• 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.
How far did you get in school? Did you ever make any scientific discoveries? Did you ever publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal?

WildCat said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the apologies, but rest assured that the main of what I'm telling you is entirely true. My knowledge isn't perfect. I could possibly change a few things here and there. When we actually find the weapon, that will be a big thing to add, obviously.

NoahFence said:
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 :crazy:
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
It's clear as a bell to me. What's missing in your understanding?

I seek an image with
1. debris that could be from a plane
2. bouncing backwards in the opposite direction of flight
3. at the site of impact on the south face of WTC
and
4. beginning at the moment of supposed impact.

If what you give me doesn't have all four qualities, it's not what I'm looking for. You won't have shown me debris bouncing back from a plane crashing into a building. You'll be showing me something else, and you won't have proved me wrong.


Alternatively, you could show me the same type of image with noticeable disturbance of the explosion coming from WTC 2 and the fume cloud coming from WTC 1 that would have resulted if a plane had crashed into WTC 2 at 9:03AM.

At least I'm giving you the answers. You not being able to find these images may not change your mind, but at least you'll know what to look for.
Click to expand...


Again, your opinion does not matter. Your dust does not matter. All the crazy in the world can't change the fact that the evidence converges on the normative explanation of 9/11. Another 10 years of failure will do nothing to change this.
 
If you're speechless, why respond? Next time you should wait until you have something to add to the discussion.

twinstead said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Take a screenshot. Circle the debris. I want to know what debris you say looks like it came from a plane crash.

Redtail said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
You're wrong on this one. The paper didn't burn.

000063 said:
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?"

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

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

"Meaningfully" is subjective.

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

"I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it."
Click to expand...
 
I've done such things. I just didn't put up all my evidence. :-) I put up what is needed to understand what I've done, and not much more.

Sunstealer said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Are you making the claim that air doesn't follow along in the direction of the path of the plane, when it is flying through the air? That an airplane doesn't drag a wake behind it?

Think of a boat, it's easier because you can see the wake. If a boat crashes against a pier, the wake slaps up against the pier.

If a plane crashes into anything, the wake slams against it.

George152 said:
Wrong !
Unless you think of the boundary layer as 'being dragged along' which it isn't
Click to expand...
 
So wrong.

A W Smith said:
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
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.
Click to expand...
 
Then how to you explain the wake of a boat slapping up against the side of the pier, if it crashes into the pier?

Heck, even if a boat goes near the pier, the wake slaps up against it. There's directional movement, here, and it's in the direction of motion of the craft.

I'm not talking about jet engines shooting out gas in the opposite direction. I'm talking about the force of friction of any craft dragging some of the fluid along with it. If you can't visualize it, then pour yourself a bath and sit down in it.

If you move yourself forward a bit, the water you drag with you will splash against the front of the tub. This isn't rocket science.

fess said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
It's clear as a bell to me. What's missing in your understanding?

I seek an image with
1. debris that could be from a plane
2. bouncing backwards in the opposite direction of flight3. at the site of impact on the south face of WTC
and
4. beginning at the moment of supposed impact.
Click to expand...

Demanding that is like demanding that pieces of buckshot fired into a filing cabinet at point-blank range should bounce off.

You know, don't you, that you are ignoring some of the important stuff that passed completely THROUGH the building, like that engine that left a flaming trail that could be extrapolated to its touch-down location on Murray Street.


Alternatively, you could show me the same type of image with noticeable disturbance of the explosion coming from WTC 2 and the fume cloud coming from WTC 1 that would have resulted if a plane had crashed into WTC 2 at 9:03AM.
Click to expand...
That does exist somewhere on YouTube. It may take me a little time to find it.

At least I'm giving you the answers. You not being able to find these images may not change your mind, but at least you'll know what to look for.
 
Show me the pics. I haven't seen them. Bodies trapped in seats at the Pentagon in 2001.

sylvan8798 said:
And in the pentagon they found bodies still strapped in seats. Have you LOOKED at the photos? I dare you to go tell the people who had to retrieve them that they were not actually bodies. In fact, I'm sure I could get up a collection to pay for us all to take a little trip there to help you do that.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom