiths used back in the day. They burned something that softened steel so that they could work it. Whatever it was they burned, we can surely conclude that it wasn't "carbon-based", right?

 

[WTC Dust]

Bullpuckey... You were hoping they would print the images because the message was controversial..by insulting Reagan you knew you would get the attention you were seeking . Content doesn't matter....as long as everyone is paying attention to you. It's the reason everyone here should ignore you...because you are just trying to fulfill your need for attention by way of us.

I'm the one who made the sign, therefore I'm the one who gets to tell you what my thought processes were. You aren't clairvoyant, and it shocks me to hear you profess to be clairvoyant.

 

[WTC Dust]

Aluminum doesn't burn? That might be a surprise to Morton-Thiokol and some other companies, seeing as it's a primary component in solid-fuel rocket engines. Admittedly, I don't know if the fires reached aluminum's ignition point, but this is more evidence of your lack of knowledge or sloppy work.

Speaking of aluminum, what about all those serial-numbered aircraft parts that could be traced back to the manufacture of the planes involved? Or are you going to say that Boeing and all of it's subcontractors falsified their records?

At this point, we don't need Occam's razor any more; his butter knife will do.

ETA: iPad didn't like "Occam's"

Aluminum doesn't burn at office fire temps, silly.

 

[WTC Dust]

This is pretty much all hogwash.

There are not "many" weapons that use electromagnetism and a taser is not a DEW for starters.

Ah, but there are "some".

 

[WTC Dust]

Please explain...and what does carbon have to do with anything?...does anything that has a carbon atom mean somthing? Does everything that has a carbon atom in their molicule smell the same? You are just showing your attention seeking...by posting this meaningless crap. You are clearly just seeking attention from us...by saying anything that sounds controversial.

Carbon items burn at a certain maximum temperature that is far below what it takes to melt or significantly weaken steel. In the case of an open air office fire, of course, which is not my theory. An open air office fire is a part of the official hijacking conspiracy theory, one of the many weak aspects of the theory.

 

[WTC Dust]

If I can't verify something, I'm not hanging my hat on it. You can do whatever you want, but I have certain standards. I don't just take people's words for it.

If someone says anything, I don't doubt them necessarily, but I don't incorporate their words into my science, unless they corroborate some data that is independently verifiable.

Like the people I know who survived the dust cloud rolling down the streets of lower Manhattan. They didn't mention extreme heat, and there were no significant burns on their bodies.

Most of this isn't worth a response, but I thought I'd point out the blatant hypocrisy of the above answer.

WTC Dusts thinks that some samples of dust collected from a random ledge in New York years after the evens of September 11, 2001 are perfectly traceable, verifiable and uncontaminated samples. But things like radar data and seismic data and eyewitnesses and freaking airplane parts and passenger DNA are unverifiable.

And a hypothesized Directed-Energy weapon is the best explanation, despite the fact that it explains nothing at all because no one dares to describe it or how it works or show it exists, and despite the evidence and physics showing it's impossible.

Nothing else needs be said.


ETA: And please don't respond inside a quote. Makes it unnecessarily difficult to quote you. Thanks in advance.

 

[WTC Dust]

Either you plainly didn't see the question or just flat out dodged it, I'll ask again.



Please pay close attention Tracy. I mentioned carbon based smell test

Does paper/wood, plastic, or synthetic carpet fumes have the same smell while they are burning? Or does each have a unique smell of their own?

Wrong. I didn't mention a carbon based smell test. The carbon discussion was about maximum burning temperatures.

 

[WTC Dust]

Look posters and lurkers, it really is a matter of common sense that the WTC complex did not collapse. It was annihilated in a matter of seconds leaving next to no debris at all. That is what the firefighter who was rescued from Stairwell B and who is the source of the title of Dr. Wood's book meant when he said:

"WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?"

Posters and lurkers, grasp this.

Blessings

BRAVO! The WTC did not collapse.

 

[WTC Dust]

Okay, so if everything burning was "carbon-based", then it couldn't soften steel. That's your claim, right?

I wonder what blacksmiths used back in the day. They burned something that softened steel so that they could work it. Whatever it was they burned, we can surely conclude that it wasn't "carbon-based", right?

Blacksmiths do not rely on open air carbon fires for a purpose.

 

[SUSpilot]

Aluminum doesn't burn at office fire temps, silly.

Did you read the whole post?

First, I said straight up that I didn't know if any part the fire reached the ignition point of aluminum.

Second, you made the flat statement that aluminum doesn't burn, to which I pointed out your error.

Third, I did ask your opinion regarding the provenance of all of the serial-numbered aircraft parts.

Let me ask you this, with apologies to those that have asked it before:

At what temperature does jet fuel burn?

At what temperature does steel start to lose structural strength?

What happens if you heat a steel structure unevenly?

 

[WTC Dust]

More nonsense. Your dust samples don't prove no planes. Even if your dust is caused by something other than planes (like, the collapse more than an hour after the planes), that doesn't say anything about the planes.

For your dust sample to prove no planes, you would have to prove that planes would somehow completely prevent your dust from forming.

The dust samples point to a non-airplane crash mechanism.

 

[WTC Dust]

Don't deflect, explain the logic behind your claim that the dust proves no planes.

Very simply: airplane crashes have never in history produced this material.

 

[WTC Dust]

You are the one who asked about the wake of the planes as if its absence in photos would prove something.

If the presence or absence of planes is irrelevant to your primary theory, why do we have this thread at all?

I wanted to see if any of you could produce clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM. None of you did.

 

[WTC Dust]

I've seen the list of local city, county, state, private and federal reports with the names of all qualified individuals..A great many people were involved with this process and not one has ever come forward and criticized the method/ process used for identifying the remains. I trust those reports.

Why? Where would the passengers be, Tracy, if Flight 175 and Flight 11 didn't crash into those buildings?

I have no idea about any passengers on any flights on 9/11. Lots of strange stories that I cannot independently verify.

 

[WTC Dust]

I think what she means is, "stop looking at the evidence and pay attention to me".

I'd rather you paid attention to the data than to me, the person who presents the data.

 

[WTC Dust]

So now anything that one doesn't personally participate in is suspect?

No, just things that aren't independently verifiable. There are far too many ridiculous stories floating around about 9/11 for me to integrate them all into my theory. Therefore, I only include data that is independently verifiable.

 

[EventHorizon]

The dust samples point to a non-airplane crash mechanism.

Yeah but the thing is, those planes slamming into those buildings kinda points to an airplane crash mechanism.