VIDEO: What Turned the Twin Towers to DUST on 9/11?

reply to post by kidtwist


In other words we are talking fantasy, not science.

There seems to be a load of steel and other stuff at hangar 17 JFK which looks pretty undustified to me :-

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by kidtwist

 

In other words we are talking fantasy, not science.

No, we're talking new phenomenon. If something is secret technology it's reality not fantasy. She has applied her own terminology, as I already stated, because a new phenomenon is going to require new words to describe unseen effects.

I'm sure the US army have their own terminology for the process, probably a new term you will never know about. If we find a new species, we give it a new name, it's pretty simple to understand.

How does one explain all the burnt cars that were not even in the debris zone? It seems like a targeted weapon, something that targets certain materials, otherwise the paper by the cars would have burnt too!

Originally posted by Alfie1

There seems to be a load of steel and other stuff at hangar 17 JFK which looks pretty undustified to me :-

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Thanks for those pics. It is impossible for steel to look like that from a pancake collapse. Those beams were heated up pretty damn high to be twisted like that without fracturing from stress, with no signs of any charring from jet fuel.

Nice going

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by kidtwist

 

In other words we are talking fantasy, not science.

No, we're talking new phenomenon. If something is secret technology it's reality not fantasy. She has applied her own terminology, as I already stated, because a new phenomenon is going to require new words to describe unseen effects.

Well, look me up when you have something to talk about. This, "it is secret so I can't really explain it" don't wash.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Thanks for those pics. It is impossible for steel to look like that from a pancake collapse. Those beams were heated up pretty damn high to be twisted like that without fracturing from stress, with no signs of any charring from jet fuel.

Nice going

Wow, another Truther who doesn't know you can bend steel. If you exceed its yield strength steel will bend.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Thanks for those pics. It is impossible for steel to look like that from a pancake collapse. Those beams were heated up pretty damn high to be twisted like that without fracturing from stress, with no signs of any charring from jet fuel.

Nice going

Wow, another Truther who doesn't know you can bend steel. If you exceed its yield strength steel will bend.

Those beams didn't get that way from a pancake collapse and you know it.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Thanks for those pics. It is impossible for steel to look like that from a pancake collapse. Those beams were heated up pretty damn high to be twisted like that without fracturing from stress, with no signs of any charring from jet fuel.

Nice going

Wow, another Truther who doesn't know you can bend steel. If you exceed its yield strength steel will bend.

Those beams didn't get that way from a pancake collapse and you know it.

Yes they did. I know it.

Didn't you notice the missing truss seats?

reply to post by kidtwist


Ah The old nut case Judy Woods.........

Cars on fire not hit by debris....?

Slide series of pictures from NYPD helicopter of collaspe of North Tower

WTC 7 is large building in left center

smg.photobucket.com... renttag=West%20Street

Watch as debris cloud engulfs West Street parking lot on right As scroll through see fires starting

Also notice debris cloud being funneled between buildings up Greenwich/Church streets

Car fires on Barclay St (north of WTC 7_

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by kidtwist

No it's not, because they both would bring the building down, and the building literally turned to dust, so if we are to believe NIST and the 'debunkers' here, then there just was not enough heat to bring them down full stop.

Yes, it is, because things with the same general result don't have to be co-identical, at least not in my world, not sure about yours.

For example, turning the building into gas in a blink is a bit different than it collapsing. Therefore, one doesn't need to research how vaporization and collapse are exactly the same in some way. The concrete created a lot of dust as it crushed, but the towers did not "become dust", there was plenty of crap collapsed on the ground.

Where have you got this info from? Be interesting to see the source for clarification.

Ah, over literal and oblivious to sarcasm. However, there are some really interesting papers dealing with shattering hollow steel support girders with FAE slurry.

The buildings were a modern design, so therefore much more reliable and stronger than buildings like the empire State,

Most buildings are designed with being just good enough to do the job and for the lowest cost in mind, unless they're some sort of defensive structure. This one was no different.

Just because a word does not exist until someone creates it does not mean it's invalid. We know what she means by that term, that is all we need to know!

Materials don't turn to dust when heated. That is all we need to know.

Any 10 year old could figger it out.

Something VERY Explosive blew those tall to buildings to smithereens on 9/11.

