• 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.
NoahFence said:
Her Phd is a lie. Every word typed, or spoken from her lips are lies.

Each and every one.
Click to expand...

Her Phd is in biology apparently, this clearly makes her think she's an expert on everything. I trained as a flight attendant and also worked on airline check in desks, I guess by Dusty's logic that makes me qualified to fly too.
 
Last edited:
Dash80 said:
Her Phd is in biology apparently, this clearly makes her think she's an expert on everything. I trained as a flight attendant and also worked on airline check in desks, I guess by Dusty's logic that makes me qualified to fly too.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that the Phd isn't for hairdressing?
 
She really does have PhD. From the The University of Texas Houston. At least unless she has stolen Tracy Blevins's identity.
 
You saw what looked like a plane enter the tower, but you didn't see a plane crash! No debris bouncing back at the site of impact? No crash.

When thinking about the lack of a plane CRASH, I considered several options. Perhaps an explosive opened up the exterior wall, removing the steel columns that made up the south face of WTC 2, right before the plane hit. But then, you'd see a plane in the hole if that were the case.

Then I considered whether or not all the eyewitnesses were liars and all the photographic evidence (still images and video images) were faked, and I said, "No. Too many people are saying they saw a plane for them all to be liars and in on the coverup."

So if the people aren't lying, they saw something, but all the video evidence is clear in a certain aspect: There wasn't a plane CRASH, although there certainly appeared to be a plane.

Some well-known video appears to depict a "nose-out" on the opposite side of WTC 2, which looks similar to the nose of an airplane. This is consistent with a projected image, as is the lack of a plane crash despite a very realistic looking plane-like object in the sky.

Fake plane. How would you know if you saw a fake plane flying through the sky? Do you really think such technology doesn't exist?

Dash80 said:
May I remind you I saw the second plane hit the south tower, along with many others.
Click to expand...
 
Hey, if you're a pilot, answer the question.

Does a plane drag air along with it when it flies through the air?




fess said:
I am only one of a number of pilots on this board, but I’ll bet there are a number of them that feel the same way I do…you had better stick with biology.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
How would you know if you saw a fake plane flying through the sky? Do you really think such technology doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Technology that projects holograms onto a daylight blue sky? I guess that doesn't sound so outlandish to someone who believes in a steel dustificator inductively coupled to a hurricane, but to the rest of us, both ideas are pretty retarded.
 
If 9/11 hadn't happened and been inaccurately described by the news media, we wouldn't be having discussions about obvious things. We wouldn't be debating the existence of wakes. We wouldn't be talking about whether or not aluminum objects can destroy steel objects without destroying themselves at the same moment.

It's dumb physics, and it's a shame. Shameful that so many people would rather believe in dumb physics than see the obvious (that an airplane crash didn't do what was done to the WTC).

It gets so bad, you're actually willing to delude yourself that airplanes don't drag air behind them. Somehow, air is magically different from water. All this is ridiculous.

Airplanes can't pierce through steel columns and stay intact, but that's what the video expects you to believe.
 
Projected image devices exist, and so does steel foam!

There are several industrial processes that can produce steel foam. It's not magic, either.

As far as coupling it to a hurricane, I don't know about that, but Judy says it's an interesting thing to keep in mind, so I do.


brazenlilraisin said:
Technology that projects holograms onto a daylight blue sky? I guess that doesn't sound so outlandish to someone who believes in a steel dustificator inductively coupled to a hurricane, but to the rest of us, both ideas are pretty retarded.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
It gets so bad, you're actually willing to delude yourself that airplanes don't drag air behind them. Somehow, air is magically different from water. All this is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Airplanes don't drag columns of air around behind them, and neither do boats. And yes, air is different from water, as well.

ETA: Repeating this from previous post:
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.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
You saw what looked like a plane enter the tower, but you didn't see a plane crash! No debris bouncing back at the site of impact? No crash.

When thinking about the lack of a plane CRASH, I considered several options. Perhaps an explosive opened up the exterior wall, removing the steel columns that made up the south face of WTC 2, right before the plane hit. But then, you'd see a plane in the hole if that were the case.

Then I considered whether or not all the eyewitnesses were liars and all the photographic evidence (still images and video images) were faked, and I said, "No. Too many people are saying they saw a plane for them all to be liars and in on the coverup."

