WTC dust

[WildCat]

PhD level researcher who has the dust?

Apparently a PhD doesn;'t mean much these days. What evidence is there that you are a competent researcher? So far all we've gotten from you are schizophrenic delusions.

If you really believe this stuff you really should get help. You are not well.

 

[Craig4]

snip
Light up a joint. Watch the smoke rise. Then blow into the smoke as
it rises.
snip

Priceless. So much is clear to me now. Did you come up with this after a series of bong hits while listening to "The White Album"? Tell you what, why don't you run out and get a falafel to cure your munchies and not rock the stinky buds for a few days. Then you can see if this still makes sense after the ganga fumes have cleared.

Tell me, does your biological research have anything to do with horticulture?

 

[NoahFence]

People can review the posts. Air is a fluid. Get over it.

I read it wrong. Congrats for having one true statement in this whole thread.

My apologies.

Still doesn't change the fact that your 'theories' are

 

[Craig4]

30 years of preparation and 10 years of constant effort.

Never mind. I think it's now clear this idea floated out of a water pipe.

 

[Craig4]

PhD level researcher who has the dust?

Did you get your degree from an accredited university?

 

[NoahFence]

PhD level researcher who has the dust?

Who? Jones?

 

[Dash80]

The hijacking story is fake. No hijackings took place on 9/11.

Even if I'm wrong about this, and I'm willing to admit the possibility,
air plane crashes don't do what was done on 9/11. They never do.

When a plane crashes into something, you are left with the something
and a plane. A plane is always there after a plane crash, but you want me
to believe that we didn't find and reconstruct any of the four planes, but that they really, really existed?

Delusions.

You're the one who wants to talk about planes, not me. I'm focused on
finding out what destroyed the World Trade Center.

Listen, we're taking about planes BECAUSE THATS WHAT DESTROYED THE BUILDINGS. There were plane parts in all 4 cases, you are ignoring that fact.

 

[NoahFence]

Does this FAKE phd allow you to discuss what happened at the pentagon and shanksville?

Connect the dots, kiddo.

 

[Craig4]

PhD level researcher who has the dust?

Not evidence. No one is just going to take your word for this.

 

[aggle-rithm]

30 years of preparation and 10 years of constant effort.

You should relax and smoke a joint for a change.

 

[twinstead]

Listen, we're taking about planes BECAUSE THATS WHAT DESTROYED THE BUILDINGS. There were plane parts in all 4 cases, you are ignoring that fact.

Most no planers simply hand wave away the fact that plane parts were found from all 4 crashes by claiming the debris were planted, which is crazy enough, but few simply deny that any plane parts were found and complain that the planes weren't "reconstructed".

I'm speechless.

 

[332nd]

At the moment of impact? Doesn't count if the bounce-back happens at any other time. Physics doesn't wait for a while and then act.

Yes, at the moment of impact. Feel free to call the time a bit before 00:05 if you wish. At any rate your "theory" of no plane crash has been proven false.

 

[DGM]

You are wrong. A plane does drag a column of air behind it.

Just like a boat drags water along with it when it moves through
the water.

I think you need to do a little more research on wakes.

Light up a joint.

Not this kind of research.

 

[000063]

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

Yes. I won't find a drinks carts and luxurious leather seats on a twin-seater, or a sophisticated avionics package. You're forgetting the whole "weight" and "fuel capacity" thing, which make a big difference. Ask someone who can do collision physics. Anyone. "Will a big plane heavy with fuel moving at hundreds of MPH cause more damage than a small plane moving at less than 200 MPH?"

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.

What's the weight difference between those planes and a 767?

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.

That's nice. Neither of those buildings collapsed and buried the fires under tons of debris with a good supply of oxygen.

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?"

"Meaningfully" is subjective.

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.

There were tons of flammable paper, wallboard, ceiling tiles, bodies, dairy creamer...

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.

"I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it."

 

[Dragonrock]

I really did find some WTC dust in a little nook in my apartment building.

The post to which you replied discussed your disbelief in the existence of the aircraft which crashed into the WTC buildings. I made no mention of how dusty is your apartment.

 

[Sunstealer]

No one is going to get anywhere with dusty, she's a sandwich short of a picnic. Best to put her onto ignore and leave her to it, she's never going to get anywhere with her research and I think she is just doing it for the attention.

Incidentally I had a look at her "research" - a couple of very poor quality photographs of what looks like accumulated rubbish. Could be anything. It's clear she has no idea how to do a materials investigation. Couldn't even be bothered to put a rule up against her sample to show it's size. No close ups, no density. No smaller samples removed and analysed by optical microscopy. Stuff that would take less than a couple of hours not years. Sad.

I would laugh, but it's not good to laugh at the mentally impaired. They need help rather than mockery.

 

[George 152]

You are wrong. A plane does drag a column of air behind it.

Just like a boat drags water along with it when it moves through
the water.

Wrong !
Unless you think of the boundary layer as 'being dragged along' which it isn't

 

[A W Smith]

You are wrong. A plane does drag a column of air behind it.

Just like a boat drags water along with it when it moves through
the water.

Bald assertion, cite it as I have, Neither a plane nor a boat "drag" air or water behind it. Or they would not even be able to fly or make headway in the water
Lift=(1/2)(air density)(velocity expressed in feet squared)(aircraft's wing area)(coefficient of lift)
http://library.thinkquest.org/2819/bernoull.htm

Bernoulli's principle works on the idea that as a wing passes through the air, its shape make the air travel more over the top of the wing than beneath it. This creates a higher pressure area beneath the wing than above it. The pressure difference cause the wing to push upwards and lift is created.

NOT by "dragging air behind it".
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/bernoulli/DI9.htm

More
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html


Wake effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_turbulence


This is basic high school stuff. This proves you know NOTHING. Did you get your sole PHD orally? Because you certainly didn't earn it on merit.

 

[Dash80]

No one is going to get anywhere with dusty, she's a sandwich short of a picnic. Best to put her onto ignore and leave her to it, she's never going to get anywhere with her research and I think she is just doing it for the attention.

Incidentally I had a look at her "research" - a couple of very poor quality photographs of what looks like accumulated rubbish. Could be anything. It's clear she has no idea how to do a materials investigation. Couldn't even be bothered to put a rule up against her sample to show it's size. No close ups, no density. No smaller samples removed and analysed by optical microscopy. Stuff that would take less than a couple of hours not years. Sad.

I would laugh, but it's not good to laugh at the mentally impaired. They need help rather than mockery.

How the hell is she so sure the dust comes from the WTC anyway? I could understand it if she collected it on or just after 9/11, but 8 years?! WTC Dust seems to make no secret of her weed smoking, a major side effect of that is paranoia. Hey maybe the metallic dust has aluminum foil particles from her hookah pipe bongs.

 

[fess]

You're getting the idea, but missing the point that a wake is a column of fluid that is being drug along by the craft.

In the case of a boat on water, it is easy to see the wake. With a plane flying through air, many times the wake is invisible.

So what you are saying is; an aircraft during flight is dragging a column (wake) of air behind it? If the aircraft is flying at 450knts, how fast is the wake moving horizontally? I think you will understand that the aircraft and/or the boat in reality are not dragging anything behind them. They are displacing the medium they are traveling through, air (gas), and water (fluid).

ETA Sorry, I see AW Smith has said this already.