• 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:
Here's another song for your playlist on Dec.1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJmDTnfZr6c
Click to expand...

No. The "inside jobbers" at WeAreChange are wrong because they think that hijackings occurred AND the buildings were preplaced in the WTC. Completely nonsensical. Planes would dislodge any preplaced bombs and endanger the successful denotation of the bombs.

So please don't tell me the US government did 9/11 unless you know what happened on 9/11. I'm not supporting wearechange until they stop the false propagation of the "planes plus bombs" theory.
 
WTC Dust said:
If there had been a collapse, I'd have expected many toilets and sinks to have survived. This building experienced a pancake collapse. The WTC should have looked something like this, if a collapse had occurred.
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't, that building looks like it had 6 floors and was built from reinforced concrete, not 100 plus, and made with steel structural members. The comparisons are meaningless.
 
Mikemcc said:
WTC may be onto something...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101109095324.htm

Shame there's about 10 orders of magnitude difference in the mass of the target and it still doesn't affect the inter-atomic distances which is what WTCDust needs for her hypothesis!
Click to expand...

Some of you are slowly starting to see things my way. I'm not talking about inter-atomic distances. I'm talking about inter-molecular distances, and these terahertz rays seem to affect those nicely by vibrating apart molecules without heat.
 
Gravity does not work that way. You can't say that gravity pulls down things at a high velocity, because the velocity is always changing, and it isn't always a high velocity. It starts out zero at the beginning of a fall and slowly accelerates. 10 meters per second is not much to accelerate in one second, which means the top parts of the buildings weren't traveling very fast when they encountered the parts below them.



leftysergeant said:
Well, it does pull things down at a high velocity, but that does not mean that everything on which it acts will move in a steady stream toward the center of the source of gravity. The floors did not all fail as soon as debris hit them. Heat was released with every bit of concrete oe any other substance was pounded and broken. The air expanded and had to go someplace. All that accumlating rubble pushed outward on the perimeter coulms. When the pressure became too great, those perimeter columns were shoved outward, sometimes hndreds of feet. (It does not take much of a shove to get them going a couple miles an hour, which would move them quite a distance during a drop of hundreds of feet.)

The debris that fell within the core also exerted force in more than one direction. As it piled up in the cores, it pushed the core columns outward in all directions. Thus, we have collisions adding a force on all columns in other directions than straight down. The model you have in your head is too simplistic.
Click to expand...
 
Mikemcc said:
No it wouldn't, that building looks like it had 6 floors and was built from reinforced concrete, not 100 plus, and made with steel structural members. The comparisons are meaningless.
Click to expand...

Steel is stronger than concrete.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
This is genius.

So the planes weren't a decoy, nor an incredible coincidence - they were deploying the control wires for the MegataserTM to fire into the core of the building, instantly turning all steel columns, toilets and washbasins to dust.

It's all so clear now.
Click to expand...


Wireless transmission of electrical energy isn't news.
 
WTC Dust said:
Imagine that you are in a small town in England during the year 700 A.D.
Imagine that you shoot somebody dead in the middle of the town square.
The villagers gather around and try to determine what happened to the victim.

The villagers might come up with any number of explanations of the crime,
but none of them would be valid if they were only using ideas and concepts
that they already knew about at the time of the crime.

Some villagers might claim she was stabbed with a thin knife that left
pieces of it in the victim after it pierced the victim (the bullet fragments).
Some villagers might claim that lightning struck her (because they heard
the sound of the gunshot). Whatever. None of them is likely to be true.

Getting back to 9/11...everyone saw video of what looked like a plane
crashing into WTC 2, so they think that must have had something to do
with the destruction. Other people know about bombs, and so they
suggest that bombs were placed in all seven WTC buildings.

Of course, this is incompatible with the plane theory (because a plane
crash would surely dislodge some of the bombs), but never mind that.
We already know about bombs, so it must have been bombs that did it.

No.

This isn't what happened. Explosives did not take down the World Trade Center. An electrical weapon did. You just have to go back to England in 700 A.D. and figure out what happened to the gunshot victim. Then come back to 2010 and realize that 9/11 wasn't something you already knew about on the day that it happened.
Click to expand...

After giving this some thought, I find the analogy to be ironic in it's implications.

You have laid out an imaginary scenario that could not possibly have ever happened to try to support your idea of what happened on 911.

In that respect, it is a good analogy.

Regards, Canis
 
carlitos said:
And guns!

Actually, to be fair, time travel is just as likely as the hologram/beam weapon from space scenario. Throw a couple of banana peels and a miller high life in the flux capacator and have at it.
Click to expand...

That will only mess up your flux capacitor. You put the beer and banana peels into the Mr. Fusion to power the flux capacitor.
 
caniswalensis said:
After giving this some thought, I find the analogy to be ironic in it's implications.

You have laid out an imaginary scenario that could not possibly have ever happened to try to support your idea of what happened on 911.

In that respect, it is a good analogy.

Regards, Canis
Click to expand...

Gedanken experimentation is exactly that: imaginary scenarios.
You have something against Gedanken experimentation?
 
I suspect that it isn't gedanken experimentation he has a problem with, so much as the fact that you are crapping all over the word "scientist" every time you post.
 
WTC Dust said:
Gedanken experimentation is exactly that: imaginary scenarios.
You have something against Gedanken experimentation?
Click to expand...

Nope, they have their uses. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

I was commenting on your specific analogy and it's unwitting similarity to what 911 CTers are attempting to do.

Specifically, trying to explain the whys & wherefores of an event that could not possibly have happened.
 
WTC Dust said:
Steel is stronger than concrete.
Click to expand...

It depends on the application. Concrete structures can, if detailed correctly, have better post-yield behavior than steel structures.

Concrete members, by nature of their large sections, typically don't suffer the same problems in buckling due to changes in unbraced lengths that steel does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom