• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged No Planes At WTC (Split from: WTC Dust)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The windows weren't the strongest portion of the south wall of WTC 2. The steel exterior columns were. Any plane bits that might have hit the steel exterior columns would have a significant likelihood of bouncing backwards.

Have you done any calculations to prove this or is this the same common sense you're using that got you straight A's and two degrees?

What proof do you have that certain parts of the plane would have "bounced" back? Why wouldn't certain parts of the plane (wingtips perhaps) crush up against the perimeter columns and just fall to the ground?

By the way. how do you now that the debris falling on the side (left side, starting at :02) of the tower is not plane pieces??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0BbtYi_I5U
 
Any plane bits that might have hit the steel exterior columns would have a significant likelihood of bouncing backwards.

Except that their path backwards was blocked by the rest of the plane continuing to arrive at the impact point, and the joints between the steel columns failed and they bent inwards, so most of the debris entered the building.
 
So if a 100 ton aircraft travelling north at 500mph collides with a static 500,000 ton building, what does conservation of momentum tell you?

It tells me that the plane would be nearly completely destroyed at the moment of impact.

The plane would damage the building.
The building would damage the plane.
 
Indeed. And in this system the building started with none, so momentum lost by the plane was conserved when building parts moved in the direction the plane was moving, broadly speaking.

That's not what conservation of momentum is, broadly speaking or any other type of speaking.
 
On the day of 9/11, I knew that it was very unlikely that I would personally be the one who discovered what destroyed the WTC because, my background is in pharmacology, but to be truthful, I only studied pharmacology for five years. I studied chemistry for eleven years. My background is chemistry. Yeah, I specialized in the chemistry of biological processes, but whoopdeedoo. What I was doing every day was chemistry. Where I lacked a bit was physics, but I knew that my chemistry could play a role.

My knowledge of chemistry, especially, was a key aspect of my instant recognition that something was wrong about the plane crash story. What I see in the 9/11 videos as a chemist is a large amount of steel standing still...and then a large amount of various colors of gray material coming from the building. I've performed enough chemical reactions to know how things generally go, and things don't generally go like this in the laboratory.

In the laboratory, if you add any amount of jet fuel at atmospheric pressure to any amount of steel, and if you then light the jet fuel on fire, what you would get is a short lived fire and warmed, solid steel, with most of its strength. Yes, heating the steel up to the maximum combustion temperature would have resulted in some decrease in material strength of the steel, but not much.

But that is not the first thought I had. The first thought I had was, "Where did all this dust come from?" I was not on Manhattan on the day of 9/11. I was traveling back to Manhattan from a road trip. When I got to Delaware, I did not expect to see the black horizon coming from very near the place where I lived on Bleecker Street. When I got out of the truck after ditching it in a parking garage near midtown, I did not expect to smell this particular smell.

Smell is chemistry. As a biologist I know about smells. I know how smells happen and what makes a smell. This particular smell was more than a smell. It was a painful feeling, and the smell that was attached to this painful feeling was unlike anything I'd ever smelled before. It didn't fit any of my smell categories. I now know that I was inhaling particles of iron, which caused the weird smell and the pain, but I didn't know that then. All I knew was that it wasn't a biological smell and that I could also smell the decaying human bodies. That was harsh. I'll never forget the smell of those bodies. That means that bits and pieces of the people that died entered my body, as did the powdered remains of the WTC.

The day I got home, I talked to two people who were caught up in the dust cloud. Neither one was burned.

Then 100 days later, I could still smell the unique WTC stench, so I had an additional data point. Whatever happened on 9/11/2001 didn't end on 9/11/2001. I could still smell it on 12/21/2001, 100 days later, as strong as in the first few days.

I swore I'd never stop searching for the correct answer to what happened on 9/11. I swore that nobody could ever change my mind that what I was smelling on day 100 was a normal office fire. But I didn't know that I'd eventually make real discoveries that ranked with the best in the world, which happened a few years ago when I discovered a large cache of WTC dust. That was somewhat lucky (if you consider 8 years of searching to be lucky).

On 9/11, I didn't think that I would make any important discoveries related to discovering the real weapon. But I knew I would recognize the correct answer if I ever encountered it. I had a rubric that would identify correct and even partially correct answers.

Whatever destroyed the WTC it:
1. was not an extremely hot process, and
2. produced fumes that were resistant to fire fighting efforts and occasionally heavy rain for at least 100 days.

Anyone who suggested a mechanism of WTC destruction had to fulfill these criteria, or they were wrong. Which is why I knew Steven Jones was wrong as soon as I read about his thermite theory, and why I'm not convinced that Judy Wood is wrong (because her mechanism doesn't require heat). She has not yet explained the long lasting nature of the WTC fumes, but I can't fault her for that, because neither have I. My work continues.

Your knowledge of chemistry fails you (as it would fail anyone attempting to use it) where 9/11 is concerned.

Your knowledge of pharmacology serves to help you forget that.
 
She believes in a different truther fantasy, advanced dustification energy beam weapons. Why you people cannot accept that nineteen terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings is a mystery to me.

Don't you see?!? It just couldn't have happened that....easily!

This thing that I've made up but can't really explain is so much more likely!
 
That smell was the molecules that used to make up the WTC. That isn't imaginary. That's how smell works. Molecules traveled from Ground Zero and went up your nose, and these molecules bonded to cell surface receptors in your nose. If they had smelled like chocolate, coffee, roses, hydrocarbon fires, or anything you already knew about, you would have been able to identify them. But they didn't, so you weren't.

It was only after I got my WTC dust samples that I realized that those molecules were iron. You can disagree with this all you like, but it's not imaginary. The WTC dust contains a load of iron fragments, a previously under-reported high level of iron fragments.

Do only molecules from Ground Zero make it up your nose, or are other molecules allowed in there?
 
It tells me that the plane would be nearly completely destroyed at the moment of impact.

The plane would damage the building.
The building would damage the plane.

Really? Conservation of momentum tells you that?

Other stuff I know about the nature of planes and buildings tells me that stuff, but the conservation of momentum doesn't. Instead, it tells me that after impact the combined centre of mass of the plane plus the building will begin to move north at about 0.1mph.

Why do you think we get such different results?
 
Really? Conservation of momentum tells you that?

Other stuff I know about the nature of planes and buildings tells me that stuff, but the conservation of momentum doesn't. Instead, it tells me that after impact the combined centre of mass of the plane plus the building will begin to move north at about 0.1mph.

Why do you think we get such different results?

Did you calculate the force in the southerly direction?
 
I'd be willing to talk to a family member. I wouldn't say rude things like that. No hijackings doesn't mean people didn't die. I could be wrong about the no hijackings, anyway. There just isn't much good evidence that they took place.

The ONLY reason I've studied planes at all is because other people keep bringing it up. My focus is the WTC buildings.

You are not focusing, Tracy. Not at all.
 
Have you done any calculations to prove this or is this the same common sense you're using that got you straight A's and two degrees?

What proof do you have that certain parts of the plane would have "bounced" back? Why wouldn't certain parts of the plane (wingtips perhaps) crush up against the perimeter columns and just fall to the ground?

By the way. how do you now that the debris falling on the side (left side, starting at :02) of the tower is not plane pieces??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0BbtYi_I5U

That's THREE degrees, remember? She does autopsies in her spare time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom