Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

Not exactly. What is a rail gun? Delivering energy to target via a mass moving at high velocity is an efficient way of doing it and many advanced weapons programs are still doing just that.

True, but new kinds of weapons that do not use projectiles have been developed in the past decades.


Yes, and that makes for basic realities. The first being; you don't get more out of it than you put in.

This is where new physics is required. The physics of materials. If the material itself provided the energy used to destroy the WTC, you don't need to worry about getting more juice from anywhere or storing the juice.


Just putting "energy beam" in front of the name doesn't mean you suddenly get more juice out of your power supply. You still have to generate, store, put that energy into the beam, and get it to the target. Which in atmosphere is not always trivial!

As a general rule, converting to electric energy from any other energy source is a lossy proposition. So if you had, say, a chemical-pumped laser weapon, then what comes out the business end will be only a percent of what you'd be able to deliver if you put those same chemicals into a grenade and threw it.

Only you're ignoring the energy contained within the material itself.

Responses in red.

 

[WTC Dust]

This one
.

The image posted proves my point. The base of The Sphere wasn't curled up >360 degrees before 9/11.

 

[Dash80]

Even if you were right about the planes, the buildings withstood it. After that, all you have is an office fire.

They were designed to withstand plane impact, and they did. Your point?

 

[WTC Dust]

You can find this sign in the Taipei Airport
[qimg]http://www.t-nation.com/img/photos/215death-sign.jpg[/qimg]
I suspect an attitude like this would have robbed the US of its No-plane Truther experts.

Do you hate America and its freedoms?

 

[WTC Dust]

Have you looked into the Casimir effect? I can't tell by this post. It's new physics.

You haven't got the first clue what you are talking about. This post proves you've never done any chemistry at all. Try looking at the periodic table and you'll see that Lithium and Beryllium are far lighter and less dense than most other materials. Metals have a wide range of densities and strengths. The highlighted part is total horse-plop. Why are you using the word molecule when you are talking about atomic bonding? You do realise that bond strength is not the only factor that affects a metal's density? Of course not.

Atomic bond strength in descending order

covalent > ionic > metallic > h-bonds > dipole-dipole > dispersion

Crystal structure (FCC, BCC, HCP etc), atomic radius, nuclear charge and the number of bonding orbitals have an effect. Most metals have d-orbitals which are relatively small. If you consider Lithium which has an s-orbital which is quite big relative to d-orbital you can see how the bonding orbitals have such an effect. Larger bonding orbital = larger electron cloud.

Oh and graphite is metallic bonded by the way and DOES conduct electricity. It's considered a semi-metal. Look up "Carbon Arc Lamp" you ignoramus.

Funny how diamond does not conduct, but graphite and graphene will, yet they are made of Carbon only. How does that work dusty? Magic? You haven't the first clue about atomic bonding or structure in materials. This is the stuff a 14 year old chemistry student will know. You don't know this and yet you claim a PhD that requires an advanced level/degree level in chemistry.

I love the way she uses micrometer scale when the actual scale for atomic bonding is orders of magnitude smaller. Typically measured in Angstroms (Å), 1 x 10 ^-10m.

Again it shows she has no understanding of the scales involved when anyone who has studied this basic science will know.

I don't respond to your nonsense however, on this occasion it's important to correct you so the reader learns something.

Why do you continue to spout crap when anyone can look up your absurd claims in 10 minutes and see you are full of it?

 

[Dave Rogers]

In other words, you can't even begin to answer the question as to how you can differentiate between genuine Truther opposition and false, Government Truther disinformation agents?

Who cares? Even if the latter exist, they're just the ones deliberately talking bollocks.

Dave

 

[Dash80]

The image posted proves my point. The base of The Sphere wasn't curled up >360 degrees before 9/11.

What is it supposed to prove exactly?

 

[WTC Dust]

Well, you've got all that sciencey stuff in your background Beachnut, so it might've been less difficult for you than someone with an ooooh, lah di dah, PhD in a totally unrelated field.

