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

Bedlam

Another_Nut

Unless you know the mechanism used you can't say if there was kaboom needed

Do u know the mechanism?

Tells said he could shake a building apart without any saloons needed.

I don't need to know - you agree that your mystery process would produce molecular iron dust.

Kaboom. Or flash, if it's a bit bigger. You just can't avoid it. Iron dust burns spontaneously. For that matter, so will aluminum.

O i like where this is going

Thinks of this .as each atom comes off it becomes reactive .

So its not like throwing 2lbs of dust into the air

Its like throwing atoms at a time

This actually explains a lots of strange stuff on 9/11

But will explain more ater

Another_Nut

Thinks of this .as each atom comes off it becomes reactive .

So its not like throwing 2lbs of dust into the air

Its like throwing atoms at a time

Millions and millions of pounds of them. And they all oxidize at the same time. And they all release energy. And together, that is what we call an explosion. Any explosion is "atoms at a time". Think about it.

They tapped into the towers' resonant frequency, then made it vibrate, until it exploded and turned to dust.

Resonance is a phenomenon in which an object will vibrate violently when exposed to a harmonic force of a frequency close to that object's natural frequency. Every object has a natural frequency, and it is related to the shape, size and materials of the object. The driving force can be wind, sound or any other kinetic force. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge is the most prominent example of resonance; an overlooked calculation allowed the bridge to have a natural frequency that matched that of the wind which destroyed it. Read more: www.ehow.com...

Things You'll Need

Keyboard or piano
Computer with sound-producing software (optional)

Instructions

1) Place the object that you wish to measure close to your source of sound. Make sure that the object is secure, but not in a way that will dampen its vibrational motion.

2) Firmly strike the object, and listen to the sound it produces. The resonant frequency will be in this range. By knowing what it sounds like, you can eliminate the need to sweep your sound from extremely low to extremely high values.

3) Begin producing sound, either from your computer or from another source of which you can measure the frequency. Begin slightly lower than the sound made when you struck your object. Produce the sound loudly for a brief period of time, and then stop the sound and listen carefully to your object.

4) Continue producing sounds, at the same volume and time intervals, listening to your object after each one. Note down when the sound coming from your object is loudest.

5) Repeat the sweep, in the other direction. Again, note down which frequencies produce the loudest resonant sound.

6) Compare your values from both sweeps. There should be one frequency that produced the most prominent sound in both directions. If there is not, repeat your sweeps. This frequency is the resonant frequency of your object.

WonderBoi
They tapped into the towers' resonant frequency, then made it vibrate, until it exploded and turned to dust.

Tripe.

Not all structures have strong resonant frequencies. The more complex the structure, the less likely.

Not all structures have a Q high enough to actually store any energy from a resonance. They lose it faster in heat than they collect it from the input. Composite structures like the towers generally have poor Q.

Even with perfect resonance and infinite Q, you still have to input enough energy to actually cause damage. All resonance does is store energy for you from one cycle to the next.

In this case, it would have to be sound waves. You can't convey mechanical energy with EM. Not past single quantum momentum. And that won't cause macro effects like shaking a structure.

Sound waves have diddle for total energy. Resonance or no, you'd have to whack something like the towers with gigawatts of infrasound. People would be dropping dead for miles. And every structure within miles would be affected. It would also be # simple to detect. And would show on every seismometer.

Once a structure starts coming apart, the resonances change in a blink. They don't persist until something "turns to dust".

Resonance isn't magic. Sorry.

reply to post by Bedlam


Check this out

www.metabunk.org...

So we have micro spheres in the dust . That's fact

Now as to how it got there?

Imagine the steel wool scenario as the towers are dustifying

Once the steel reaches a certain size for the temp

Ha spheres

This can be done by increasing temp or

Decreasing size.

It also explains all the explosions reported as small iron items were theorized quick enough to cause explosions

Worked hypothesis . Packing. Mullit over . Be back soon

Another_Nut

Worked hypothesis . Packing. Mullit over . Be back soon

Except according to you, 80% of the steel in the TT would be...in microspheres. It's not even close.

Plus, you're still lacking the earth shattering kaboom. Mull it some more.

Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11

full 2 and 1/2 hour video .

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I remember reading one of the explanations given about missing steel was that it actually melted. If you buy that please also buy my bridge, it goes nowhere and is imaginary like the missing steel lol.

Listen, in all seriousness, as a veteran and who worked dod afterwards I do have issues reconciling allot about that day. The best demo guys in the business look at these buildings go and salivate at how perfect they came down.

I mean allot of this is not really a discussion in reality but one of raw emotions. We all seem to throw common sense out the window. Setting emotions and patriotism aside, it is just really hard to believe all three of these buildings so perfectly crumble from the plane strikes alone. Not withstanding the Pentagon which is blanketed with surveillance and sensors. They could have shown clear undisputed video alone that knocked down missile theories. They refused to do this.

Think about the hundreds of hours of video of the recent wars around the world. In that footage of all the world's known weapon systems and munitions have you ever seen buildings crumble in this way. No, you haven't, especially taller structures.

You see them partially crumbled or destroyed etc. Even hit with massive munitions. Plus, these structures are in no way built with as much steel and concrete as the buildings in new York. I mean seriously, you would expect at least one of them to shear off one way or the other, tilt and or fold etc. OK so the steel melted and gave way, so all of it did this at the same time to allow it just to come straight down and all turn to dust.

Just not gonna happen that way, especially not twice exactly the same way. The other building name eludes my memory but it fell to dust to completely as well and did not have the heat or the damage from the strikes. Think about it like this very simple example, one you can even do yourself.

You could use some of the model building kits, some are very sophisticated and have aluminum beams, or even plastic forks. Build yourself even just one floor and have pretty hefty weight on top. Now clip out the beams taken out by the plane and initial explosion, hopefully your top floors have stayed on and already has not started a tip in the direction of the strike. Take some fuel and throw it in your little simulation and set it on fire.

Be careful kiddies and make sure only do this at your own risk and with adult supervision. The point I think you see here is if you can get your pillars to melt at all they don't do it at the same rate and it does not crumble straight down like a controlled demolition. And real good luck duplicating exactly twice in the same way.

As time has gone by now the more you look at it and think about it the less it all makes sense, the official story that is. Lots of funky experiments you can do yourself but good luck getting anything to come down like that without explosives or new weapons, especially twice.

Today, I don't buy it..... Tomorrow I will probably be a good patriot again, lol.

Seriously, neither ats nor I can be held responsible if you set yourself on fire or blow a finger off with the fireworks trying to get pillars, specially steel ones, to melt and all collapse straight down twice the same way.

The Bot

Recalculating...................

reply to post by HomerinNC


well since ur in a generous mood explaining stuff, maybe you can also explain why it was so hot under the rubble it melted the shoes of the first responders for HOW long?

thx.

reply to post by dlbott


Then i would please ask you to explain the piece of steelp that turns to dust in the woods presentation on the previous page.

If you can recognise that pencil shaped steel turning to nothing before your eyes is exactly what it looks like then,it may not have been "diverted energy" persay but it is an unconventional controlled collapse resulting in the global symmetrical pulverization of two 110 buildings

Black tech

Eta sorry bot this was supposed to be a reply to bedlam

Eeta i don't think 8% is unreasonable as a percentage of steel vs all other components (drywtal etc) in the towers
and that just the spheres not all the iron/steel
And if the steel wasn't totally atomized then it would act more like the steel wool....no kaboom needed

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Any imagined energy beam that can vaporise metal as Woods claims would definitely vaporize human flesh and blood as well

This is an opinion. Where is the evidence?

This is the one glaring ommission that Judy Woods not only refuses to address

Have you combed through her web site? So you can assert that she has not addressed this issue? Or is this just another opinion?

but recoils away from in horror

Do you expect us to believe that you know this a fact from being an eye witness to this event? This is only an opinion.

Do you think we can not tell the difference between opinion and evidence?
[SNIP]

GoodOlDave

Originally posted by PookztA

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I haven't seen any evidence. All I have seen is video used to try to lend credability to a theory and a lot of conjecture.

you must have your eyes closed, haha

thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained, and have been successfully explained by the scientific conclusion of Dr. Judy Wood.

and don't forget the U.S. Supreme Court case of October 2009, because that's evidence too

Okay, I'm sorry, I can't let this slide anymore. Dr. Judy Wood's lawsuit was not only thrown out of court, it was dismissed with prejudice, meaning that if she tried to file it again she'd be whacked with civil penalties. Her lawsuit was THAT idiotic. What you call "made it all the way to the Supreme Court" was her attempt to buck it up to the SC to have the dismissal appealed, but the Supreme Court didn't want to hear it.

What killed her is that the whole lawsuit was goofy to begin with. She sued that NIST defrauded the gov't on the grounds they submitted falsified data, with the "correct" data being of course her on "lasers from outer space" claims. They ruled that not only was her own scenario unproven and unprovable, and therefore isn't an acceptable reason to make other scenarios illegitimate, they ruled NIST did in fact legitimatly research the WTC collapse regardless of whether Woods agrees with their findings or not. Not one single court in the land disagrees with that court's ruling.

Judy Woods never told you any of this on her web site, did she?

Well yes she in fact did. You make statements without checking? This is from her web site.

CONCLUSION

The defendants' motions to dismiss, filed in each of these three eases, are granted. All three complaints are dismissed with prejudice.2'1 The Wood v. Applied Research Associates. Inc.. et ai. 07 CV 3314 (GBD); Reynolds v. Science Applications Int'l.et a!.. 07 CV 4612 (GBD). and Haas v. Gutierrez, et al. 07 CV 2623(GBD) actions are hereby closed.

Dated: New York, New York June 26,2008
SO ORDERED:
4^ 8). 'J)

reply to post by leostokes


And don't forget it wasn't dismissed because it was stupid. But that she couldn't prove the mechanism.

Aka she is telling the truth

And i have yet to hear a response to her 2012 breakthrough energy talk

Which she doesn't charge for

Or any response to the video clip of said talk showing steel facade turning to bust

I am bringing to think people just can't wrap their mind around how big 9/11 was

Think about this . At 30000 feet you want fly planes by sight. Only instruments.there are no ground points to references


Why do most here just jump straight to why? Because if they askyou to speculate they can then rip that speculation to pieces because its ....only speculation.

Both they want touch the facts

**ATTENTION**

Please be advised:

Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning.

This thread is being watched closely by staff. No other warnings will be given.

~Tenth

reply to post by Asktheanimals


People cant wrap their heads around stuff that is presented as SciFi programs and end up equating it "only in the movies" fantasy.
Its one of many programming methodologies that keeps 80% of the populace dumb and controlled.


For example-

ashkeNAZI and NAZI are the same folks.....Something very few will ever be able to swallow. However it doesn't make it less true. "Fact" doesn't care whether you believe it or not.