Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[alienentity]

Falling items can never cause bronze to curl up >360 degrees, as one of the post-damage images shows. Look at the base of the statue in the last pic. Nothing falling could have caused the base to curl up like it did. Energy weapons!

Incorrect. The only thing that could've caused this was a subtle gesture from space aliens, made with the left arm (the right arm is always used for ordering beer, I'm told)

It was thus:

 

[alienentity]

R... r... r...... dust?

Uhmm, foam?

ps hi to the Gravyman. Whutup dude?

 

[WildCat]

If you go to Battery Park on any day and examine The Sphere, you'll notice strange damage to it that is not expected from objects falling onto it that like everything else it wasn't turned to foam.

ftfy

 

[WTC Dust]

Dear Tracy:Iron oxide: Common rust is a form of iron oxide. Iron oxides are widely used as inexpensive, durable pigments in paints, coatings and colored concretes.

That is all.

Breathing iron oxide causes siderosis, a syndrome that has many symptoms in common with asbestosis.

 

[WTC Dust]

I'm actually quite interested in seeing your stuff but frustratingly nothing interesting has been turning up in Google image results.

http://wtcdust.blogspot.com/ The latest paper is there, in eleven parts, in the month of September.

 

[WTC Dust]

Yes? You still didn't answer how you determined where the foam you found originated from.

Yes, I did, in other threads.

 

[WTC Dust]

I'd rather you answered my question here. Do you understand why knowing where the weapon could have been is important yet?

The beam needs to reach the target without interference?

 

[WTC Dust]

and similes can't maintain themselves when people take the similes too literally.

Ice is pretty fragile, and yet falling icicles have been known to injure and even kill people. Gently tapping the top of a person's head with a small hammer results in no damage to the head, but the same hammer applied with the same force to a death-dealing icicle breaks the icicle into a thousand fragments. How to you account for this seeming contradiction?

Would an icicle ever break apart the hammer?

 

[WTC Dust]

That's not my point at all. A fragile aluminum airboat could never break through steel columns.

Talk about missing the point! And this from the person who just suggested swinging the WTC like a baseball bat. What irony.

The point, of course, is that your over-simplistic analogy of an egg against a brick wall is not a fair comparison. Yes, the aircraft is more fragile than the building and yes the aircraft was thoroughly destroyed by the impact while the tower was only damaged, but it's a matter of degree. The aircraft was not so thoroughly destroyed that many parts could not be recovered, recognised and identified. The tower was not so unscathed that it could withstand the further weakening of its steel structure caused by the resulting fires.

I know you claim otherwise, but you have absolutely no relevant technical knowledge to base that opinion on, you have routinely ignored relevant technical information when it's presented to you, and the result is that nobody takes your unsupported assertion remotely seriously.

 

[The Dark Lord]

That's not my point at all. A fragile aluminum airboat could never break through steel columns.

Dusty, would you let me shoot at you while you are standing behind a thin steel sheet? The bullet will be made of copper and lead neither of which are as strong as steel. You should be perfectly safe, yes.

 

[WTC Dust]

Yeah, but unless you had the specific information from the government about atoms and the bombs that you can make using atomic theory, how would an investigator figure out the technology used?

Only by investigation, and not an easy investigation, either. You'd FIRST have to prove new physics was needed in order to understand the attacks. You'd have people heckling you that such weapons did not exist.

Sounds familiar, huh? To understand 9/11, you need to understand new physics, just like new physics was needed to understand Hiroshima.

People in the inner circle of physics might have the knowledge that it took to understand the Hiroshima attacks, but how many of them would have been motivated or capable of crawling around the city taking samples and conducting interviews?

That's another weak analogy, I'm afraid. For a kickoff, the evidence from Hiroshima (one bomber and a single, absolutely enormous explosion) would tell anyone who investigated that some new and exotic weapon was used. 9/11 by contrast is fully explained by hijackers crashing planes (even though you say it isn't - you're just wrong and you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to the technicalities of why you believe it's so) so no exotic weapon is required to explain the events of 9/11.

Then there's the fact that the atomic bomb which, although its implementation was developed in great secrecy, was a weapon which had been considered in principle by scientists all over the world for many years. You'll be aware, no doubt, that Nazi Germany was also attempting to develop an atomic bomb. The secret was not that such a bomb might be built, the secret was how to build a functional bomb. In other words, the possibility of such a weapon was widely know in scientific circles, unlike your magic Beam of Foam, which even a decade after the event is not even a glimmer on the horizon.

 

[WTC Dust]

Dusty, would you let me shoot at you while you are standing behind a thin steel sheet? The bullet will be made of copper and lead neither of which are as strong as steel. You should be perfectly safe, yes.

No, but for a million dollars I'd let you shoot at me if I was standing behind one of the WTC steel columns.

 

[Resume]

That's not my point at all. A fragile aluminum airboat could never break through steel columns.

Bouncy-bouncy.

 

[The Dark Lord]

No, but for a million dollars I'd let you shoot at me if I was standing behind one of the WTC steel columns.

So you are unwilling to stand by your "theory" that a weaker metal traveling at high velocity cannot destroy a stronger metal. Huge shocker.

I

 

[WTC Dust]

[qimg]http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l564/dgmwood/thum_91934f8f6da5caea9.jpg[/qimg]

Do you see the funnel shaped smoke feature that runs down the left side of the tower?

Please acknowledge that you see this.

I see a column of fumes that is lighter in color than the rest on the left side of the image.

 

[cjnewson88]

Nothing could have caused the base the curl? except the heavy moving equipment used to pick up and shift it...

 

[WTC Dust]

So you are unwilling to stand by your "theory" that a weaker metal traveling at high velocity cannot destroy a stronger metal. Huge shocker.

I

It's not just the strength of the material. It's the strength of the two objects. The thinnest possible steel paper might not stop an aluminum airplane, but we're talking about the WTC, aren't we? Those steel beams could stop any passenger jet.

 

[The Dark Lord]

It's not just the strength of the material. It's the strength of the two objects. The thinnest possible steel paper might not stop an aluminum airplane, but we're talking about the WTC, aren't we? Those steel beams could stop any passenger jet.

Prove that the outer columns in the WTC were thick enough to stop a 150+ ton object moving at 500mph.

 

[WTC Dust]

Nothing could have caused the base the curl? except the heavy moving equipment used to pick up and shift it...

Could be, but I still see a curl as a unique sort of damage, and there are curled regions all over the statue. The top part is curling upwards! This can't be because something fell on it.

 

[MIKILLINI]

That's not my point at all. A fragile aluminum airboat could never break through steel columns.

You never considered 20,000+ gallons of fuel in these airliners. That's over 80 tons: Combine that with the plane, the plane's cargo and passengers, this becomes a 200+ ton vehicle flying at over 500mph to smash into the buildings.
Oh yeah, this did some major damage.