WTC dust

[WildCat]

Please watch this video of a man using a potato gun to pierce the fender of a car. (the bullet was PVC, duct tape, and newspaper)

And at the opposite end of the inert projectile spectrum a sabot round weighing just a few pounds can destroy a 60 ton enemy tank, even though it contains no explosives.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Dr Blevins ,of this does't convince you that there were hijackers nothing will.

Hint: nothing will

 

[triforcharity]

Support of the official theory, therefore boring. He also did not properly explain the smell, but at least he mentioned the smell.

When you mix many many different things burning (for instance, bodies, mixed with paints, mixed with hydrocarbons, mixed with other organics, mixed with unknown chemicals) it makes funny smells.

Your ignorance knows no bounds when it comes to fire, and fire science, among other things.

 

[bill smith]

The Bryant/Atta conversation is discussed during this audio clip. Hilarious.
http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20110720-Wed1300.mp3

 

[bill smith]

I'm confused. This link /\ what are you attempting to prove with it?

Well as the discussion is currently about how real or not the hijackers were, this article shows that M.Atta seemed to be trying to build his back story in a really hilarious way. Don't you think so ?

 

[Craig4]

The Bryant/Atta conversation is discussed in this audio clip. Hilarious.
http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20110720-Wed1300.mp3

I hear lots of assertions. He provides no evidence.

 

[bill smith]

I hear lots of assertions. He provides no evidence.

Early days yet.

 

[Craig4]

Early days yet.

No, we're ten years on now and you and your kind are as irrelevant as you were on 9/12/2001. The real problem with you is that legitimate work on the failure analysis of the 9/11 attacks gets associated with your garbage. I don't think we've done all the work we need to on analyzing what went wrong that day. All you do is make it harder to do the work that matters. Now, why don't you run along and play somewhere else.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Dusty seems to have bailed her own thread in the face of difficult questions--again. If she isn't even here to be ignored we can all run along.

 

[WTC Dust]

Hey Edx,

Let me just first tell you is that you are the one who is making an incredible claim, therefore it's sorta up to you to prove it. Yes, I realize that the news reports showed some pretty convincing evidence of a plane on the day of 9/11 and after, but those reports didn't show you the back side of WTC 2, and they didn't slow down the videos and examine this event.

This has been done recently. Many people have examined these videos in the years since then, and much debate has gone on over what these videos contain. There is good agreement among 9/11 researchers that the videos depict some anomalous things, but the points I've made (about the lack of bounce-back at the south face of WTC 2 and the lack of an obvious wake) are the ones that stick. I could tell you about TV Video Fakery and the Pod people, but why? Those theories have been proved wrong, and there's no reason to go into it. The anomalies I mention are the key ones.

Given these anomalies (no bounce-back, no wake) and given that I'm uncomfortable with the official story because of the particular type of damage seen at Ground Zero, I have concluded that what we saw on TV and what many people saw in lower Manhattan was a fake plane. It wasn't faked video, because the faked video theory calls all the passersby liars as well as implicates everyone who took video or still images into a very large conspiracy, the type of which I find unlikely. I'm not into conspiracy theories, especially really large ones, but I do know that there are such things as unsolved crimes.

The solution to the lack of plane debris or a wake at the supposed site of impact is a fake plane. The explosions are real. The damage to the building is real. The deaths were real. But the plane was fake. It looked like a plane, but no plane would have behaved that way upon impacting a steel structure of any type. Also, the debris from a plane crash looks a certain way, and we didn't see this. When you looked into the holes of WTC 1 and WTC 2, you didn't see a plane. When you look at the holes at the Pentagon and at Shanksville, you don't see planes, either.

So really it's up to you to prove this weird theory of planes. You can't always believe what you see on TV, and sometimes even the TV people get tricked.

Whoever told the TV people that 19 Arabs hijacked airplanes, on the other hand, are part of the plot. The perpetrators needed a cover story, and they did a great job in convincing most people that hijackings and planes were part of it. The plane story is a cover up. It's part of the attacks, surely, but only the story is a part of the attacks. The planes were faked.


You and most people got bamboozled, but if you look at the event closely, you can unbamboozle yourself. I won't convince you, because I don't have time to worry about whether or not you really really believe me in your heart.

I'm just telling you my conclusions, and unless new data comes along, my conclusions rest.

So how did this happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk


And if water can destroy a car why cant a plane destroy a few steel columns?

 

[Edx]

So how did this happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk


And if water can destroy a car why cant a plane destroy a few steel columns?

Hey Edx,

Let me just first tell you is that you are the one who is making an incredible claim, therefore it's sorta up to you to prove it. Yes, I realize that the news reports showed some pretty convincing evidence of a plane on the day of 9/11 and after, but those reports didn't show you the back side of WTC 2, and they didn't slow down the videos and examine this event.

This has been done recently. Many people have examined these videos in the years since then, and much debate has gone on over what these videos contain. There is good agreement among 9/11 researchers that the videos depict some anomalous things, but the points I've made (about the lack of bounce-back at the south face of WTC 2 and the lack of an obvious wake) are the ones that stick. I could tell you about TV Video Fakery and the Pod people, but why? Those theories have been proved wrong, and there's no reason to go into it. The anomalies I mention are the key ones.

Given these anomalies (no bounce-back, no wake) and given that I'm uncomfortable with the official story because of the particular type of damage seen at Ground Zero, I have concluded that what we saw on TV and what many people saw in lower Manhattan was a fake plane. It wasn't faked video, because the faked video theory calls all the passersby liars as well as implicates everyone who took video or still images into a very large conspiracy, the type of which I find unlikely. I'm not into conspiracy theories, especially really large ones, but I do know that there are such things as unsolved crimes.

The solution to the lack of plane debris or a wake at the supposed site of impact is a fake plane. The explosions are real. The damage to the building is real. The deaths were real. But the plane was fake. It looked like a plane, but no plane would have behaved that way upon impacting a steel structure of any type. Also, the debris from a plane crash looks a certain way, and we didn't see this. When you looked into the holes of WTC 1 and WTC 2, you didn't see a plane. When you look at the holes at the Pentagon and at Shanksville, you don't see planes, either.

So really it's up to you to prove this weird theory of planes. You can't always believe what you see on TV, and sometimes even the TV people get tricked.

Whoever told the TV people that 19 Arabs hijacked airplanes, on the other hand, are part of the plot. The perpetrators needed a cover story, and they did a great job in convincing most people that hijackings and planes were part of it. The plane story is a cover up. It's part of the attacks, surely, but only the story is a part of the attacks. The planes were faked.


You and most people got bamboozled, but if you look at the event closely, you can unbamboozle yourself. I won't convince you, because I don't have time to worry about whether or not you really really believe me in your heart.

I'm just telling you my conclusions, and unless new data comes along, my conclusions rest.

Sorry but you failed to answer my question, again. You always ignore everyone's critical questions, it can only be intentional. Either because you know you're wrong or you you're self delusion won't let you. If you're just going to talk at people why, why should anyone bother with you?

 

[WTC Dust]

Lots of people said lots of things. I'm not responsible for the things those people say. I'm only responsible for what I say.

If you come up with a better theory, I'll change mine. You must account for the damage done to the WTC, and plane crashes are insufficient. You must account for the lack of a plane found at any of the places where planes were supposed to have crashed on 9/11. You must account for the lack of an obvious impact and the lack of an obvious wake at the south face of WTC 2 at 9:03AM on 9/11.

What theory do you have that accounts for all the data? If all you've got is the official story, then you don't have much because they got it wrong, and I'm mentioning important things that the official story doesn't explain satisfactorily.

Why is the FAA fraudulently covering up for the murder of 3000 people? You cannot dismiss this question and simultaneously say there were no planes hijacked.



So answer it.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Why don't you just say "d'uhhh I dunno". It wouldn't make you look any less intelligent, just more honest.

 

[WTC Dust]

Something less than 450knts. At least you're not saying a wake doesn't exist!

If you want to see the weapons that destroyed the towers, just take a trip to JFK, (not to far from you), there is quite a few of them flying around there.

