Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

A weapon that imparted no energy to its target would be... what's the word I'm looking for??.....oh yes - useless.

Interesting point. What if the weapon didn't impart energy, but rather USED the energy contained within the material itself to do the damage?

See? The Casimir effect is not widely known, but it does govern the interactions between molecules in a "conducting, non-ionic solid" a.k.a. "a metal". It says that there is an attraction that works on a micrometer level that pulls the molecules of a metal together.

From a materials science point of view, this answers the question as to why metals are so much denser than other materials. The molecules of the metal are attracted to one another more than the molecules of non-metals are attracted to each other.

This attraction between molecules of a non-ionic, conducting solid is highly sensitive to changes in the electromagnetic field. You have already experienced one aspect of this phenomenon, knowing that metals conduct electricity better than non-metals. Has anyone ever asked the question as to why metals are denser than non-metals? Maybe, maybe not. The answer is self evident that "something" keeps the molecules of a metal together compared to the molecules of, say, a gas or a liquid or even a solid like graphite. Graphite isn't strongly held together, even though it is a solid. Does carbon conduct electricity efficiently? No. There you go. Carbon isn't one of those molecules that the Casimir effect is talking about. It doesn't conduct electricity. It's not that dense.

Add this to Judy Wood's detailing of the variations of the magnetosphere and other evidence of energy weapons, it makes sense. Something altered the electromagnetic field around the WTC, causing the molecules of steel to repel each other, and the molecules came apart at normal temperatures, resulting in different types of metallic foam.

Some of the foam was aerosolized, and it went up into the atmosphere or people breathed it. Some of it wasn't quite so finely disassociated, and came down in dusty clumps and filled the neighborhood nooks and crannies. I found one of these nooks and collected the dust. It was years later, but I found it!

 

[WTC Dust]

QUOTE=George152;8311951]a) You have no comparable evidence of large Boeing aircraft impacting tall steel framed structures.
So tha's one lie
The aircraft and its contents are a MASS.
120 tons of material hitting the tower at something over 400 knots aint going to bounce off[/QUOTE]

I can extrapolate a bit from other incidences, can't I?

Does it have to be a Boeing 7X7 for me to consider the evidence?
Does it have to be partially full of jet fuel, or chocked to the gulls for me to consider evidence?
Does it have to be flying within 10MPH as the oft-claimed airplane was flying for me to consider evidence?

Obviously none of these things is a slam dunk. You have to actually consider whether or not a large plane carrying a large amount of fuel impacting a certain type of building makes a difference. Which things make a difference, and how much of a difference do they make?

One way to think about it is to separate the elements of the claimed event. Jet fuel. Impact. That's pretty much all a hijacked passenger jet is going to apply to the situation. After about five or ten minutes, all the jet fuel would have been consumed, and what you'd be left with is a regular office fire. If you consider an impact, what you'd get is a lopsidedly damaged building.

Fine. After a very short while, you'd have an office fire in a lopsidedly damaged building. We have examples of this. Nothing strange happens. People pour water on the fire, and it goes out.

 

[NoahFence]

Is there any explanation you're not prepared to invent on the spot?

Any at all??

 

[dafydd]

Interesting point. What if the weapon didn't impart energy, but rather USED the energy contained within the material itself to do the damage?

Rubbish. Bollocks. Your trolling is getting boring. Why don't we all just turn off the attention, fellow members?

 

[NoahFence]

I suppose this is your idea of a "normal" sized fireball?

Tracy BlevinPostert's "average" chemical reaction:

And of course this:

Should produce the exact same results as a small trash can burning.

 

[plague311]

Interesting point. What if the weapon didn't impart energy, but rather USED the energy contained within the material itself to do the damage?

See? The Casimir effect is not widely known, but it does govern the interactions between molecules in a "conducting, non-ionic solid" a.k.a. "a metal". It says that there is an attraction that works on a micrometer level that pulls the molecules of a metal together.

From a materials science point of view, this answers the question as to why metals are so much denser than other materials. The molecules of the metal are attracted to one another more than the molecules of non-metals are attracted to each other.

This attraction between molecules of a non-ionic, conducting solid is highly sensitive to changes in the electromagnetic field. You have already experienced one aspect of this phenomenon, knowing that metals conduct electricity better than non-metals. Has anyone ever asked the question as to why metals are denser than non-metals? Maybe, maybe not. The answer is self evident that "something" keeps the molecules of a metal together compared to the molecules of, say, a gas or a liquid or even a solid like graphite. Graphite isn't strongly held together, even though it is a solid. Does carbon conduct electricity efficiently? No. There you go. Carbon isn't one of those molecules that the Casimir effect is talking about. It doesn't conduct electricity. It's not that dense.

Add this to Judy Wood's detailing of the variations of the magnetosphere and other evidence of energy weapons, it makes sense. Something altered the electromagnetic field around the WTC, causing the molecules of steel to repel each other, and the molecules came apart at normal temperatures, resulting in different types of metallic foam.

Some of the foam was aerosolized, and it went up into the atmosphere or people breathed it. Some of it wasn't quite so finely disassociated, and came down in dusty clumps and filled the neighborhood nooks and crannies. I found one of these nooks and collected the dust. It was years later, but I found it!

Hey, PHDoh...what about all the extremely long pieces of steel that were in tact and showed signs of fire damage? There are a ton of pictures showing burned and damaged steel that isn't foamed or whatever. Quite a selective weapon you have there Dusty

 

[WTC Dust]

No, no it really isn't THAT strong.

If a big ol' lump of ice can sink a steel hulled ship (Titanic, and more recently an Antarctic expedition cruise ship), it's really not that indestructable is it.

ETA: In the case of heat, if steel is so god damn strong why bother using fireproofing?

I can't account for the stupid actions of other people.

 

[WTC Dust]

Hey, PHDoh...what about all the extremely long pieces of steel that were in tact and showed signs of fire damage? There are a ton of pictures showing burned and damaged steel that isn't foamed or whatever. Quite a selective weapon you have there Dusty

The beam didn't zap each and every part of the building.

 

[Resume]

Not for one minute did I believe a plane crash theory. I'm proud of that.

You shouldn't be. You should be ashamed and for myriad reasons.

 

[Dash80]

The hell is this? The WTC fires were not fought!

Jet fuel dumped into the building igniting fires on numerous floors instantly, fireproofing and dry wall blown off the now exposed steel. Not to mention many damaged exterior and core columns. That is NOT a normal fire!

 

[WTC Dust]

Why did the construction guys water down the dump trucks? Is this type of watering rig normal at all deconstruction sites? What was producing all the dust?

 

[Dcdrac]

There was no energy weapon unless of course you accept the massive transfer of energy that took place when the planes crashed into the buildings

 

[DGM]

Why did the construction guys water down the dump trucks? Is this type of watering rig normal at all deconstruction sites? What was producing all the dust?

Yes it is. Why don't you actually do some research. Call your local building department and ask them about it.

 

[WTC Dust]

I can extrapolate a bit from other incidences, can't I?

Does it have to be a Boeing 7X7 for me to consider the evidence?
Does it have to be partially full of jet fuel, or chocked to the gulls for me to consider evidence?
Does it have to be flying within 10MPH as the oft-claimed airplane was flying for me to consider evidence?

Obviously none of these things is a slam dunk. You have to actually consider whether or not a large plane carrying a large amount of fuel impacting a certain type of building makes a difference. Which things make a difference, and how much of a difference do they make?

One way to think about it is to separate the elements of the claimed event. Jet fuel. Impact. That's pretty much all a hijacked passenger jet is going to apply to the situation. After about five or ten minutes, all the jet fuel would have been consumed, and what you'd be left with is a regular office fire. If you consider an impact, what you'd get is a lopsidedly damaged building.

Fine. After a very short while, you'd have an office fire in a lopsidedly damaged building. We have examples of this. Nothing strange happens. People pour water on the fire, and it goes out.

The hell is this? The WTC fires were not fought!

Jet fuel dumped into the building igniting fires on numerous floors instantly, fireproofing and dry wall blown off the now exposed steel. Not to mention many damaged exterior and core columns. That is NOT a normal fire![/QUOTE]

Tell me, what's abnormal about it, compared to other skyscraper fires? Presuming it was begun with a plane crash and jet fuel, of course, which did not happen, but go ahead.

 

[WTC Dust]

There was no energy weapon unless of course you accept the massive transfer of energy that took place when the planes crashed into the buildings

I'd call that more of a ballistic weapon. So 20th century.

 

[WTC Dust]

Yeah, about that... Probably not gonna happen. It's possible you will get a response, but I doubt it would answer anything. Or even make sense for that matter.

What did I miss?

 

[Dash80]

I can't account for the stupid actions of other people.

Fireproofing is stupid?

WTF!

LOL!

 

[dafydd]

I'd call that more of a ballistic weapon. So 20th century.

What does that have to do with it?

 

[Dash80]

The hell is this? The WTC fires were not fought!

Jet fuel dumped into the building igniting fires on numerous floors instantly, fireproofing and dry wall blown off the now exposed steel. Not to mention many damaged exterior and core columns. That is NOT a normal fire!

Tell me, what's abnormal about it, compared to other skyscraper fires? Presuming it was begun with a plane crash and jet fuel, of course, which did not happen, but go ahead.[/QUOTE]

Ignorance is bliss!

 

[dafydd]

What did I miss?

Everything.