• 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.
bill smith said:
Suppose it was a resonance of some kind that caused the molecules in the steel to seperate from each other ? Say a frequency of a million cycles a second or something like that ?

Perhaps the power could be drawn up from the Earth through the building frame in some way in a Tesla-style technology ?
Click to expand...


Bill, Perhaps the power was drawn from the energy contained within matter itself. You don't need to tap into deep energy sources. The energy is right where the damage was done. No extension cords needed, either. ;)
 
WTC Dust said:
Sufficiently advanced technology appears magical to the naive, which is where most of you fail.
Click to expand...

Apeal to magic. lol

Dr. Wood is a scientist, not a magician. She's describing what the weapon did, not the weapon itself. She's describing a possible mechanism for the weapon, which is the only mechanism that hasn't been debunked.
Click to expand...

Stop lying. Judy has never described any possible mechanism. Unless you are stupid enough to think that "DEW did it" means that she described something. There really is nothing to debunk.

Go ahead and debunk it. I am waiting.
Click to expand...

Debunk what?

RMackey's so-called debunking forced a condition at the very beginning that wasn't necessary, and then he debunked his own story. He didn't debunk Dr. Wood.
Click to expand...

Since Judy never described anything Mackey had to start from somewhere. And besides, you never explained how it wasn't necessary for the weapon to be in orbit other than saying it could be "focused" in some mysterious manner.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
Yes. It's called 'Science Fiction'. Attractive and interesting hypothetical ideas, but not reality.

Suppose I could shape-shift and pour myself into the internet and then seep out of your computer monitor? Wouldn't that be cool? Suppose I could, just by thinking about you, send you to another alternate reality?

Oh wait, you're already in a different reality...too late!:cool:
Click to expand...

The thing about insults is that (however fun it is for sadists) it doesn't debunk. I want debunking, which requires a lot more effort. You haven't really demonstrated a decent understanding of the events of 9/11. Is that why you choose insults?
 
DGM said:
Nice. Now how would you localize such a thing to only destroy a certain building. It's fun to dream but eventually you do have to wake up.
Click to expand...

Why do you say the damage was localized? Half of WTC 3 got zapped when WTC 2 went down. After WTC 1 went down, WTC 3 was no more.

There was an incredible amount of damage, not merely contained to the WTC. You can still see the damage on nearby buildings.
 
WildCat said:
Yes, surely either you or Judy must be right. :rolleyes:

I mean, it couldn't be that when you demolish anything you get craploads of dust, could it?

Have you ever torn down a ceiling while remodeling a house?
Click to expand...


Not that much dust. Have you seen the studies of this dust? Quite a wide variance in results, wouldn't you say? It's because nobody has cottoned onto the fact, yet, that there was more than one type of dust. Some of it was light in color and contained glass fibers. Some of it was dark in color and contained metallic elements. So far, to my trained eye, everyone is analyzing the dust as if it were one type.
 
WTC Dust said:
Actually, I came here for a debunking. I'm willing to dump any part of my theory that is disproved. Nobody can tell me that I actually did see the building above a ten foot fence on Day 3, though. I know what I was looking for (a debris pile) and I know that I didn't see it. Maybe the fence was 10.5 feet. I'm willing to give on certain points. The fence was a regular sized fence that you see all over NYC, and those fences are about 10 feet tall. I know where I was standing, on Broadway. At that close range, it's not really possible to say I was exactly 2 blocks away, because the WTC site itself is pretty much two blocks wide. But you couldn't see the pile from my vantage point, and I tried.
Click to expand...

Standard Chain Link fence is 6' tall.
http://www.academyfence.com/chainlinkfencing/temporaryconstruction.html


Not 10' as claimed.

On Broadway. Excellent.
Now, were you at Broadway and Liberty?
Broadway and Cortlandt?
Broadway and John?
Broadway and Fulton?
Broadway and Veasey?

Which one were you at? Those are the intersections that GZ would have been visable.
 
TjW said:
It doesn't matter. It takes the same energy to boil/vaporize a material regardless of the means used.
And you get the same amount of energy per unit of material back when you condense it.

If a material could be vaporized with less than its heat of vaporization, then you have the means to make a perpetual motion machiner: Boil the iron using the low energy method, condense it and recover the heat of vaporization. You can use the heat recovered to boil the iron again. Because it took less than the heat of vaporization to vaporize it, you'll have some heat left over, which you can use for whatever you wanted. The iron isn't used up.

But we're pretty sure the laws of thermodynamics are correct.

It will be interesting to see if our research scientist proposes a beam that initiates a nuclear reaction in the iron. That should be good for a Stundie.
Click to expand...


The buildings weren't vaporized. Who is saying that they were?

I'm telling you heat had nothing to do with the destruction of the WTC. It was an electrical process.
 
Oystein said:
What's your evidence? Which study has determined this?



Bare-assed assertion.