Perspective is everything! If we watched the twin towers expolde like that in Russia or on another planet or in the movie theatre 99.9% of Americans would say, "Duh Lookie-someone just blew those buildings all to hell/dust"

The only Americans that still believe the OS are agents, republicans, and sheeple that are infected with COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!

Originally posted by anoncoholic
reply to post by Bedlam

 

still refuse to read the posts you reply to I see. I could never understand that considering you guys claim to know everything how come you don't read what is posted but instead just jump all over the poster?

You didn't see the response to your post? Then I will wait until you understand. Yes, yes, it's there. There somewhere, waiting for you. Look for it.

Since you are so knowledgeable about things perhaps you can explain how a heatsink works and why an aluminium head and cast iron block don't shear off head bolts considering they both have different expansion rates?

Actually problems with differing TCE's are something you have to deal with in engineering a lot. Whether it gets to the point where things fracture from it (it does happen) depends on the ductility of the metals. If you used very hard/brittle bolts, they would shear.

The heatsink thing is sort of wide open. There are many different types. What level answer are you looking for?

I knew somewhere in here you'd have to start with the "answer these questions" thing I mentioned above. You really ought to go find a nice list somewhere you can copy and paste, I'm sure there's a 99 unanswered questions website you could find.

Don't forget to answer my first question, why the need to lie?

You might have to actually read what was posted to do that though...

I did answer it - you missed it. Go look - it's there. With the question you didn't answer. Why didn't you answer it? Are you afraid?

Originally posted by kidtwist

No, we're talking new phenomenon. If something is secret technology it's reality not fantasy. She has applied her own terminology, as I already stated, because a new phenomenon is going to require new words to describe unseen effects.

In this case, no new effects though. Has she got any material that has been altered in some way that's unexplainable? Say, some sort of iron that's been turned transparent, concrete that's of some abnormal density, or electrically conductive with no metals? No. Just "it put out a lot of dust when it collapsed, therefore (BBBBBIIIIGGG LLEEEAAAPPP!) it's death beams from NSA satellites". That's why it's fantasy. Might as well say it's because of leprechaun magic.

How does one explain all the burnt cars that were not even in the debris zone? It seems like a targeted weapon, something that targets certain materials, otherwise the paper by the cars would have burnt too!

Which of these cars might have been running when the cloud of abrasive dust went into their intakes? Which might not? You look around, you'll see plenty of pics of cars in the close-in area that are burnt, next to ones that are not, and if you look for it, the ones that burned are likely to have been running at the time. Cop cars, cars in the street etc vs ones parked. You don't need to posit "car burny beams from space" to find some explanation.

Originally posted by poppycock
Any 10 year old could figger it out.

Something VERY Explosive blew those tall to buildings to smithereens on 9/11.

Except, that's exactly what didn't happen. They fell in their own footprints, more or less.

Smithereening would require that they go flying over a large area. There is a distinct lack of smithereens here. That's one of the issues with the "micronuke" crowd, not that they pay attention to it.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by anoncoholic
still unable to answer that one simple question I see

Why the need to lie if there is nothing to hide?

Still can't be specific, eh?

I've never understood that one, although it seems to be a common ATS meme. "You told a lie/left something out/didn't answer some vague insinuation so you're hiding!" "Ok, what?" "You know, the question!" "What?"
"THAT question, you know, the one I'm thinking about!"

It probably looks more mysterious than the one where you cut and paste a list of 50 questions from someone else's website and then say something like "Until you answer all these, you can't have an opinion!"

you call this an asnwer to the question about why the need to lie about this?

Popular Mechaincs

It is obvious you have no logical reply and here start to invent conversation as a defense.

I wish ATS would start bannig obvious trolls like you and dog and 911 files but I do suppose you are useful idiots in that people come to see how liars will avoid answering simple questions by replying with nonsense like what you have remarked above.

and here I thought I was talking to a think-tank

you can't even think sensibly. There is nothing "vague" in my link nor my question. It is a flat out "why the need to lie if there was nothing to hide" question and all you are doing is wagging your stupid tongue like you actually said something then you are wasting your time here. The question stands and none of you get anything further from me (and hopefully everyone else here) until you answer that question.

It has been asked in three different threads (just recently) and ignored by all you trolls because the truth stands on its own and the lie hasn't been created that can diminish it from anything other than it is... the truth.

Go lie to yourselves, I am done with you

Originally posted by anoncoholicI wish ATS would start bannig obvious trolls like you and dog and 911 files but I do suppose you are useful idiots in that people come to see how liars will avoid answering simple questions by replying with nonsense like what you have remarked above.

A troll? How many FOIA efforts have you conducted? How much primary historical data have you generated and produced? Have you taken the government to court to uncover anything new? Trolls sit behind a computer and type trash on internet forums and then call themselves "researchers".

As to the the OP, I've asked reasonable questions that no one can answer. The "Twin Towers" did not turn to dust. The concrete inside of it definitely was crushed into "dust", but nothing unusual about that. The steel did not turn to dust and an enormous pile of debris had to be removed from the scene. If you wish to inject "energy beams", then you better be able to explain how that would work and why every electronic component in Manhattan was not fried by the EMP which would most certainly have resulted from the use of such a weapon. So if you post something and can't support it, don't call people trolls just because they call you on it.

reply to post by 911files


you still refuse to answer my question because you know it is all a lie and you guys got caught

You want me to answer your questions I can give IMO because minus an investigation al I have is what I know.

1) never heard of a directional microphone either I guess. Energy can be focused.

2) explain the molten pools and the heat source that was visible from thermal imaging satellites. Please explain how a pancake collapse that will smother flame can wind up beneath a collapse

3) explain bone fragments found on rooftops.. oh wait, how can they be exploded outwards when all the lies are saying the collapse pulled inwards?

4) go lie to someone else, I don't believe any of you.

www.youtube.com...

why the need to lie if there was nothing to hide?

How many times do I need to keep asking the same question across multiple threads before you trolls just go away?

Originally posted by anoncoholic

3) explain bone fragments found on rooftops.. oh wait, how can they be exploded outwards when all the lies are saying the collapse pulled inwards?

The bone fragments in your question, were found on top of the Deutsche Bank Building at 130 Liberty Street in New York City.

en.wikipedia.org...

The bone fragments came from the impact of AA11 into the north tower. You can see debris from the impact landing on top of the building in this picture.



This is a photo of the street beside the bank, you can see body fragments on the ground.



This answers your question.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
reply to post by 911files

 

you still refuse to answer my question because you know it is all a lie

No sir, I simply refrain from answering questions that I have not researched in detail and/or am not qualified to address (unlike most of the people posting here).

and you guys got caught

You will have to be more specific. What exactly did I get caught in?

You want me to answer your questions I can give IMO because minus an investigation al I have is what I know.

Yet, you are willing to accuse people of lying and criminal acts when you don't know?

1) never heard of a directional microphone either I guess. Energy can be focused.

A directional microphone is passive, not active. What kind of energy are you talking about? You have to be specific with such claims. Not all "energy" can be focused, and some "energy" that can be focused only within constraints. Take gravitational energy for example. I really don't know of a way that it can be focused by human manipulation of it, but it certainly created a lot of damage and dust at the WTC.

2) explain the molten pools and the heat source that was visible from thermal imaging satellites. Please explain how a pancake collapse that will smother flame can wind up beneath a collapse

Sorry, don't know enough about the topic to comment.

3) explain bone fragments found on rooftops.. oh wait, how can they be exploded outwards when all the lies are saying the collapse pulled inwards?

Who said the collapse pulled inwards? Overall, the mass is going to collapse downwards due to gravity. However, smaller debris will interact with other debris and head off in all directions. Drop a rock in a mud puddle sometime and see how much of it splatters on your pants.

4) go lie to someone else, I don't believe any of you.

Sorry, I don't lie and I don't care what you believe. But if you are going to make assertions that you can't support, I will call you on it.

www.youtube.com...

why the need to lie if there was nothing to hide?

Oh my, another YouTube video. You are aware that YouTube videos are not evidence don't you? Unless they simply document some audio or video record of an actual event.

How many times do I need to keep asking the same question across multiple threads before you trolls just go away?

As many times as you like. Asking a question is not evidence of anything, just an acknowlegment that you don't have the answer and want help.

asked again and you both ignored it

Interesting

and revealing. You refuse to look at evidence