An aircraft flying at 450knts is dragging a wake behind it at what speed?

 

[WTC Dust]

You can do all the internet research you want. I'll be mixing chemicals and taking measurements of the dust recovered from near Ground Zero.

People can say anything. It's easy to type words into a computer and make a website. Boring. Lies go all over the map. The truth is simple and beautiful, and I recognize it like a lover.

You are dodging again Dusty. You want us to trust that what you say is true? Sorry, not gonna happen, given your "evidence" so far. I have given you evidence of planes and hijackings, you choose to ignore this. I asked you to tell me why the organizations I mentioned testify there were hijacked planes. You insist it didn't happen, so you have to provide the evidence NOT me. "Trust me I'm telling the truth" won't work Dusty, we already know you're a liar.

Being a no-planer and a no-hijacker means the same thing, there can't be one without the other.

My questions aren't too difficult, a simple answer will do. All I'm asking is do you consider the organizations I mentioned as part of the deception? Are United and AA lying about their hijacked and crashed airplanes to cover up "the truth", did the witnesses I mentioned lie to cover up "the truth?"

Your "small group" of perps is a fallacy, a cover up of the magnitude you are claiming is huge and would involve so many people. I'll list a few here:

FBI, CIA, U.S Air Force, FAA, ATC, FDNY, Various international intelligence agencies, The Pentagon, White House, U.S Senate, British Government, German Government, Emergency workers, coroners, NTSB, FEMA, NIST.

I could go on but thats enough people involved already, and enough evidence of hijacked planes and collapsed buildings. Try some proper researching Dusty, I've given you plenty of places to start.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

...

 

[WTC Dust]

Haven't you ever heard of the word "drag" in relation to planes and boats?

What do you think that is? Drag. It's the force pushing backwards on the airplane from the air, but it's also the force of the plane on the air.

Air exerts a drag on an airplane, but in an opposite and equal way, airplanes exert a drag force on the air.

Why is it harder to fly an airplane at ground level? Because the air is thicker there, and the engines have to work harder to push the airplane through the air. But that pushing of air has an effect on the air. It's force in the direction of flight of the plane. A plane crash wouldn't stop the wake from moving forward.

Think of a boat crashing against a dock. The water also slaps up against the dock, which means that the water was moving in the direction of the boat. The wake is being dragged behind the boat, just like the air is being dragged behind the airplane.

Any pilots around want to speak up?

So the world's smartest truther thinks boats and plans "drag a wake behind them" and 300,000lb object traveling over 400 mph can't penetrate a skyscraper.

 

[twinstead]

You can do all the internet research you want. I'll be mixing chemicals and taking measurements of the dust recovered from near Ground Zero.

People can say anything. It's easy to type words into a computer and make a website. Boring. Lies go all over the map. The truth is simple and beautiful, and I recognize it like a lover.

You're damn right people can say anything. The above is a perfect example.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Haven't you ever heard of the word "drag" in relation to planes and boats?

What do you think that is? Drag. It's the force pushing backwards on the airplane from the air, but it's also the force of the plane on the air.

Air exerts a drag on an airplane, but in an opposite and equal way, airplanes exert a drag force on the air.

Why is it harder to fly an airplane at ground level? Because the air is thicker there, and the engines have to work harder to push the airplane through the air. But that pushing of air has an effect on the air. It's force in the direction of flight of the plane. A plane crash wouldn't stop the wake from moving forward.

Think of a boat crashing against a dock. The water also slaps up against the dock, which means that the water was moving in the direction of the boat. The wake is being dragged behind the boat, just like the air is being dragged behind the airplane.

Any pilots around want to speak up?

Flying 757s at ground level can be done.




See?

 

[sylvan8798]

Something less than 450knts.

Uh, what?

You haven't elaborated on the fluid mechanics of this process. Can you do that?

A wake is a series of waves set up in the water by the passing boat. They are not "dragged" by the boat. There is no indication that the waves from the plane's wake should do anything noticeable to the building or to the smoke from the other fire or the explosion. You have no data on how large the wake should be or how long it's effects would last once the plane crashed and stopped moving.