• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC dust

Status
Not open for further replies.
WTC Dust said:
Not really, because if an airplane hit a single beam it would have shown deceleration.

No plane could have pierced through even one single steel beam of that size.

It might bend it if it rammed into it, but not pierce straight through it.
Click to expand...

The troofer has never seen a Ramset used.
 
WTC Dust said:
It's boring because the official story was wrong 10 years ago.
(And I'm looking for the weapon that destroyed the WTC, not interested in consipracy
theories, official or otherwise.)
Click to expand...

If you want to see the weapons that destroyed the towers, just take a trip to JFK, (not to far from you), there is quite a few of them flying around there.

An aircraft flying at 450knts is dragging a wake behind it at what speed?
 
WTC Dust said:
I don't have the answer to every question, and I never will, so don't expect it from me.

What you can expect is that the things I say are the truth. Namely, I discovered WTC dust in my home and discovered that it was of multiple types and discovered that it was a metallic foam.

In terms of NORAD and the FAA, you are again talking about airplanes, but from a different perspective. From the twoofer perspective, I'd say. They all insist that hijackings took place, when I disagree.

You calling me a no-planer? It's not exactly precise. Yes, I say that no plane hit the WTC, but even rarer (perhaps I'm the only person saying this) I say that there isn't good evidence that hijackings took place.

As to who the perpetrators are? I don't know them by name, but I know what they did. The perpetrators are the very same people who are the original sources of the 19 Arab hijacking story.
Click to expand...

You are dodging again Dusty. You want us to trust that what you say is true? Sorry, not gonna happen, given your "evidence" so far. I have given you evidence of planes and hijackings, you choose to ignore this. I asked you to tell me why the organizations I mentioned testify there were hijacked planes. You insist it didn't happen, so you have to provide the evidence NOT me. "Trust me I'm telling the truth" won't work Dusty, we already know you're a liar.

Being a no-planer and a no-hijacker means the same thing, there can't be one without the other.

My questions aren't too difficult, a simple answer will do. All I'm asking is do you consider the organizations I mentioned as part of the deception? Are United and AA lying about their hijacked and crashed airplanes to cover up "the truth", did the witnesses I mentioned lie to cover up "the truth?"

Your "small group" of perps is a fallacy, a cover up of the magnitude you are claiming is huge and would involve so many people. I'll list a few here:

FBI, CIA, U.S Air Force, FAA, ATC, FDNY, Various international intelligence agencies, The Pentagon, White House, U.S Senate, British Government, German Government, Emergency workers, coroners, NTSB, FEMA, NIST.

I could go on but thats enough people involved already, and enough evidence of hijacked planes and collapsed buildings. Try some proper researching Dusty, I've given you plenty of places to start.
 
Craig4 said:
You could at least have the respect to wait until the dead are cold before you add them to your meaningless little hobby.
Click to expand...

You don't think that this Norwegian Christian fundamentalist could turn out to be a Truther do you ?
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
... I say that there isn't good evidence that hijackings took place.

As to who the perpetrators are? I don't know them by name, but I know what they did. The perpetrators are the very same people who are the original sources of the 19 Arab hijacking story.
Click to expand...
Darn, we have their DNA, for some of the 19 terrorists, so it is not a story, it is the truth, which you ignore and make up moronic steel turned to dust, delusional nonsense. Why not spread your nonsense to a few truther web sites like pilots for truth, they would love your delusions, they like lies. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/ Why not spread your Pulitzer Prize winning revelations to those who agree with you?

The crews on the planes, reported the "hijacking", a fact, evidence you ignore and prefer your fantasy, your lie, you steel turned to dust delusion. Are you calling the dead crews liars? Why do you make up lies about the dead? Why do you blame people without evidence?

You make up a fantasy, why? Why can't you see the aircraft debris? Why can't you define the weapons which turned steel to dust? How does it turn steel to dust? Why can't you explain how it works?
 
Last edited:
So the world's smartest truther thinks boats and plans "drag a wake behind them" and 300,000lb object traveling over 400 mph can't penetrate a skyscraper.

:dl:
 
WTC Dust said:
It might be able to, but it didn't happen on 9/11.
Click to expand...

You claim its impossible now you say it "might" be able to? Why wouldn't it?


Video evidence showing a lack of plane debris and the lack of a wake prove that no plane was flying in the air nearby.
Click to expand...

Except we can see the debris, exactly what do you expect to see? What do you see when you see that jet hit that concrete wall?


First thing I saw was this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4o7nNikQBe...ar+shape.jpg

And no I don't see a similar shape and you are also comparing a still image. No idea what you're trying to imply, but its cleary based on crazy
Click to expand...

People are often offended by the unfamilar.
Click to expand...

... what does that mean?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
You don't think that this Norwegian Christian fundamentalist could turn out to be a Truther do you ?
Click to expand...

There is a compilation of his writing at dougsaunders.net. I scanned it briefly and didn't see anything relating to 9/11. Mostly it's concerned with the problems emerging from the Muslim immigration in Norway and Europe in general.
 
Edx said:
First thing I saw was this:

[qimg]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4o7nNikQBe8/TPAKaK1gc-I/AAAAAAAAAIo/z-4LSPgSbXI/S1600-R/do%2Byou%2Bsee%2Ba%2Bsimilar%2Bshape.jpg[/qimg]

And no I don't see a similar shape and you are also comparing a still image. No idea what you're trying to imply, but its cleary based on crazy :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Apparently, WTC Dust is suggesting that the towers turned into giant magnetic dipoles. :rolleyes:
 
sylvan8798 said:
There is a compilation of his writing at dougsaunders.net. I scanned it briefly and didn't see anything relating to 9/11. Mostly it's concerned with the problems emerging from the Muslim immigration in Norway and Europe in general.
Click to expand...

He makes a comment about how it only take a few people to take over a plane. On the face of it he does not appear to be a Truther.
 
I don't have the answer to every question, and I never will, so don't expect it from me.

What you can expect is that the things I say are the truth. Namely, I discovered WTC dust in my home and discovered that it was of multiple types and discovered that it was a metallic foam.

In terms of NORAD and the FAA, you are again talking about airplanes, but from a different perspective. From the twoofer perspective, I'd say. They all insist that hijackings took place, when I disagree.

You calling me a no-planer? It's not exactly precise. Yes, I say that no plane hit the WTC, but even rarer (perhaps I'm the only person saying this) I say that there isn't good evidence that hijackings took place.

As to who the perpetrators are? I don't know them by name, but I know what they did. The perpetrators are the very same people who are the original sources of the 19 Arab hijacking story.
Click to expand...


Dumb.jpg
 
It's amazing that somebody can be so outside reality to actually say, "there isn't good evidence that hijackings took place", as if just saying it actually makes it true.
 
bill smith said:
Dr Blevins ,of this does't convince you that there were hijackers nothing will.

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/Atta-Bryant.htm
Click to expand...

We've now established that there were hijackings then. I'm glad we got that out of the way.

You do understand that you're nobody and you have no chance of ever impacting anything right? I mean as far as being taken seriously, it's just never going to happen.
 
WTC Dust said:
Not really, because if an airplane hit a single beam it would have shown deceleration.
Click to expand...

And your erroneous conclusion that the plane did not decelerate is based upon …?

WTC Dust said:
No plane could have pierced through even one single steel beam of that size.
Click to expand...

Demonstrating that a degree in biology is relatively useless for answering relatively simple questions in another field (in this case, mechanical engineering).

" … a single beam of that size …"

Meaning that, after all this time, you still haven't a clue how impossibly thin the steel in those columns & trusses really were. Or how wafer thin were the concrete floors.

Sad.

WTC Dust said:
It might bend it if it rammed into it, but not pierce straight through it.
Click to expand...

Demonstrating that rampant arrogance can be an insurmountable obstacle to understanding simple engineering principles, even when those principles have been explained in fine detail.

Sadder.
 
WTC Dust said:
Not really, because if an airplane hit a single beam it would have shown deceleration.

No plane could have pierced through even one single steel beam of that size.

It might bend it if it rammed into it, but not pierce straight through it.
Click to expand...

Please watch this video of a man using a potato gun to pierce the fender of a car. (the bullet was PVC, duct tape, and newspaper)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom