Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Macgyver1968]

.....Aluminum doesn't burn.....

OMG...I'm LOL...you do realize what the fuel in thermite is? right? Aluminum burns like a mother **********....It's the reason the Hindenburg burned like it did....because of the aluminum fuel in the skin.

 

[TJM]

I'd bet that photo was after he died. Given the location, I wouldn't be surprised it if was during OWS.

That's what I thought -

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=is....13.0.13.5.0.62.415.13.13.0...0.0.4K00hfwVafs

From what I gather, that's where the good doctor took up the struggle against The Man^TM only to wind up working for him.

 

[NoahFence]

I will admit I dont know about Dachau, but Auschwitz/Birkenau, Theresienstadt, Ravensbrück and Sachsenhausen, CERTAINLY smells like death. I worked as an assistant guide (most guides where survivors) for a couple of seasons for something called "the white buses". However; I do think that Dachau is pretty similar; but you dont know the difference between **** and cinnamon, although you think you do. I dont only mean your sense of smell, but also your sense of "facts". Wood`s claims is "****"; facts/evidence/witnesses/physics/etc is "cinnamon". Same colour; but the first (most) folks will shy away from; the next is a nice spice. Get it; DUST?

You don't actually mean that Dachau and the others still literally smell like death, do you?

Still? How is that even possible? I don't mean to question you, i'm just a bit taken aback at how long its beeen.

 

[Macgyver1968]

All of the mentioned materials in your post are made of carbon.

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.

 

[Oz1976]

WOW, you are mixed up. Tell me, in an office fire, what is there to burn besides carbon? Answer: nothing. Wood is carbon. Plastic is carbon. Paper is carbon. There was almost nothing TO burn except carbon in the WTC.

Fumes might come from a smoldering fire, but, like I said, I swore after 100 days of smelling this stuff that nobody was ever going to convince me that what I was observing was an ordinary fire.

This is patently false. Nothing but carbon? Tell me MISS BLEVINS what are in these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Crt14.jpg/250px-Crt14.jpg

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/data-center-servers-t001.jpg

http://rentacomputertoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/computer-servers.jpg

http://www.theheatpumpreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/ruud-heat-pump.jpg

http://www.lulusoso.com/upload/20110808/1000kVA_Electrical_Transformer.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2612/4190877696_39b5650deb.jpg

Changed hotlinked images to regular links. Please see Rule 5.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

Someone quote this for doctor ignore.

 

[CompusMentus]

I found something really interesting in this document HERE (Columbia University: Earth Institute)

The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 10¹¹ J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for ML 2.3 is about 10⁶ to 10⁷ J. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust. The perception of people in the vicinity of the collapses as reported in the media seems to be in full accord with the notion that ground shaking was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings.

The seismic energy of a ML 0.7 to 0.9 computed for the impacts is a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy of each aircraft, about 2  x 10⁹ J. That associated with the combustion of 50 to 100 tons of fuel in each aircraft is roughly 10¹² J, most of which was expended in the large fireballs (visible in TV images) and in subsequent burning that ignited material in each tower.

Less than a millionth of the fuel energy was converted to seismic waves.

You may or may not know that Dr Judy Wood bases her entire theory of the WTC "dustfication" on (what she has claimed are) discrepancies in the seismological records of the collapse of the towers there.

In short, her claim is that the collapse of the towers should have produced much stronger ground disturbances. She uses the demolition/collapse of the Seattle Kingdome as a comparison for this. She asserts, given the much higher mass of each of the towers (compared to the the Kingdome) that the towers should have produced a much more energetic seismic signal than they did during collapse. Her reasoning is to conclude then, that these discrepancies indicate towers were "dustified" and "wafted to the heavens"

So, given that, isn't the bolded part I've quoted above interesting? Doesn't this falsify or at least bring into contention some of the claims that Dr. Wood makes about these events?

Along with the rest of her 9/11 "work" Dr. Woods' seismic claims drip with blatant inconsistencies. I don't want to flood this thread with those right now. Let's see if anyone is brave enough to tackle this one first.

Over to you Dr. Blevins.

Compus

 

[Macgyver1968]

We are all chumps for responding to her...She just wants to make a fool of us.

 

[Oz1976]

If by this comment you mean "in the case of destroying the World Trade Center", then you would be correct, as this is the best anyone has able to do as far as the destructive capabilities of such a weapon:

Actually they have come a little farther since then...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=laser-downs-uavs

 

[Mudcat]

Witnessed by millions? Why do you insist on this?

Maybe because the population of Manhattan by itself is in the millions?

 

[Mudcat]

WOW, you are mixed up. Tell me, in an office fire, what is there to burn besides carbon? Answer: nothing. Wood is carbon. Plastic is carbon. Paper is carbon. There was almost nothing TO burn except carbon in the WTC.

Fumes might come from a smoldering fire, but, like I said, I swore after 100 days of smelling this stuff that nobody was ever going to convince me that what I was observing was an ordinary fire.

Batteries, chemicals from cleaning supplies, plus electrical fires from the building's wiring, etc.

 

[beachnut]

Still, most of what is inside an office building is made of carbon. Aluminum doesn't burn, and I don't know that magnesium alloys were a significant component of the materials inside the WTC.

Oops, you debunked thermite, but thermite is Aluminum burning with Iron oxide. Ironic you have no skills in science when it comes to posting at JREF and 911 topics.

This is extra credit 911 truth moment.
Al burns, it can reach temperatures high enough to melt through safes and car engines.

Fe₂O₃ + 2 Al gives 2Fe + Al2O₃ plus lots of heat

You might want to distance yourself from Judy, but your steel turning to dust and foam is on par with Judy's nonsense. Are you the 3DD version of Judy?

I like the everything is carbon stuff, I know I can make sugar into carbon, and blow up my back yard; I did it when I was 11.

 

[Mudcat]

Still, most of what is inside an office building is made of carbon. Aluminum doesn't burn, and I don't know that magnesium alloys were a significant component of the materials inside the WTC.

There is no polite way to say this but this is ********. Aluminum absolutely Does burn. You're also ignoring the traped gasses that the lighting sources would have emitted at the high temperatures, which would have added to the conflagration.

 

[X]

2) Accepting the DEW hypothesis requires ignoring/denying much of the observed evidence.

I'm not ignoring any evidence. I'm discounting some evidence because it isn't independently verifiable, sure, but all good scientists do this.

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.

 

[Craig4]

Disrespecting Judy Wood, why? Because she's done so much to earn the mockery.

 

[MIKILLINI]

We are all chumps for responding to her...She just wants to make a fool of us.

We've already been making a fool of her with solid evidence. She's already made a fool of herself with her non-evidence assertions.

 

[Mudcat]

Disrespecting Judy Wood, why? Because she's done so much to earn the mockery.

So* what you're saying is that she brought it on herself then? I'll go with that.

_{*The "rule of so" obviously doesn't apply here.}

 

[MIKILLINI]

Congratulations, you've acknowledged fuel sources available for a smoldering fire to consume.
Carbon based smell sample test: Burn a piece of paper, then burn a piece of plastic, then burn some synthetic carpet. Do they all smell alike? Or different?

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

But they are all undoubtedly made of carbon.

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?

 

[minnemouse]

You don't actually mean that Dachau and the others still literally smell like death, do you?

Still? How is that even possible? I don't mean to question you, i'm just a bit taken aback at how long its beeen.

No problem, Noah - I have no problem being questioned, unlike certain others in this thread

Inside the buildings; yes. They still smell - the "delousing" houses, the living quarters, and the crematoriums. The smell is hard to explain, but once you`ve smelled it, you never forget it. It smells death.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I know, Mikillini.... I wont wave my hand, but it is VERY hard not to shake my head in disbelief when reading this DUST` argumentation.........

But fair is fair; comic relief is pretty good for one`s health!

My neck is sore from all the head shaking i've done because of her wacky assertions. Without a doubt the comic relief is certainly good for the health.

Personally, I think she loves the attention because how can one get so many things wrong ? Unless....

 

[jammonius]

I found something really interesting in this document HERE (Columbia University: Earth Institute)

-----------------------------------------------------------------x
Quote:
The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 1011 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for ML 2.3 is about 106 to 107 J. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust. The perception of people in the vicinity of the collapses as reported in the media seems to be in full accord with the notion that ground shaking was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings.

The seismic energy of a ML 0.7 to 0.9 computed for the impacts is a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy of each aircraft, about 2 x 109 J. That associated with the combustion of 50 to 100 tons of fuel in each aircraft is roughly 1012 J, most of which was expended in the large fireballs (visible in TV images) and in subsequent burning that ignited material in each tower.

Less than a millionth of the fuel energy was converted to seismic waves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------x

You may or may not know that Dr Judy Wood bases her entire theory of the WTC "dustfication" on (what she has claimed are) discrepancies in the seismological records of the collapse of the towers there.

In short, her claim is that the collapse of the towers should have produced much stronger ground disturbances. She uses the demolition/collapse of the Seattle Kingdome as a comparison for this. She asserts, given the much higher mass of each of the towers (compared to the the Kingdome) that the towers should have produced a much more energetic seismic signal than they did during collapse. Her reasoning is to conclude then, that these discrepancies indicate towers were "dustified" and "wafted to the heavens"

So, given that, isn't the bolded part I've quoted above interesting? Doesn't this falsify or at least bring into contention some of the claims that Dr. Wood makes about these events?

Along with the rest of her 9/11 "work" Dr. Woods' seismic claims drip with blatant inconsistencies. I don't want to flood this thread with those right now. Let's see if anyone is brave enough to tackle this one first.

Over to you Dr. Blevins.

Compus

Dear Compus,

I know you've addressed your post to "Dr. Blevins," even though that is not the handle of anyone in this thread; and, yes, I am here being coy. While you may have directed your post to one person, that does not mean your debunker colleagues were prevented from either piling on, offering up hosannas or, better still, offering critical analysis and comment on your post.

None have done so thus far. Pity.

Your post at least offers up some actual evidence of the phase of annihilation of the WTC Complex; albeit, evidence that

a) Neither NIST nor any other official explanation did much with; and

b) Evidence that, as you note, Dr. Wood did use and develop in her proof that DEW destroyed the WTC complex.

With all of that said, let me just say "pardon the interruption" but I do think your post is worthy of comment and should have been commented on by debunkers before now. C'mon debunkers (posting ones and lurking ones, alike), wake up and post up something of substance, if you would please.

I have reviewed the 9pg pdf that you linked us to, Compus.

It is entitled:

"Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City."

Compus or debunkers, can you provide a more expansive link, one that at least says who the authors of the paper are and what their status is, as well as the larger context in which the paper appears?

I would think that by now debunkers would have learned that it doesn't do much good to post up claims supported by information that is not properly sourced. Irrespective of the fact that debunkers are on the side that has the element of social correctness is not, in and of itself, a justification for reliance on poor quality information.

Do posters agree?

Anyway, the quoted part of the paper that Compus bolded rationalizes that there is such a low seismic signal because the energy was "converted into" turning the building to dust.

That is rich. It is also noteworthy for acknowledging the buildings were turned to dust.

But, gravity alone cannot do that. Claiming as much is as bogus as saying that a fast-flying airplane can damage the wall without the wall damaging the airplane. That quote would appear to presuppose that the impact floor-to-floor of a gravitational "collapse" can dustify everything without slamming down; that is, without causing P and S seismic waves.

In other words, it would be like chopping wood in mid air without the log being supported by anything that was offering resistance or support.


Further along in the Columbia study that Compus linked us to this quote can be found (pg 3):

"The signals at PAL from Collapse 2 and a small felt earthquake beneath the east side of Manhattan on January 17, 2001 are of comparable amplitude and ML (Fig. 4). The character of the two seismograms, however, is quite different. Clear P and S waves are seen only for the earthquake."

That quote contains a killer of an acknowledgment and a clear indicator of weaponized destruction of the WTC complex via DEW.

Do posters see it?

Here it is:

Clear P and S waves are seen only for the earthquake."


That is, WTC1's demise ("Collapse 2") did not show S and P waves associated with it. As posters who have reviewed either Dr. Wood's website or book, WDTTG? may fully know, the Seattle Kingdome implosion did produce S and P waves.

Absence of S and P waves for the utter annihilation of the world's tallest (when built) steel buildings is a complete falsification of the common storyline that the Twin Towers underwent a gravity collapse.

They did no such thing and it is really high time posters admitted as much.

Compus's Columbia study does not refer to the Kingdom, but does offer up another analogous comparison. At pg 4 it states:

"An explosion at a gasoline tank farm near Newark NJ on January 7, 1983 generated observable P and S waves and short-period Rg waves (ML 3) at PAL. Its Rg is comparable to that for WTC collapse 2. Similar arrivals were seen at station AMNH in Manhattan, which is no longer operating, at a distance of 15 km. AMNH also recorded a prominent seismic arrival at the time expected for an atmospheric acoustic wave. We know of no microbarograph recordings of either that explosion or the events at the WTC. Many people asked us if the arrivals at seismic stations from the WTC events propagated in the atmosphere. We find no evidence of waves arriving at such slow velocities. Instead the seismic waves excited by impacts and collapses at the WTC are short-period surface waves, i.e. seismic waves traveling within the upper few kilometers of the crust."

Further information reveals the incident in question occurred at Bayonne NJ. A gasoline storage tank was allowed to overflow by negligent workers. The vapors associated with the overflow then caught a spark and the gasoline storage tank exploded. The steel tank did not melt, by the way, but it was badly damaged and annihilated. The amount of gasoline in the storage tank dwarfs the amount of kerosene that a supposed jetliner can carry; and, gasoline is more volatile (energetic) than kerosene is.

The point, though, an expolsion of a steel gasoline storage tank caused P and S waves. The annihilation of a 110 story steel building did not.

Game over.

Even as to seismic reading it is "game over." WTC1 only produced a 2.3, while the gas tank farm explosion was a 3.0

Posters who have read Dr. Wood's book properly will know of their own knowledge that Rg are surface waves, P = primary - travels through the earth S = secondary- travels through the earth.

Dr. Wood informs us that S and P waves were absent for all three building demises (WTC1,2,7), but are present in the Kingdome implosion in Seattle and the gas tank explosion in nearby New Jersey.

And, getting back to the part of the Columbia study that Compus felt worthy of bold emphasis:

"The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 10^11 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for ML 2.3 is about 10^6 to 107 J. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves."

That quote is simply an acknowledgement that the majority of the building didn't slam to the ground.

Game over, season over


For further enlightenment from Compus' Columbia study, please consider looking at Figure 4, pg 9. There it will be noted that the S and P wave are shown for the Jan. 17, 2001 earthquake, but no S and P wave for WTC1's demise.

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