So if the people aren't lying, they saw something, but all the video evidence is clear in a certain aspect: There wasn't a plane CRASH, although there certainly appeared to be a plane.

Some well-known video appears to depict a "nose-out" on the opposite side of WTC 2, which looks similar to the nose of an airplane. This is consistent with a projected image, as is the lack of a plane crash despite a very realistic looking plane-like object in the sky.

Fake plane. How would you know if you saw a fake plane flying through the sky? Do you really think such technology doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
Do you like being laughed at or something? Trust me we are laughing at you, every post you make is just jaw-droppingly ridiculous!
I saw and heard a real plane, "holograms" or whatever you're implying make jet engine sounds do they? I know a plane when I see one, I used to work for British Airways. As for the nose out thing... quit watching September Clues, it's bullcrap. It's a cloud of dust and debris ejecting from the building, it changes shape and gets larger, you can even see flaming debris trailing smoke.

You are ignorant and disrespectful, people died on those planes and you treat it all like one big joke. Where were you on September 11 anyway? What was your initial reaction? I'll tell you mine Dusty... I was freakin' SCARED and crying, after I saw the plane hit. For weeks all I could think about were the people on those planes, how frightened they must have been. I had nightmares about being on that second plane and seeing the burning north tower from the windows as we flew towards it, the horror of what was about to happen.
 
I think it's looking for a photo of a plane 1/2 in the building and 1/2 out.....dangling there with the pilots pleading for all the passengers to rush to the nose of the plane to weigh it down.

Then again, we've long since passed the point where it's obvious that it is in dire need of mental assistance.

Phd....my ass.
 
WTC Dust said:
Projected image devices exist, and so does steel foam!

There are several industrial processes that can produce steel foam. It's not magic, either.

As far as coupling it to a hurricane, I don't know about that, but Judy says it's an interesting thing to keep in mind, so I do.
Click to expand...

If Judy told you it's possible for you to mate with a rhino would you believe her and go try it?
 
Dash80 said:
I'll tell you mine Dusty... I was freakin' SCARED and crying, after I saw the plane hit. For weeks all I could think about were the people on those planes, how frightened they must have been. I had nightmares about being on that second plane and seeing the burning north tower from the windows as we flew towards it, the horror of what was about to happen.
Click to expand...
Truthers always say dumb things about how people "can't handle the truth", but every truther version or part of a version for the events of 9/11 that I have ever heard has elements which were less horrifying than the OCT. No hijackers, no planes, no one looks out of a plane and sees WTC 1 on fire and realizes where they are headed. No one looks out of their office window and sees a plane flying directly at them.

No one realizing they are flying across a lawn bound for the concrete walls of the pentagon. No passengers battling with hijackers bound for glory and nose-diving into the ground. No buildings damaged and on fire and out of the control of the people who built them or would attempt to save them. No randomness, since it was all set up in advance. I call it "the kinder, gentler terrorist attack" :(

Who is it, really, who can't handle the truth?
 
WTC Dust said:
I'd like to see some evidence of a hijacking on 9/11.

You got any?
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
How about hear it? Google FAA Air Traffic Control audio from ATC Cleveland Center of the hijacking of UA 93.
Click to expand...

Gee, Dusty ignored this post. What a shock.

Y'all are posting in a No Planer troll thread.

/Somebody kindly PM me if the troll emerges from the smoke den to address this.
 
WTC Dust said:
Hey, if you're a pilot, answer the question.

Does a plane drag air along with it when it flies through the air?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn’t.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Wake_turbulence

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1472662a19f6603b86256c1600733da7/$FILE/AC90-23f.pdf

Above are a few articles that describe wake turbulence that might help you understand the different wakes created by an aircraft in flight.

An aircraft does not drag a wake behind it; it creates a wake as it flies through the air. The wake it creates pretty much stays where it was created. Ask any pilot who has flown into CAT (clear air turbulence) when there isn’t an aircraft within miles of his location, and he will tell you how this works. A wake is generated by air filling the void created by an aircraft flying through the air. Although the air is moving, it doesn’t follow the aircraft.

I recently flew a flight from AVP to ORD. The air I flew through over Scranton stayed over Scranton; it didn’t follow me to Chicago.

That is about as close to layman’s terms as I can make it, I hope it helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom