Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Mudcat]

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.

WTC dust, please stop and think about what you are suggesting for a second: a directed free energy weapon that reduced the structural steel to dust/foam yet all it did to a bronze sphere is 'curl' it.

Think about it hard and long then you'll understand why we aren't taking this crap seriously.

 

[Macgyver1968]

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.

...and you don't necessary have to cut through the column..just break the 4 bolts that hold them together:

 

[MIKILLINI]

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.

What do you see here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2hY0QleiHY

 

[MIKILLINI]

...and you don't necessary have to cut through the column..just break the 4 bolts that hold them together:

[qimg]http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i41/macgyver1968a/fig-B-7-1.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i41/macgyver1968a/fig-B-1.jpg[/qimg]

In addition to this was the explosions with subsequent fires and the always ever present gravity.

 

[MIKILLINI]

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.

You are arguing from ignorance. Ever heard of it? Directed energy space weapons do not exist. Arguments from ignorance do exist.

 

[BStrong]

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.

Kinetic energy might be worth investigating.

You can ram a plastic straw through a potato if you have your thumb sealing the non-impact end.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/surfingscientist/pdf/teacher_demonstrations.pdf

How can a simple air filled piece of plastic go through a solid potato?

 

[Gravy]

Oops, had I known about WTC Dust's behavior on this forum, I wouldn't have chimed in. Hope she gets help.

 

[JohnG]

Would an icicle ever break apart the hammer?

Missing the point again. All kinds of counterintuitive things can happen in extreme conditions. I once saw a video of two skydivers colliding in midair. One person had his legs sheared off and the other guy died. Are you really going to stand by your claim that relatively "fragile" objects can't do significant amounts of damage when propelled to high velocities???

 

[JohnG]

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

The Wrong Stuff

 

[JohnG]

Oops, had I known about WTC Dust's behavior on this forum, I wouldn't have chimed in. Hope she gets help.

Still, nice to hear from you!

 

[CORed]

I don't see the point your trying to make from these pictures.

I'm not sure what point she's trying to make, but the point she's actually making is that she doesn't understand perspective. Of course, the list of things that WTC Dust doesn't understand is very long and I suspect we have so far just scratched the surface of it.

 

[CORed]

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

Breathing excessive amounts of sufficiently small particles of just about anything will gum up the lungs and cause severe health problems.

 

[cjnewson88]

I'm still confused that you believe some massive invisible steel vaporising weapon would just curl a bit of statue..

Why am I even arguing this..

 

[pgimeno]

The difference between words and material objects is a great difference. Words are hearsay. Material objects are physical evidence. I have my standards, and those favor physical evidence over hearsay.

I'm just addressing the amount of people required. When you focus on the office with the operators, you neglect to take into account that many other people told us what happened. Note that I am not talking about the accuracy or reliability of the reports, only about the fact that they exist and point to a plot in which 19 islamic terrorists were involved, therefore either they are correct and your pet hypothesis is wrong, or they are fake and there are many more people involved than you claim in covering up the real deal and inventing the plot.

Which is it? Are you wrong in your pet DEW hypothesis, or are you wrong in the amount of people involved?

If there's another possibility not contemplated in the reasoning above, please elaborate.

Please also respond to why "they" couldn't project an impact just as "they" projected a plane.

By the way, your expectations on the impact are wrong. Indeed if you held a tower like a bat and smashed into a plane with it at the same velocity, you'd obtain the same result we saw, because the plane has a lot of inertia due to its mass, causing it to not move much from its point, and the speed of the tower would pierce through it (think of a racket string breaking when hitting a ball, even if the rackets are much harder). And airplanes (especially airliners) are much stronger than their light envelope, otherwise the wings would break before taking off because they wouldn't be able to hold the weight of the plane! There's a strong skeleton behind that cover.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/boeing2.jpg

And don't forget the kinetic energy. If you throw an empty can against a glass, you will probably not even crack it. If you throw a full can, you will probably smash it, the material being the same.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Oops, had I known about WTC Dust's behavior on this forum, I wouldn't have chimed in. Hope she gets help.

Good to see you Mark, Dust isn't quite as ridiculous as Lyte Trip was. Craving attention is her worst trait, it seems. She doesn't believe the current physics are..well.."modern" enough so she thinks new physics are needed.
That's equivalent to saying the Laws of Physics are hiding something..

 

[MIKILLINI]

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

Dear Tracy; Objects have struck the sphere causing blunt force trauma.

That is all.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I'm not sure what point she's trying to make, but the point she's actually making is that she doesn't understand perspective. Of course, the list of things that WTC Dust doesn't understand is very long and I suspect we have so far just scratched the surface of it.

Well there are those "New Physics" that have to be discovered, "foam fumes" This may go real deep in the rabbit hole. There are many things Dust chooses to ignore that exacerbates her whimsical theories so I agree with you 100%

 

[CORed]

It has many of the hallmarks of cold fusion and zero point energy, but that is just my best guess at the moment.

Please elaborate, what hallmarks are those?

Nonexistence.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Do you know how to use mathematical modeling as an investigatory technique?

There are many here who do that Tracy..I know you know this to be true, but why are you ignoring them?

 

[MIKILLINI]

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

DGM asked if you see the funnel shaped smoke feature that runs down the left side of the tower...So you do see it, yes?