Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

parky76 said:
GZ was flat huh?


[qimg]http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs260.ash1/18768_306418725737_567160737_3976680_5360045_n.jpg[/qimg]


http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/911-maps.html

yeah, as flat as Dolly Parton's chest!!!!

Another Truther FAIL
Click to expand...


Compare:
Image118.jpg


Hey, you guys,

Let's be clear with one another. The importance of the assertion that GZ was flat consists primarily in the issue that the flatness relates to, rather than flatness per se.

Do you agree that the underlying and more important issue is the absence of steel, concrete, rebar, not to mention other building content, where once stood not one but two 1/4 mile high buildings? Thus the argument here is not really about how flat is flat or what is the definition of flat. By any reasonable definition, GZ was flat.

Clearly, the best you can claim is that in a few places, including the remaining outer shell, GZ was not absolutely flat. Some of you are arguing strenuously for a height of "40-50" ft. in some places. What is 40ft of height, 3 maybe 4 stories?

We're talking here about an aggregate of 220 stories, posters, that has gone missing in a matter of two separate <10 seconds of absolute annihilation.


Two-hundred-twenty stories is way too much building to be completely missing, absent an explanation centering on the use of exotic weaponry in the nature of DEW.

In this context, it is futile for you folks to try so strenuously to find 40ft, maybe 50 at the most, here or there.

Get a grip, posters, and realize that something is amiss. It is too bad there is no official, validly conducted investigation of what happened. You have nothing to rely on to support your claims and the photographic evidence is strongly against you, given what is clearly missing.

Think this through, posters.

before.gif

the yellow lines show the height of WTC 4-6 and the other yellow is the highest portion of pile found anywhere on GZ, being generous in the diagramming.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Steel being turned to dust instantaneously:
GJS-WTC030c_original.jpg

Look!
Click to expand...
That is the wall board and dust falling off the steel core, and all the steel was on the ground. You are joking, no one can post that dumb of a statement except Judy. You do understand there was 3 inches of wallboard on the steel? It is harder to make a dumber post than you have, do you think you can beat it and make a dumber one?

Don't show Tony this photo, he thinks the WTC fell near free-fall speeds but that is a big chunk of the core still standing well after the floors failed. Poor Tony's explosives failed to go off in the core.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Steel being turned to dust instantaneously:
Click to expand...


Trucks being turned to dust instantaneously!

http://www.hcn.org/blogs/ray/images/logtruck_crop2.jpg/image_preview

Look!

ETA: I also can't help but notice that all the pictures you present in support of your "flat-GZ" fantasy are all from angles that either do not include the bulk of the pile, or minimize the visual effect. I mean, if you showed me a picture looking straight down on the erect Twin Towers and said, "Look! They're flat, not 100 stories tall," your sanity would reasonably be called into doubt. That's essentially what you're doing here.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Compare:


Let's be clear with one another. The importance of the assertion that GZ was flat consists primarily in the issue that the flatness relates to, rather than flatness per se.

Do you agree that the underlying and more important issue is the absence of steel, concrete, rebar, not to mention other building content that where once stood not one but two 1/4 mile high buildings, the argument here is over what is the definition of flat?

Clearly, the best you can claim is that in a few places, including the remaining outer shell, GZ was not absolutely flat. Some of you are arguing strenuously for a height of "40-50" ft. What is 40ft of height, 3 maybe 4 stories.

We're talking here about an aggregate of 220 stories, posters.

That is way too much building to be completely missing, absent an explanation centering on the use of exotic weaponry in the nature of DEW.

In this context, it is futile for you folks to try so strenuously to find 40ft, maybe 50 at the most, here or there.

Get a grip, posters, and realize that something is amiss. It is too bad there is no official, validly conducted investigation of what happened. You have nothing to rely on to support your claims and the photographic evidence is strongly against you, given what is clearly missing.

Think this through, posters.
Click to expand...

The WTC towers were 95 percent air, when they fell they left piles about 5 to 7 stories high spread out over 19 acres. Sorry, your flat theory is a failed moronic delusion. Get a grip, you have no idea what you are talking about after 8 years of 911 truth failed ideas.

Love it, the new flat is 40 to 50 feet at most, 5 stories! lol

Got to love truther math, gone flat!

95 percent air, need help with the math? Did you take any math courses?
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
If the WTC steel was carbon, it would "dustify". We, as human beings are carbon based lifeforms, when our bodies are subjected to fire we turn to dust.

Steel isn't a carbon based substance where it could turn to dust Jammonius. You have nothing to gain from saying that steel could turn to dust Jam. Whatever you're thinking please give it up, you lost and you lost horribly.
Click to expand...

Look at it:
dustspire.gif

...steel being turned to dust...:eek:
 
jammonius said:
Compare:
[qimg]http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image118.jpg[/qimg]

Hey, you guys,

Let's be clear with one another. The importance of the assertion that GZ was flat consists primarily in the issue that the flatness relates to, rather than flatness per se.

Do you agree that the underlying and more important issue is the absence of steel, concrete, rebar, not to mention other building content, where once stood not one but two 1/4 mile high buildings? Thus the argument here is not really about how flat is flat or what is the definition of flat. By any reasonable definition, GZ was flat.

Clearly, the best you can claim is that in a few places, including the remaining outer shell, GZ was not absolutely flat. Some of you are arguing strenuously for a height of "40-50" ft. in some places. What is 40ft of height, 3 maybe 4 stories?

We're talking here about an aggregate of 220 stories, posters, that has gone missing in a matter of two separate <10 seconds of absolute annihilation.


Two-hundred-twenty stories is way too much building to be completely missing, absent an explanation centering on the use of exotic weaponry in the nature of DEW.

In this context, it is futile for you folks to try so strenuously to find 40ft, maybe 50 at the most, here or there.

Get a grip, posters, and realize that something is amiss. It is too bad there is no official, validly conducted investigation of what happened. You have nothing to rely on to support your claims and the photographic evidence is strongly against you, given what is clearly missing.

Think this through, posters.

[qimg]http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BBEpics/before.gif[/qimg]
the yellow lines show the height of WTC 4-6 and the other yellow is the highest portion of pile found anywhere on GZ, being generous in the diagramming.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you've seen this huge slow loading zoomable picture of CZ and surroundings. Have a look at the footprint of WTC1 guys.

http://www.stopgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/sat_photo_911.jpg the big brother

Well if that one doesn't load maybe this one will...

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg The baby (slow loading)
 
Last edited:
how tall would the WTC towers be, if the empty space between floors was removed?

don't forget the height of the first floor lobby..and the height of those big floors 20% 40% and 60% up.

plus, all that mass didn't compact into the footprint of the towers, it spead all over the WTC complex.

and by the way, is there any evidence of ANY of the steel turning to dust? didn't NYC ship away like 250,000 tons of steel?
 
Last edited:
Jammonius,

Yes, we know you love to lie, you love to show us pictures which tell an opposite story from the one your delusional mind has been set forth by Judy Wood. "Dustification" my achin' arse! You really need to think outside the box & not inside it.
 
beachnut said:
The WTC towers were 95 percent air, when they fell they left piles about 5 to 7 stories high spread out over 19 acres. Sorry, your flat theory is a failed moronic delusion. Get a grip, you have no idea what you are talking about after 8 years of 911 truth failed ideas.

Love it, the new flat is 40 to 50 feet at most, 5 stories! lol

Got to love truther math, gone flat!

95 percent air, need help with the math? Did you take any math courses?
Click to expand...

Hey posters, beachnut believes there's meaning to the claim that the two tallest buildings in the world (when built) were made of 95% air.

beachnut, you do realize you are engaging in a dire form of misleading propaganda in your 95% air claim, don't you?
9-11%20Picture5.jpg

beachnut. Please do better next time.

And I suppose they were struck by alleged jetliners that were solid missiles, rather than hollow aluminum tubes, right?
 
jammonius, have you ever had a sane person agree with this theory of yours? Could you show us an example of how that dialogue went?
 
jammonius said:
Look at it:
[qimg]http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/dustspire.gif[/qimg]
...steel being turned to dust...:eek:
Click to expand...

Give it up Jammonius! All I see is the steel core FALLING to the ground & not turning to "dust".

You really can't grasp the concept that you're 100% WRONG!
 
jammonius said:
Hey posters, beachnut believes there's meaning to the claim that the two tallest buildings in the world (when built) were made of 95% air.

beachnut, you do realize you are engaging in a dire form of misleading propaganda in your 95% air claim, don't you?
http://www.911readingroom.org/jones/images/9-11 Picture5.jpg
beachnut. Please do better next time.

And I suppose they were struck by alleged jetliners that were solid missiles, rather than hollow aluminum tubes, right?
Click to expand...

If they weren't 95% air they wouldn't be able to be occupied by humans. Answer the question. How thick were the floors and how many floors were there? it's a simple question.
 
jammonius said:
Hey posters, beachnut believes there's meaning to the claim that the two tallest buildings in the world (when built) were made of 95% air.

beachnut, you do realize you are engaging in a dire form of misleading propaganda in your 95% air claim, don't you?
[qimg]http://www.911readingroom.org/jones/images/9-11%20Picture5.jpg[/qimg]
beachnut. Please do better next time.

And I suppose they were struck by alleged jetliners that were solid missiles, rather than hollow aluminum tubes, right?
Click to expand...


So you're now claiming that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were solid all the way through? :boggled: (Making Coo-coo sounds)
 
jammonius said:
Hey posters, beachnut believes there's meaning to the claim that the two tallest buildings in the world (when built) were made of 95% air.
Click to expand...

the great majority of the space inside each tower, was indeed air. deal with the truth and move on to better things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom