WTC dust

[NutCracker]

Foam up???

But I'm getting it. This was really a message by which whistleblower tried to tell us what was going to happen 3 decades later:



The pieces of the puzzle start to fit together.

 

[Craig4]

Sabrina: How well do you know the work of Judy Wood? Do you have a passing familiarity with it, or do you know it inside and out? How much time have you spent studying Judy Wood? I'm guessing not much.

Time spent doing almost anything other than studying Judy Wood would be time well spent.

 

[NoahFence]

What I continue to say is that there is no evidence of a plane crash.

 

[WTC Dust]

Is a big plane made up of any substantially different materials than a smaller plane? No.

Nothing about a plane crash is sufficient to cause the heavy, long term fuming that came from Ground Zero in the aftermath of 9/11.

Airplane crashes cause fires that are containable, as is seen with the Bellaire Apartment example and which was also seen when an airplane crashed into the Empire State Building.

The fire at the Bellaire Apartments in New York City didn't last 100+ days, and neither did the fire at the Empire State Building.

There is no published journal article that meaningfully describes the destruction of the World Trade Center, and only one book "Where Did the Towers Go?"

I'm only studying 9/11 because nobody could explain to me what kind of "fire" burns for 100 days in Lower Manhattan. That boggled the mind. Also, the strange smell. A jet airplane is composed of certain material things. So is a steel skyscraper. Add those two things together, and you don't get the smell that I smelled. There was nothing, really, in the building that was going to burn for that long, and jet fuel burns out quickly.

On December 21, 2001, I'm standing a mile upwind of Ground Zero and get hit by the fumes, yet again, as happened on a daily basis since the attacks.
The fumes were horrible, and had a very distinct quality to them, unknown to me before or since. For one thing, this means that I'll know when I find the weapon because the weapon will make that smell.

So the resultant damage from the crash of an aircraft that weighs about the same as a pickup truck and travelling about 80 MPH is equivalent to that of an airliner weighing 200,000+ pounds travelling at 400 MPH(with a fuel load that is multiple times more massive than the entire smaller aircraft).

Yeah similar, real similar. ,,, and Mars is similar to Earth too. They are both rocky planets orbiting the same star. Obviously the NWO's dustification beam is older than we think as there is no life on Mars and that simply cannot happen with rocky planets orbiting the same star. The NWO killed off life on Mars a long time ago, just look at it, all dried out and red.

I thought you had a science degree of some sort.

 

[WTC Dust]

Personally I have seen the videos of the collapses many many times and in all cases the only thing going up is smoke prior to collapse. Once the collapses begin everything is moving down.

Look again. It's true.

 

[WTC Dust]

Where were they on 12/1/10?

Some of them were in attendance at the seminar at 9 Bleecker Street. One of them was my guest speaker, Paul DeRienzo.

 

[Craig4]

I don't discount your testimony, nor do I discount the testimony of other people who say they saw a plane with their own eyes and not on TV.

Fine. You saw what looked like a plane.

What I continue to say is that there is no evidence of a plane crash.
There's some good evidence that a plane was flying through the sky, including video evidence and personal testimony such as your own.

But...nothing crashed against WTC 2 at 9:03AM. Not a plane. Nothing. There was an explosion there, and what certainly looked like a plane flying nearby, but that object did not impact the building (otherwise there would have been some debris bouncing back at the site of impact at the moment of impact).

My conclusion is that it was a faked plane. But I'm willing to change my mind on this. I could be convinced, somehow, with better evidence than that which is already out there, that a plane was involved, but nothing about a plane crash can produce metallic foam.

My conclusion that an airplane crash didn't destroy the WTC? You'll have to show how a plane crash could produce the kinds of metallic foam that I found, and I don't see how you can.

There are two real problems with people like you. The first is that in the realm of failure analysis there is still work to be done on 9/11. There are actual failures in intelligence and security, emergency response and building construction that need further study. The problem is that when legitimate concerns are raised the people raising them get associated with people like you. Your concerns are not legitimate and they don't really matter. However because you spout off about them people with legitimate issues get dismissed.

The second problem is that your approach to this topic is just disrespectful. 9/11 was a national tragedy and deserves a high quality of effort. Your "work" isn't good enough for this topic. You've turned a tragedy into a meaningless hobby.

 

[WTC Dust]

You saw what looked like a plane.

WTC Dust: Could you address my above post? Are you going to call me (and every other witness) a liar? how do you explain the things I saw and heard? Where were you on 9/11?

 

[NoahFence]

Is a big plane made up of any substantially different materials than a smaller plane? No.

What big plane vs What small plane? A 757 vs. a 2 seat Cessna? Youbetcha.

Airplane crashes cause fires that are containable, as is seen with the Bellaire Apartment example and which was also seen when an airplane crashed into the Empire State Building.

You're honestly comparing a Cessna crash to what we saw on 9/11?

I'm only studying 9/11 because nobody could explain to me what kind of "fire" burns for 100 days in Lower Manhattan.

A big one that's extremely difficult to get to. All set?

There was nothing, really, in the building that was going to burn for that long, and jet fuel burns out quickly.

Argument from

You're no scientist. Stop pretending.

 

[NoahFence]

You saw what looked like a plane.

Any idea why it looked like a plane?

I'll give you a hint:


BECAUSE IT WAS A PLANE


funny that.

 

[WTC Dust]

That looks like 2.5-3 stories to me.

The pile from neither 110 story building got as tall as these "candlesticks".

Most of it fell outside the footprints of the buildings, remember?

If gravity alone caused the destruction of the WTC, you'd expect the steel to collapse mostly straight down, or perhaps tip over like a Jenga puzzle falling. Anyway, you'd end up with a big pile, and not 100+ days of fumes.

Except when you put the previous picture into context.

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/wtcinlobby1.jpg[/qimg]

Notice the beginning of the "candlesticks"? See how tall they are?

You're full of bovine feces to make claims like you do.

 

[Craig4]

You saw what looked like a plane.

No, we saw planes. The world saw a planes. People in the buildings saw planes coming at them. We saw the wreckage of a plane. If on WTC Dust planet you need there to not be a plane that's your business. However you should understand that in reality there were planes and what happens in your silly little fantasy world doesn't matter in the real world. Understanding this fact might help you avoid confusion.

 

[Craig4]

That looks like 2.5-3 stories to me.

The pile from neither 110 story building got as tall as these "candlesticks".

Most of it fell outside the footprints of the buildings, remember?

If gravity alone caused the destruction of the WTC, you'd expect the steel to collapse mostly straight down, or perhaps tip over like a Jenga puzzle falling. Anyway, you'd end up with a big pile, and not 100+ days of fumes.

Explain in detail. Do math, show your work.

 

[WTC Dust]

The process that destroyed the WTC was not an excessively hot process.
The paper on the streets did not burn, and the people nearby on the streets did not burn.

For this reason, nukes are out. Khalezov is as equally incorrect as is Steven Jones. Nothing hot did it.

Hello Dr Blevins and everybody else.
I watched these attached videos and interviews and was struck by Dmitri Khalezov's mention of the escaping fumes in the weeks and months after 911 and your own interest in in the same or a very similar phenomenon.
Do you see a future in Khalezov or do you think it may all be be a red herring ?



Dmitri Khalezov and what happened on 9/11:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNuKAdGlxFo (1of2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c39O-ftZboU&feature=related (2of2)
Interview:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brQqRLCxJew&feature=player_embedded#at=906

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/0...don-duff-and-kevin-barrett-nuclear-terrorism/
Interview:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brQqRLCxJew&feature=player_embedded#at=906

 

[Craig4]

The process that destroyed the WTC was not an excessively hot process.
The paper on the streets did not burn, and the people nearby on the streets did not burn.

For this reason, nukes are out. Khalezov is as equally incorrect as is Steven Jones. Nothing hot did it.

Besides fires caused by jet fuel and burning office contents.

 

[WTC Dust]

You have to account for the lack of high heat, and nukes do not satisfy the condition. Also, speaking of "the" nuke is bringing it from the theoritical to the actual in your tone, which I don't like. You might not be rude, but you might be some kind of deliberate idiot. Anybody that doesn't recognize the correct answer when it is given to them is suspect in my book, so I'll be watching you.

There is no reason for you to consider nukes or any other high heat process. So one of the big "deliberate idiot" flags will be if you continue to do so.

Do you think The force from the mini-nuke could have run up through the building,pulverising the successive concrete floors without visibly blowing out the sides of the lower sections first ?

 

[Dash80]

I don't discount your testimony, nor do I discount the testimony of other people who say they saw a plane with their own eyes and not on TV.

Fine. You saw what looked like a plane.

What I continue to say is that there is no evidence of a plane crash.
There's some good evidence that a plane was flying through the sky, including video evidence and personal testimony such as your own.

But...nothing crashed against WTC 2 at 9:03AM. Not a plane. Nothing. There was an explosion there, and what certainly looked like a plane flying nearby, but that object did not impact the building (otherwise there would have been some debris bouncing back at the site of impact at the moment of impact).

My conclusion is that it was a faked plane. But I'm willing to change my mind on this. I could be convinced, somehow, with better evidence than that which is already out there, that a plane was involved, but nothing about a plane crash can produce metallic foam.

My conclusion that an airplane crash didn't destroy the WTC? You'll have to show how a plane crash could produce the kinds of metallic foam that I found, and I don't see how you can.

The plane impacted the building, it didn't just vanish in the sky. Neither did it fly by and off in to the distance. I had an unfortunately perfect view of this horrible event and you treat the whole thing like a sick joke.

Metallic foam? Seriously? You said you collected dust, so is it dust or is it this fairytale-foam? Pick one.

 

[NoahFence]

like a Jenga puzzle falling.

You must not play Jenga much.

 

[NoahFence]

You know what - I need to go to the dentist now. That'll be more enjoyable than reading the lunatic rantings of a psychotic individual any day.


SEEK HELP

 

[WTC Dust]

Even if you were an architect, if as I've been saying, advanced weaponry were used, you would have no particlar skills as an architect that would help you discover what it was. Architects know how to build buildings, and presumably how to destroy them.

Architects do not know how to answer a research question that nobody on the planet has the answer to, which is where research science comes in.

A research scientist does these kinds of things all the time. I'm proud of my work in biology, and it's the stuff that I discovered that nobody else knew about that makes me the proudest. I'm also very proud of my discoveries on 9/11. They are unique, novel, and relevant to the question, "What destroyed the World Trade Center?"

Nukes and explosives aren't relevant because the paper didn't burn. The truth is simple, once you understand it, but not before, but it takes somebody somewhere to understand it first before anything gets cleared up.

That's who I am. I'm somebody, one of the few, who has a good understanding of what actually destroyed the WTC (and it wasn't an airplane crash).

Considering that fires were burning merrily in 1,2, and 7 right up until the collapses, you're just using the usual Truther straw man of insisting planes couldn't do it, ignoring the fire. Or insisting that the fire couldn't have done it, ignoring the plane.

I'm no architect, but I'd say...no. There's no way the hypothetical "force" could be transmitted up the building, save by the structure of the building itself. The building that said energy would be destroying. It hits the impact floors, runs into a bottleneck due to the destroyed columns, and, if anything, destroys out the floors below the impact, not the impact zone itself.

And then there's the little matter of a complete lack of the noticeable symptoms of radiation sickness, even in people who were inside the building during the collapse. And the fact that nuclear weapons aren't known for being unidirectional. The mini-nuke theory is bunkum, bill.