WTC dust

[dtugg]

The energy weapon theory, which I'm willing to drop instantly as soon as it is effectively debunked, says that the energy came from the material itself. In other words, the weapon tapped into the energy that is contained within the material and used this energy to destroy the WTC buildings and damage others. You wouldn't have to pay ConEd.

Unless you explain how this could be done (which you nor Judy Wood can, of course,) there really is nothing to debunk. If you really cannot understand that, there is no possible way that you're research scientist.

 

[WTC Dust]

How so? I'd like to see this "work" you keep talking about.

If you pay attention, you will see it. I plan to discuss my research one bit at a time.

 

[DGM]

In other words, the weapon tapped into the energy that is contained within the material and used this energy to destroy the WTC buildings and damage others.

Kind of like using gravity.

It is erroneously claimed that gravity alone is powerful enough to do what was done, and I find that hilarious.

And it doesn't bother you that using known principles of physics and doing the math says it can?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

If you pay attention, you will see it. I plan to discuss my research one bit at a time.

Could you please start discussing it then?

 

[WTC Dust]

You certainly ignored the main points of the post.



Mackey explained why it must be done from above. If you disagree, explain why. Otherwise the point stands.



Are you actually too dumb to see that this is actually a point against you? If you want your imaginary laser to account for damage to those buildings it just makes the scenario that much more difficult.




But Judy Wood doesn't even have a theory. All she says is that DEW did it. As other posters have said she refuses to state where the weapon was, what type of energy was used, how much energy was used, ect. Mackey's calculations were actually extremely generous. A weapon that would destroy the WTC would actually have to be much more powerful than he calculated.

I suppose it is true that nobody has debunked you hero's theory. But that is only because she has not produced one. And she hasn't produced one because she cannot.

Anybody who believes some kind of giant laser destroyed the WTC is insane.

Mackey is talking as if the beam destroys all along the path of the beam, when that doesn't appear to be the case. The beam appears to have been focused. The weapon itself didn't have to be directly over the target, although some deep holes indicate that it is a possibility.

Mackey is forcing a "directly above the WTC theory" and debunking that. It's called a strawman, and has zero to do with Dr. Wood's work.

 

[WTC Dust]

Prove it.

I'm not your monkey.

 

[WTC Dust]

Kind of like using gravity.



And it doesn't bother you that using known principles of physics and doing the math says it can?

This is utter BS. Falling twelve feet doesn't generate that much kinetic energy, and the floors were only twelve feet apart.

 

[triforcharity]

Dust moving in the upward direction disproves a gravity collapse. Moving on.

Dust being pushed upwards by air moving in that direction, disproves you know the first thing about rational thinking, physics, or baseball.

 

[GlennB]

I'm guessing the closest thing in fictional work that describes the weapon is the "flux capacitor" used in Back to the Future. Remember how the professor throws a banana and a beer can inside it in order to generate 2.1 gigawatts of power? Something like that.

Yep. Bananas and beer cans did it. Kudos, WTC Dust, you da top joker man.

 

[BigAl]

There is a lot of energy contained within matter itself. It's not like you'd run an electric cord and power the device using ConEd. The energy for the destruction of the WTC didn't come from an airplane crash or explosions, but it came from somewhere.

The energy weapon theory, which I'm willing to drop instantly as soon as it is effectively debunked, says that the energy came from the material itself. In other words, the weapon tapped into the energy that is contained within the material and used this energy to destroy the WTC buildings and damage others. You wouldn't have to pay ConEd.

I'm guessing the closest thing in fictional work that describes the weapon is the "flux capacitor" used in Back to the Future. Remember how the professor throws a banana and a beer can inside it in order to generate 2.1 gigawatts of power? Something like that.

I don't have a picture of the weapon, so don't ask for it. I do have many pictures of the damage done by this weapon, however. It is erroneously claimed that gravity alone is powerful enough to do what was done, and I find that hilarious.

You clearly don't have any understanding of physics.

 

[DGM]

This is utter BS. Falling twelve feet doesn't generate that much kinetic energy, and the floors were only twelve feet apart.

OK, convince me. How much energy is contained in a twelve foot fall? Do you plan to add mass to the equation or should I just ignore you now?


BTW: Thanks for the Stundie.

 

[triforcharity]

What can I say? I live here. There was a fence erected on Day 3. You couldn't get any closer than two blocks away, and you couldn't see the pile above the fence. You could see some tall pieces sticking up, but not the pile itself. You could also see these horrible fumes coming up.

Horse****. YOU couldn't see it, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Using that flawed logic, NYC doesn't exist, since I cannot see it from my house in Florida. Nor does the ocean exists, because I cannot see it from my porch.

Care to address any of the pictures that I have posted?

What intersection were you at?

 

[triforcharity]

I'm talking about my research in the way I want to talk about it. I don't follow orders.

So basically, you are pulling this **** out of your ass.

Gotcha.

You have failed.

Please feel free to show us your research.

 

[triforcharity]

It doesn't look flat, but the pile appears to be very short. NOT what I expected to see on Day 3. They said that two huge buildings collapsed. I expected to see a pile of debris much taller than two stories, but nope. Very short pile, relative to street level.

So, you were able to see the entire pile from your vantage point?

Liar.

Sorry, I have showed that you are incorrect.

 

[dtugg]

Mackey is talking as if the beam destroys all along the path of the beam, when that doesn't appear to be the case. The beam appears to have been focused.

You can surely prove such a weapon is possible, yes? If not, a laser type weapons seems to be the only possibility.

The weapon itself didn't have to be directly over the target, although some deep holes indicate that it is a possibility.

Where could it have been?

Mackey is forcing a "directly above the WTC theory" and debunking that. It's called a strawman, and has zero to do with Dr. Wood's work.

Wood never provided any specifics whatsoever for her imaginary laser. So Mackey had to do the work for her.

 

[dtugg]

I'm not your monkey.

Are you Judy Wood's monkey?

 

[triforcharity]

This is utter BS. Falling twelve feet doesn't generate that much kinetic energy, and the floors were only twelve feet apart.

Ok, here is a little experiment for you.

Take a golf ball, and set it on something 12' above your head. Allow it to drop. Does it hurt? Sure. Not too bad though. Nothing terrible.

Now, take a VW Golf and repeat? Does it hurt? Oh, ****, you're dead, you cannot answer.....

 

[DGM]

WTC Dust:
Now really, you say you're a research scientist. Do you have any formal training at this or is this just what you tell your mother when she asks why you spend so much time on the computer?

 

[kookbreaker]

I'm talking about my research in the way I want to talk about it. I don't follow orders.

Scientists do not hide or obscure their methodology and data. Nor do they get belligerent or sulky if they are asked to share their work, at least not when they are ready to present. Given your chest-beating on this thread I would say you seem to think you are ready to present, yet you give us this line instead.

You are not a scientist. I don't think you've ever even been to ground zero. I doubt you even live in NYC.

 

[kookbreaker]

Ok, here is a little experiment for you.

Take a golf ball, and set it on something 12' above your head. Allow it to drop. Does it hurt? Sure. Not too bad though. Nothing terrible.

Now, take a VW Golf and repeat? Does it hurt? Oh, ****, you're dead, you cannot answer.....

"Hey, has anyone seen where I parked my Golf? Oh there it...... TRIO!"