Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

It's the new form of peer review; "My work will be reviewed only by those who I don't already know disagree with me."

That's a reasonable request. When submitting my other papers for peer review, I didn't have an idea that the reviewers ALREADY disagreed with me. Besides, there are no journals who provide bona fide peer review who are willing to publish articles contrary to the official hijacking conspiracy theory of 9/11.

 

[WTC Dust]

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

Do you have any video or still images that depict a plane impact on the south face of WTC 2?

 

[phunk]

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

First of all, how do you know that? How many dust samples have you collected from buildings that have had planes crash into them?

Second, it doesn't matter if the plane crash couldn't produce the dust. That doesn't rule out the plane crash. The only way the plane crash can be ruled out by the dust is if the plane crash would have prevented all other possible dust sources.

This is logic 101, what you're saying is the equivalent of "all cats are mammals, fido is a dog, so fido isn't a mammal." It's just wrong.

 

[EventHorizon]

Do you have any video or still images that depict a plane impact on the south face of WTC 2?

You mean like the pictures in this thread that you've continually ignored?

But I don't need pictures. Millions of people witnessed the impact with their own eyes. What was that, a mass hallucination?

 

[twinstead]

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.

What is your definition of "independently verifiable"? So far, it appears your dust hasn't been independently verified, so I fear you may be using this simply as a way to hand wave away evidence that doesn't support your position.

You wouldn't do that, would you?

 

[phunk]

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.

So what is the maximum combustion temperature of a carbon item?

 

[Craig4]

BRAVO! The WTC did not collapse.

You Dusty are a liar. Do you not have even the smallest sense of decency or perhaps senses of integrity. We all watched the towers collapse. We also watch planes strike the towers. You need to find a new hobby. Your silly little ideas and that stupid book are at the very least in bad taste considering how many people died on those planes and in the WTC. This is a serious topic and deserves better than your unimportant psycho fantasies.

 

[Craig4]

If I can't verify something, I'm not hanging my hat on it. snip.

Another lie. You've said repeatedly that no planes struck the towers which obviously happened. Do you even know how to tell the truth? Can you even tell the difference between your lies and reality at this point? No, really I'm curious. How far gone are you?

 

[CompusMentus]

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

From that paper. Page 5.

Acknowledgments
We thank critical readers W. Menke and C. Scholz. We appreciate comments by Terry Wallace, Mehmed Celebi and John Goff. Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network(LCSN) is part of the Advanced National Seismic System. We thank the many individuals and institutions that collaborate with us in operating the network. LCSN operation is sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey under Grant Number 01-HQ-AG-0137. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Contribution 6267.

Authors
Won-Young Kim, L. R. Sykes1, J.H.Armitage, J. K.Xie, K.H. Jacob, P.G.Richards1, M. West1, F. Waldhauser, J. Armbruster, L. Seeber, W. X. Du1 and A. Lerner-Lam1, Lamont-Doherty EarthObservatory of Columbia University, Palisades, N.Y. 10964, USA; 1also Dept. Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University.

"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.

Naughty jammonius! I think he left a few crucial words out from that quote. Now he wouldn't do that purposely would he? Here's a reminder of the full quote, my bold:-

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.

I wonder if jammonius "accidentally" ommited that last bolded sentence? Was it an oversight? Or deliberate? It couldn't be that those few words, if true, totally negate Judy Woods dustification theory? Could it?

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.

No reliable source noted.

Do better.


Compus

 

[alienentity]

Another lie. You've said repeatedly that no planes struck the towers which obviously happened. Do you even know how to tell the truth? Can you even tell the difference between your lies and reality at this point? No, really I'm curious. How far gone are you?

Dr Dust.. err Foam, has been caught in a number of lies, none of which has been retracted. Proceed at your own risk.

Only a charlatan makes claims to things which are unproven, and worse, which the charlatan refuses to prove. This is classic flim-flam. And yes, this applies to both Judy Wood and her acolyte on this forum.

 

[alienentity]

To dust or to foam, that is the question... or is it both, and if so, how?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Do you know much about "electrical" energy?

Yes, thanks for asking.

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.

Intrinsically related, but not relevant to the operation of a taser, as it does not emit its energy electromagnetically. A taser operates by passing a direct electric current through the victim. Quite incidentally, the current flows because of a large voltage difference between the terminals and that has an associated electric field, and the current has an associated magnetic field. These fields are established as the taser is fired but then remain static while it is in operation. The taser does not operate by alternating the electric current so there are no associated alternating electric and magnetic fields. Electromagnetic radiation has therefore no involvement in the operation of the taser. It emit its energy electrically, but not electromagnetically.

Irrelevant, sis.

 

[jammonius]

From that paper. Page 5.








Naughty jammonius! I think he left a few crucial words out from that quote. Now he wouldn't do that purposely would he? Here's a reminder of the full quote, my bold:-





I wonder if jammonius "accidentally" ommited that last bolded sentence? Was it an oversight? Or deliberate? It couldn't be that those few words, if true, totally negate Judy Woods dustification theory? Could it?





No reliable source noted.

Do better.


Compus

Thank you for your additions, Compus.

But do you really think it advances the debunker cause to call attention to a sentence, via bold emphasis, no less, that states:

"Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust."

In addition, my post # 1017 specifically addressed the issue of the inability of gravity to convert steel to dust in 10seconds+/- of virtual free fall.

That is the whole point.

Your authors, (thanks for pointing out where they are listed), do not address quantity of rubble, amount of dust and so forth; and thus leave much to be desired. And, as is known, NIST didn't even do as much as the 9pg paper did in that respect.

Yes, the towers were turned to dust as is seemingly acknowledged by the authors of the paper, who, as you correctly point out are:

Won-Young Kim, L. R. Sykes1, J.H.Armitage, J. K.Xie, K.H. Jacob, P.G.Richards1, M. West1, F. Waldhauser, J. Armbruster, L. Seeber, W. X. Du1 and A. Lerner-Lam1, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, N.Y. 10964, USA; 1also Dept. Earth and Environmental
Sciences, Columbia University.

Dr. Wood has, fortunately, addressed the dust issue in a full and sufficient manner.

Compus, your reply is appreciated and all, but it really is more of a quibble than a reply. Furthermore, it is actually high time that some debunkers begin to acknowledge that there is actually a high degree of agreement and concurrence as between Dr. Wood and the 9pg paper that you linked us to.

That is rather noteworthy, could a least a few debunkers but realize and acknowledge it.

Quite frankly, I think the debunker cause is put into serious jeopardy and disarray as a result of the "can of worms" (from a debunker perspective) you opened up with post #1003. That post, together with my reply #1017 that relies on the work done by Dr. Wood, serve to falsify the common storyline of destruction via a gravity collapse.

Permit me to suggest that instead of quibbling around the edges, you would be better served by accepting the fact that this page of this thread, in the posts enumerated above, provide a very clear refutation of the common storyline of how the WTC complex was destroyed on 9/11.

There is no need to say this in anything other than clear, unemotional language.

It really is here for those who's temperament will permit them to digest the plain truth of the matter.

Have a good day. I am.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

do you really think it advances the debunker cause to call attention to a sentence, via bold emphasis, no less, that states:

"Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust."

It certainly does no harm whatsoever.

In addition, my post # 1017 specifically addressed the issue of the inability of gravity to convert steel to dust in 10seconds+/- of virtually free fall. That is the whole point.
Yes, the towers were turned to dust as is seemingly acknowledged by the authors of the paper...

Read the highlighted part again as you appear to have missed the word "deformation". When the buildings collapsed, the steel was not turned to dust. The steel was deformed. The concrete and drywall was turned to rubble and dust. That's why what was left was mainly a heap of mangled steel mixed with concrete and gypsum rubble.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Quite frankly, I think the debunker cause is in serious jeopardy and disarray as a result of the can of worms (from a debunker perspective) you opened up with post #1003. That post, together with my reply #1017, serve to falsify the common storyline of destruction via a gravity collapse.

I just love you. You give a whole new, fresh meaning to the idea of Truth insanity.

Yes, yes...the commonly understood events of 9/11 are "in serious jeopardy." It is clear now to America that the WTC towers were turned to dust by orbiting energy weapons. Thousands...or should I say millions...are marching in the streets for the truth of this. It is the issue on lips of every candidate as Americans go to the polls. Romney, Santorum, Obama...this is the question they are faced with every time they speak in public...Who built the energy weapons? Where are they? How do they work? The explanations given on Star Trek are not good enough. Americans want to know what really happened. They want to know why Captain Kirk didn't stopped them and what role the Romulans played in all this.

Good show my friend. Thanks for putting the issues where they really belong.

 

[Macgyver1968]

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.

Sure I'm clairvoyant. Here watch this: (closes eyes, and rubs fingers against his temples) I'm getting something....It's becoming clearer. I see you....in the near future...I see you refusing to give a clear answer to Phunk's post #1031!

Wait! I'm getting something else!! I see two men....two men in white jackets...and they have some sort of backward fitting jacket! They're coming for you Dusty....run Dusty! Run!

 

[swright777]

ResponsesLies and stupidity in red.

ftfy

 

[swright777]

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.

Aluminum does burn.

ETA: It is used as rocket fuel. Go here to see a picture of the aluminum hull of HMS Sheffield burning.

How can somebody be so completely wrong about everything?

 

[JohnG]

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.

Well, like any other human being, you can only speak to what your conscious thought processes were.

Those with exhibitionist tendencies and/or those who are under the influence of drugs are going to be both consciously and subconsciously motivated to do and say things that others wouldn't. I'm not making any moral judgement, mind you; some of the greatest artists* in history were exhibitionists to a certain extent and were also sometimes under the influence of drugs. I'm not sure if the same can be said for the greatest scientists, though.

I find it odd that someone in the field of pharmacology would appear to be so blithely oblivious to just how fragile and mutable a human mind/will/personality can be and the fact that the words and actions of human beings can't always be traced to a clear-headed conscious motivation...or at least a motivation that they'd publicly admit to.

Ultimately we are the sum of the choices we make. You chose to make a sign and hold it up in public. Of all the myriad things you could have put on the sign you chose a very specificly provocative, crude (by conventional standards), yet strangely irrelevant message. All you ended up accomplishing was to offend the easily offended, preach to the choir and bemuse everyone in between. I don't find that a particularly interesting accomplishment for an artist or a scientist.









*Artists (Painters/actors/musicians/etc.) will often cheerfully admit that they don't always know what motivates them.

 

[Stellafane]

...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...

Jammonius, I believe your post contains two very important -- and in my view fatal -- flaws. One is an error of commission, the other an error of omission.

The error of commission is the use of seismic data to assess the relative strengths of surface explosions. This is simply invalid. Seismic measurements such as the Richter scale were developed solely to judge the relative energy of earthquakes, which are caused by crustal events far underground, generally several miles or more beneath us. Virtually all the energy of the event is therefore translated into the ground, thus the analysis of ground movement provides a reasonably accurate way to judge the relative strength of such events.

Surface events, by definition, expend only a fraction of their energy into the ground. Much of their energy ends up in other forms -- atmospheric shock wave, acoustic energy, heat, material destruction, and so on. Further, the amount of energy that does make it into the ground is highly dependent on the composition of the local rocks and soils. Some local conditions are very efficient at transporting energy, and some are not. This means that an explosion on say Cape Cod, where the surface is overlaid by a thick layer of sand and other unconsolidated soils, will produce far more modest readings on seismic instruments than the exact same explosion would on a solid granite outcrop somewhere. Without taking such variables into consideration, seismic readings are essentially worthless as a way to gauge the strength of a surface explosion.

The error of omission involves the failure to explain why a devastating shock wave did not wreak widespread damage across the five boroughs on 9/11. Because if a significant amount of the WTC never hit the ground, but instead was instantaneously converted to dust, physics demands that it would have been accompanied by an extremely violent explosion, one that may well have killed more people in the surrounding neighborhoods than all who died in the Towers themselves.

The instant conversion of solid matter into another form is a highly explosive and energetic event; even a small amount of solid matter can produce a large explosion this way. Even something as stable as a glass of water will explode violently if tossed into a fire hot enough to vaporize it instantly. Doing the same to an appreciable portion of the WTC would have therefore produced an explosive shock wave that would likely have leveled the surrounding buildings and at a minimum killed many thousands. Again, this is just basic physics. There is no known method for instantaneously converting steel and other solids into dust without causing an explosion of epic proportions in the process -- many, many orders of magitude more violent than anything observed on 9/11.

This of course still leaves unaddressed my previous points about the complete lack of evidence for the existence of a DEW, even though the use of such a device on 9/11 would have left abundant and obvious evidence, irrespective if where it were located.

So although you may find Dr. Wood's material compelling, I cannot, because basic science indicates it fails on multiple counts.