• 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.
Sometimes such a reply is appropriate as in this case Grizzly.
Click to expand...

Well as wholly bat crap crazy as Judy Wood's theories are I'm sincerely fascinated by the depths of the woo it must take to still think the steel was absolutely vaporized by the equivalent of a massive shoop da whoop laser beam:




But I should expect nothing less from the "dustification'ers"

Anyway enough of this silly play... :)
It doesn't answer the OP's question as to whether the steel was completely turned to dust, the answer to which is: Absolutely not. [/thread]
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
What a joke. We are looking for ten MILES of core columns Grizzley. Not a few hundred feet. You just make it worse for yourselves with this kind of idiotic post.
Click to expand...

How DEEP do you think the pile is?

What proportion of these ten miles would you expect to see on the surface of it?

List assumptions and show work.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Well as wholly bat crap crazy as Judy Wood's theories are I'm sincerely fascinated by the depths of the woo it must take to still think the steel was absolutely vaporized by the equivalent of a massive shoop da whoop laser beam:

[qimg]http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2641/shoopm.th.jpg[/qimg]


But I should expect nothing less from the "dustification'ers"
Click to expand...

In my opinion we don't need to talk about DEW at all. We only have to show that the steel is missing. That is no problem. It is missing and I can show that very clearly.
 
bill smith said:
In my opinion we don't need to talk about DEW at all. We only have to show that the steel is missing. That is no problem. It is missing and I can show that very clearly.
Click to expand...
So there wasn't a molten pool of steel under the WTC after all? :rolleyes:
 
bill smith said:
In my opinion we don't need to talk about DEW at all. We only have to show that the steel is missing. That is no problem. It is missing and I can show that very clearly.
Click to expand...

So which is it this week, bill? 20,000,000 Gajillion pounds of molten metal or dustified steel?

Have you ever met a CT you didn't like? :confused:
 
sabretooth47 said:
So which is it this week, bill? 20,000,000 Gajillion pounds of molten metal or dustified steel?

Have you ever met a CT you didn't like? :confused:
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way. It is one or the other. As simple as that. Right now I don't envision a third option.
 
29 pages folks... yeah you just kept this thread alive for 29 pages all about DEW ...

Are you all wanting to beat Christophera's thread?
 
excaza said:
why ten miles?
Click to expand...

47 columns of 400m or so equals roughly 11 miles.

However, Bill has the Truther "it can only exist if I can see it" syndrome. The fact that much of the steel was buried under rubble is not acceptable to him.

Or rather, it suits his trolliness to refuse to accept close ups of excavation work as these reveal buried columns. He'll only accept overheads which, by definition, must hide much of the steel.

Trolls troll, just as pigs grunt.
 
GlennB said:
47 columns of 400m or so equals roughly 11 miles.

However, Bill has the Truther "it can only exist if I can see it" syndrome. The fact that much of the steel was buried under rubble is not acceptable to him.

Or rather, it suits his trolliness to refuse to accept close ups of excavation work as these reveal buried columns. He'll only accept overheads which, by definition, must hide much of the steel.

Trolls troll, just as pigs grunt.
Click to expand...

Now now Glenn. Why not tell the Readers the full Truth about what I said ? I said that I would only accept panoramic shots with other buildings for context and aeriel photographs. No closeups without context accepted- they could be faked anywhere after all.

None of this steel was under any debris...Video available.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6506515&postcount=1087 hyperlink
 
bill smith said:
Now now Glenn. Why not tell the Readers the full Truth about what I said ? I said that I would only accept panoramic shots with other buildings for context and aeriel photographs. No closeups without context accepted- they could be faked anywhere after all.

None of this steel was under any debris...Video available.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6506515&postcount=1087 hyperlink
Click to expand...

Bill, here's what's at the link:

When the core of WTC2 finally collapsed everything else was already on the ground (bar some dust). Isn't that so Dave ? So when the remaining - lets say five miles of massive core columns collapsed they would be right on top in the centre of the footprint. Isnt that also true Dave ?

But there is virtually nothing there let alone five miles of massive core columns.

Where are they Dave ?

 
tsig said:
Bill, here's what's at the link:

When the core of WTC2 finally collapsed everything else was already on the ground (bar some dust). Isn't that so Dave ? So when the remaining - lets say five miles of massive core columns collapsed they would be right on top in the centre of the footprint. Isnt that also true Dave ?

But there is virtually nothing there let alone five miles of massive core columns.

Where are they Dave ?

Click to expand...


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/userbirthday.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom