1. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  2. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    Judy Woods is off on her theory but has good pictures.
     
  3. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    [​IMG]
    You mean like in this picture, the pancake collapse?

    https://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/www.drjudywood.com_articles_DEW_dewpics_Image250.jpg

    or like this one?

    https://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/www.drjudywood.com_articles_DEW_dewpics_Image28.jpg
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  4. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Sorry muttkat, but I am not sure what you are referring to. The dust coming out of the floors of the building? That would happen when a space full of air and material has something heavy collapse on it. It does not look like an explosion of any type to me.
     
  5. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    Theres an orange ball of fire and this WTC 1. I've got a better picture of an explosion. I'm having issues with getting more than 1 picture on this reply so I may have to reply again to you.
    https://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/www.drjudywood.com_articles_DEW_dewpics_Image251.jpg

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  6. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    Let me try this again:

    http://www.fotomundo.net/Galleries/Cube/9-11/2_wtc_911_explosion.htm
     
  7. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    http://www.fotomundo.net/Galleries/Cube/9-11/2_wtc_911_explosion.htm

    [​IMG]

    At the beginning of the collapses of both building there are major explosions. The jet fuel should already burned up. With WTC 2 the majority of the jet fuel exploded outside of the building so ther should be this big orange fireball again.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  8. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    It isn't an explosion, the building has started to collapse and the flames are being PUSHED out by the downrushing air. Like a candle flame bends when you blow it out. If you notice the pylon on top is dropping.

    Now, Back to Pres George W. Bush, he is NOT a Junior

    [ex George W. Bush
    George H. W. Bush[/ex]

    Notice please the names are NOT the same the younger one does not have junior after his name.
     
  9. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    [​IMG]


    But you are not suggesting the rising smoke from the tower behind, is 'ejecta from an explosion' in the collapsing tower, are you?

    Is that what Judy Wood is suggesting?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  10. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    Well I've got a video that shows the tower shaking and about 6 or 7 seconds the collapse starts. Many responders felt the ground shaking and then the collapse started.
     
  11. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    This explosion looks bigger than when the plane hit it. On my newer computer I have a video that shows the building shaking and about 7 seconds later, the collapse starts but I have to wait until all the stuff gets unloaded off the old one to find the site. He will always be Jr in my heart. I need to go find a comment Jazzy made in proving my side of the debate.
     
  12. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Of course the buildings shook before they collapsed, things were falling and coming apart inside of them FIRST.

    Where are the seismic records of any explosion (s)?

    It doesn't matter if someone here or on TV called him 'junior', that was not his name, anymore than 'shrub' was.
     
  13. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    I would like to thank you for this comment:

    You said : "Steel can be turned to dust only by evaporating it in a vacuum. That isn't possible except in a supernova. Your statement is wrong."



    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Now we know this ISN'T a SUPERNOVA so it must be a ________?

    [​IMG]
    Its still there but....
    [​IMG]
    And thar she goes
    [​IMG]
    and it keeps on going. vaporized steel
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  14. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    Of course the building shook before the collapse and this happened:

    http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam6.html

    The Bankers Trust building was closer to WTC 1 than WTC 7. If you notice the pieces of the tower only goes up to a certain point from the BOTTOM. [​IMG]

    Whoops I put the wrong picture 1st

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  15. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    But you are not suggesting the rising smoke from the tower behind, is 'ejecta from an explosion' in the collapsing tower, are you?

    Is that what Judy Wood is suggesting?[/quote]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  16. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    This is WTC 1 collapsing. WTC 2 had already collapsed.

    I don't know what Judy is suggesting.
     
  17. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam4.html

    Heres a crater picture.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Crater hole that didn't get filled up with the Hudson River.

    [​IMG]

    and yet another crater hole.

    [​IMG]

    Now do these craters look like a pancake collapse? There should be piles.

    Heres WTC 7 pile. Why does it have a bigger pile?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  18. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Just because you CAN'T see the pile of steel behind a building doesn't mean it was 'vaporized'. Please explain ALL the steel that was found at ground zero? Millions of TONS of steel. It wasn't vaporized.

    Are you saying that that that sort of vertical smoke plume is the 'vaporized steel'?

    http://www.apwa.net/Resources/Reporter/Articles/2004/3/Clearing-the-way-for-recovery-at-Ground-Zero

    Only pieces of the building facade fell, remember that a lot of it had a big hole in it?


    I am also noticing that you are not addressing the seismic issue, again.
     
  19. Met Watch

    Met Watch Moderator


    The frame did not vaporize, it collapsed. Mick made an excellent post about this in either this thread or another one - I will try and find a link to it tomorrow.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  20. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    The buildings had basements, with several floors in them. That is your 'craters'.

    Of course it didn't fill with water, there was no bomb buried below the building. The COLLAPSE started from the top. Please find a picture that shows the building collapsing from the bottom. That is if you are still on the buried nuke bomb theory.

    I have NOT seen a single picture that even vaguely looks like an atomic blast, and ZERO evidence of one.

    I can find other pictures that fit that definition better like this one.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331039,00.html
     
  21. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    So you're saying these pictures and video above with the frames are collapsing & not turning into dust? Why do I need to read another post when these pictures clearly show steel turning into dust?
     
  22. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Steel cannot go from a solid into a dust. The laws of physics and chemistry prevent that. It has a crystal structure, the bonds that form those crystals would need to be broken and that takes a HUGE amount of energy.

    You are misinterpreting what you are seeing. Have you watched the video that those pictures come from?




    Look at the pictures from Hiroshima. Look at all the steel that remains. The building with the dome was directly under the bomb blast. Yes a lot of building are gone, but wood and even paper is used in a lot of construction in Japan

    http://www.icp.org/museum/exhibitions/hiroshima-ground-zero-1945
     
  23. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    If a force could vaporise solid steel, wouldn't 'dust' be one of the first things to be vapourised along with it? There wouldn't be any dust remaining in such an event. Gas, but not dust.
     
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  25. ManicSpartan

    ManicSpartan New Member

    Fantastic! You're so sure of yourself "Steel CANNOT go from a solid into a dust" brilliant, simply brilliant. As Holmes says, once you rule out the impossible,then what remains however improbable, must be the truth. If you examine carefully the well documented evidence it's fairly clear we're dealing with an effect hitherto unknown to science i.e if steel really can't be turned to dust then where the hell did the towers go?


    [​IMG]


    That's where the towers went. There they are, covering the entire tip of Manhattan and beyond.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2014
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    When building collapse, even when no explosives are used, they turn into a pile of rubble and the collapse generates a lot of dust. Like:



    The WTC collapses were just bigger.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. ManicSpartan

    ManicSpartan New Member

    That video is shot from very close up for one, so any dust cloud is going to look large.

    Secondly "collapse" and "pile of rubble". It's estimated that the pile of rubble from a 500,000 ton building should have been roughly 17 storeys high.

    Where was it?

    Thirdly, no dust cloud from a demolition is ever expected to go higher than the original structure.

    Why was this one special?
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Perhaps you could back up those claims?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. ManicSpartan

    ManicSpartan New Member

    I'm not "claiming" anything :) It's simply scientific fact based on empirical evidence. A quick google search on actual, run of the mill controlled demolition and what happens, or indeed a background in civil engineering and basic quantity surveying will verify the simple fact that two half a million ton buildings apparently "collapsing" will leave an absolutely massive pile of rubble and steel, which is conspicuously absent from any after picture of ground zero.


    [img=http://s29.postimg.org/x0v7c7s93/911_ground_zero_high_resolution_desktop_4130x411.jpg]
    imgurl
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, you are making specific claims. So back them up or leave.
     
  32. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    The dust cloud did NOT go higher than the original structure. Look properly at the video evidence.
    For the second tower collapse, it is on fire and belching smoke. Then when the tower collapses, the smoke from the fire is still there but the dust cloud from the collapsing building does not go higher, any grey clouds are smoke from the fires which are basically unchanged as the collapse happens. there is no extra dust adding to that cloud once the collapse starts.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  33. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    They collapsed. ALL of the original structure is accounted for. Please do some research into where the 9/11 debris was taken....on Staten Island. (I could give you the source, but I think that YOU need to do the research yourself. Will help.)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  34. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Well perhaps because the collapse started 90 stories up, and it wasn't prepped for demolition (extraneous material removed before the actual demolition). There was nothing 'expected' about it because it wasn't a controlled demolition, to state the extreme obvious. Of course it was special, it was a unique event of unique size.
    Can you give some examples of steel dustifying?
    And there was thousands of tons of steel.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 3
  35. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    My favorite part of the buried numeric theory is that you can use the elements supposedly present (like strontium) to calculate the yield of the bomb that produced it. It would take a 291 GIGATON (link goes to another forum user who already did the math) blast to produce the concentration of fission products the theory claims were present at ground zero.

    That's nearly six thousand Tsar Bombs, over ten times the historic maximum of the combined global arsenal, or nearly four times the torpedo capacity of the Starship Enterprise 1701-D.

    Ignoring that a pure fission weapon that strong is basically impossible and wouldn't leave all its fallout right there in the rubble, even if detonated under ground, this size of bomb would glass half the eastern seaboard and ignite firestorms over nearly a third of the continent, and the flash would be bright enough to bind astronauts on the moon.

    It would have been just a little hard to cover up.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2014
    • Like Like x 2
  36. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    but, but , it must be a new kind of Nano-nuke!!
    No hang on, Nano Quantum nuke!!!


    Better still, a Nano-Quantum Homeopathic Stealth nuke.
    The reason there was no flash is that there wasn't actually any nuclear material left after it had been diluted so many times. but it had a quantum memory so it could do the necessary damage because it remembered what nuclear bombs can do and it was programmed to only take down certain buildings.

    and of course the buildings immune systems were weakened by all the chemtrail spraying.

    Hey, this is fun!!! Do you think I could make money writing explanations for the twoofer/chemtrail crowd?
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  37. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    Judy Woods of course claimed some kind of DEW did it.

    She made up the word dustification as to way to try and hand wave the fact that to actually break all those bonds to pulverize the steel into tiny individual dust particles would take a lot of energy.

    according to DR Greg Jenkins,:
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ergy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

    That seems quite a bit.
     
  38. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    That is some funny looking dust.

    Dont forget that the bottom of the rubble pile is seven stories down in the basement.



    [​IMG]




    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]





    As for "dustifying" steel...here is a rather rigorous analysis:

    https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM

     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  39. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    The WTC towers were 95 percent air. That means the pile of steel would be 5 percent of the height of the WTC if stacked up neatly. However, the two acres of WTC towers, 220 floors (aka 220 acres of office junk) above ground were spread over 19 acres. Your photo shows wallboard, ceiling tiles, insulation, and concrete dust, aka "glass fibers, gypsum wallboard, concrete, paper, window glass, and miscellaneous materials used in building
    construction or found in office buildings - dust".
    Need the approximate percentage - look up "Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center", for a reality check.

    Steel does not turn to dust except in Judy Wood's mind.
    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0050-02/fs-050-02_508.pdf
    http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/


    Wait, it has a name, it is called fantasy. You realize Sherlock Holmes is fiction, as is Judy's dustification of steel.

    The dust cloud is big because E=mgh was released, it was equal to 130 tons of TNT in each tower. The energy due to gravity was massive, and released during the collapse. The energy of collapse crushed wallboard, insulation, glass, ceiling tiles and 220 acres of office space; the dust seen. It is hard to comprehend the energy equal to 260 2,000 pounds bombs is in the collapsing building.

    The buildings are mostly air...
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2014
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  40. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    a lot of people do seem to use false Holmesian logic, especially in CT circles. If I can "prove" the Official Story" is false, then it means whatever thing I have come up with MUST be true.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6