But, I'd think that someone who calls herself WTC "Dust" should be able to identify that mystery substance. Dr. B, have you actually managed to live in NYC for over a decade and have never seen building rubble being placed in a dumpster? It's a very common sight. And if the wind isn't moving, the dust particles from said rubble (sheetrock, plasterboard, whatever you want to call it) will rise slowly for a minute or two before re-settling and/or being carried by what little breeze there is. There's actually an ordinance requiring construction workers to wet it down if the wind is above X mph, but I can't specifically cite it. I do know, howeever, that in my years in Alphabet City, I'd see dozens of such scenes every day, so the pic is as common as dirt to me.

Try it little empirical experiment, why dontcha. Take a walk around your neighborhood on a sunny day. Observe. There's always some building being rennovated or taken down. You, too, will see those remarkable clouds of plain white construction DUST.

I've seen this kind of thing in real life, and it didn't smell like the WTC stench.

 

[Dash80]

Do you hate America and its freedoms?

Lol. Do you hate plane victims and eyewitnesses?

 

[WTC Dust]

They were designed to withstand plane impact, and they did. Your point?

My point is that the plane crash theory is not capable of turning a steel building into dust. After this "crash", all you have is an office fire. Office fires can't do that.

 

[WTC Dust]

Lol. Do you hate plane victims and eyewitnesses?

I don't know that there were any plane victims, but no, I don't hate the eyewitnesses.

 

[Dash80]

My point is that the plane crash theory is not capable of turning a steel building into dust. After this "crash", all you have is an office fire. Office fires can't do that.

You're right, planes cannot do such a thing. That is why the buildings did not turn to dust/foam/toast crumbs or whatever.

 

[WTC Dust]

What is it supposed to prove exactly?

You can see the base is curled up >360 degrees in parts, right? That kind of damage can't come from a falling object. The hijack conspiracy story says that building parts landed on The Sphere, but the damage to The Sphere doesn't say that building parts landed on it.

There's a big exploded out part on the top, with edges curled outwards. This isn't from items falling on it.

 

[Dash80]

I don't know that there were any plane victims, but no, I don't hate the eyewitnesses.

There were 246 plane victims. You are a liar.

 

[WTC Dust]

No, disgust does not exclusively mean that.

verb (used with object)
1. to cause loathing or nausea in.
2. to offend the good taste, moral sense, etc., of; cause extreme dislike or revulsion in: Your vulgar remarks disgust me.
noun
1. a strong distaste; nausea; loathing.

Sums up how I feel about no-planers perfectly.

Buy a dictionary!

Why did you use the word "no"? You're repeating much of what I said.

 

[Bell]

My point is that the plane crash theory is not capable of turning a steel building into dust. After this "crash", all you have is an office fire. Office fires can't do that.

At least we agree on something, since the buildings did not turn to dust.

Also, did you noticed the absence of any firefighting?

 

[Dash80]

You can see the base is curled up >360 degrees in parts, right? That kind of damage can't come from a falling object. The hijack conspiracy story says that building parts landed on The Sphere, but the damage to The Sphere doesn't say that building parts landed on it.

There's a big exploded out part on the top, with edges curled outwards. This isn't from items falling on it.

Yes, it is from building parts.

 

[Bell]

There were 246 plane victims. You are a liar.

And disgusting.

 

[Dcdrac]

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

And as a ballistic weapon trasnfers its energy to the intended target you have an energy transfer........

2 large planes acting as a ballistic weapon transfer their energy and jet fuel into the builidings, ego an energy weapon involving an energetic disassembly

 

[Bell]

There's a big exploded out part on the top, with edges curled outwards. This isn't from items falling on it.

You should really not use the word "exploded" when that is not what happened. Parts of the building fell onto the spare, crashing it inward. People also fell onto -and ended up inside- the sphere by the way, but I am not sure you care about the victims, much like you do not care about the victims inside the planes.