The kinetic energy of 15 and 30 stories of a large office building falling through 12 feet is enourmous - it is about a thousand times the energy that the largest and most advance energy weapons in existance today can deliver in the same time frame. Here is the quick calculation:

Kinetic energy after fall through height h is KE = m * g * h
m = mass of 15 stories = 15/110 * mass of tower * some factor to account for the structural steel being more slender in the top stories; let's take 70%.
KE = 15/110 * 288,000,000kg * 9.8m/s2 * 3.8m = 1,400,000,000 Joules

Energy delivered by energy weapon is WE = Power * pulse duration
Power is about 1MW, or 1,000,000W, pulse duration is about 1s (roughly the time for a fall of 1 story)
WE = 1,000,000W * 1s = 1,000,000 Joules. or 1/1,400th the potential energy.

All this is basic, 11th grade high scholl physics.



NIST did a tremendous job there. You weren't discussing collapse initiation, neither was I.
Fires and plane impact damage did it. Simple.



What evidence do you have for that?
Click to expand...



You are forgetting that under a gravity collapse, no floor could possibly fall more than twelve feet before meeting the floor below it. Twelve feet should be entered into the calculation, but you shouldn't waste your time on that.

Intact floors did not fall. Dust fell. The floors (and everything else) got turned into dust before it started falling.
 
WTC Dust said:
The buildings weren't vaporized. Who is saying that they were?

I'm telling you heat had nothing to do with the destruction of the WTC. It was an electrical process.
Click to expand...

BZZZTTTT!!!!

What's that? Oh, that is my ************ meter going off......

So, you're claiming that the steel was impervious to the heat of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and hundreds of tons of combustables?

I call horse****, and my training tells me that you are wrong.
 
Oystein said:
Yes. Gravity providet a lot of energy. For each tower, the energy that gravity provided was

GPE = m * g * h
Where
m is the total mass of the tower = 288,000,000kg (this is a conservative estimate by G. Urich. IIRC, Mrs. Wood assumes 500.000.000kg, which would nearly double the available energy provided by gravity)
g is the gravitational acceleration = 9.8m/s2h is the height above ground of the center of mass of the tower. This would be half their roof height if mass was evenly distributed. It isn't, because the lower stories are built more strongly than the upper stories. So h = 40% of the roof height is closer to the true value; that's = 170m

GPE = m * g * h = 288,000,000kg * 9.8m/s2 * 170m = 480,297,600,000 Joules.
When a tower collapses in 15 seconds, these Joules are converted into fracture energy, heat and other sinks, at a power rate of GPE / t:
P = 480,297,600,000 Joules / 15s = 32,019,840,000, or about 32,000MW.
A large nuclear power plant has a power output of a bout 1,000MW. Thus,, the power release of gravitational energy alone, per tower, was equal to the total power output of 32 large nuclear power plants.

The most powerful laser weapons in experimental phase today have a power on the order of 1MW, and can fire at most for 5 seconds on end. Their power is weaker than the gravitation power of collapse by a factor of 32,000 and their total energy release is only the 100,000th part, or 0.001% of the potential energy of either tower due to gravity alone.


To this we can add the chemical energy released by the burning of roundabout 10,000 gallons of jet fuel per power, which is about on the same order as the towers' GPE; the kinetic energy of the planes which is much less, but still 1000 times higher than what DEW can do, and the chemical energy contained in combustible office contents, which is even higher than anything we looked at so far.




So no, I am not saying gravity provided all the energy. I am saying that gravity provided 100,000 times more energy than the strongest DEW can, but jets, fuel and burning offices provided even more energy.


The DEW theory is thus 5 orders of magnitude removed from reality.
Click to expand...


12 feet of gravity effects? Please, stick to reality. 12 feet is not very much for gravity to work with. Not to mention that the videos do not depict intact floors falling at any point.
 
WTC Dust said:
Why do you say the damage was localized? Half of WTC 3 got zapped when WTC 2 went down. After WTC 1 went down, WTC 3 was no more.

There was an incredible amount of damage, not merely contained to the WTC. You can still see the damage on nearby buildings.
Click to expand...
My response was in regard to Bill Smiths' "shaker table". How do you suppose you'd localize a large high frequency vibration?
 
WTC Dust said:
You are forgetting that under a gravity collapse, no floor could possibly fall more than twelve feet before meeting the floor below it. Twelve feet should be entered into the calculation, but you shouldn't waste your time on that.

Intact floors did not fall. Dust fell. The floors (and everything else) got turned into dust before it started falling.
Click to expand...

You're an insane idiot.
 
Oystein said:
How tall a pile did you expect, and why?
Click to expand...

I expected to see at least part of the pile above a ten foot fence.

If the building fell to only 10% of its previous height, there would be 137 feet of a pile. Something like that.
 
Oystein said:
He didn't write that, did he? OMFSM!!!

WTC Dust, what kind of energy are you talking about "that is contained within the material"? What physical principals would be applied to tap it?
If that technology existed, why isn't somebody getting filthily reach by putting all those darned oil sheiks out of business, by tapping into the energy contained in material?

Oh, and what is your proof that technology exists and was employed on 9/11?
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's new physics. Do you have a problem with new physics? Even physicists will tell you that they do not fully understand the universe. I don't know why you would balk at the thought that there might be something you don't already know about. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom