Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

TruthSeeker1234 said:
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image335.jpgThe uncropped version of the photo does show other material already below this point, perhaps it caused the damage. Notice the brown dust? And the grey dust? See how it is looks like pieces of steel are belching thick dust? Is that not evaportating steel? Sure looks like material is disintegrating as it falls.
Click to expand...

So BS what are you now suggesting? That material falling from the external superstructure was rigged with explosives that went off as material fell to ground?

Is this the big theory now?

It looks to you that brown dust and grey dust belching from falling debris is in fact a sign that the steel is evaporating in midair?

Is this what you are saying BS?
This shows WTC3 after WTC2 collapsed, and before WTC1 collapsed. Consider the overall size of WTC3. Now, tell me what on earth happened to it later. Where did it go? So much stuff from WTC1 rained down upon it that it disappeared?
Click to expand...
I corrected this for you.

So where did it go BS? Is it not at all conceivable that it actually ended up inside other buildings?

You tell me BS, tell me all about exploding debris that evaporated in midair and how it all missed the surrounding buildings. Hey maybe the surrounding buildings had laser beams in them that caused the falling debris to evaporate. What do you think ?
 
Last edited:
TS, every time I read one of your posts I try to figure out if you're mentally ill, really dumb, or both. My guess is both, with more of the former, but I admit I don't have much experience with people who behave the way you do. Christophera is the only one I can think of who is close.

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Now, tell me what on earth happened to it later. Where did it go? So much stuff from WTC1 rained down upon it that it disappeared?
Click to expand...

What happened to WTC 3? Two of the largest buildings in the world fell on it. Do you need it explained to you when that happened, or can you figure that out by yourself?

87904557c3c4b0e0f.jpg
 
Of course, a really wild theorist such as myself might come up with a bizarre theory like:
The upper floors, collapsing, would crush drywall into powder, then push the dust-laden air along in front of the collapse zone, where the increased pressure might blow out a window or two. Some of the exterior panels might stay relatively stable for few seconds above the collapse, while being sandblasted and coated with a layer of the pressurized dust rushing by, taking the lowest-pressure path to ambient pressure.
After failing, the groups of columns would fall, and perhaps vortices would set up on the bluff backside of each of the columns, keeping the air velocity nearest the steel at a low velocity. But not perhaps so low a velocity that none of the dust would be blown off during its fall.
But of course, there's no evidence for this, other than videos of dust blowing out windows, videos of the external columns staying stable before being obscured by dust, research on the behavior of air around bluff bodies -- just theoretical stuff.
 
TjW said:
Of course, a really wild theorist such as myself might come up with a bizarre theory like:
The upper floors, collapsing, would crush drywall into powder, then push the dust-laden air along in front of the collapse zone, where the increased pressure might blow out a window or two. Some of the exterior panels might stay relatively stable for few seconds above the collapse, while being sandblasted and coated with a layer of the pressurized dust rushing by, taking the lowest-pressure path to ambient pressure.
After failing, the groups of columns would fall, and perhaps vortices would set up on the bluff backside of each of the columns, keeping the air velocity nearest the steel at a low velocity. But not perhaps so low a velocity that none of the dust would be blown off during its fall.
But of course, there's no evidence for this, other than videos of dust blowing out windows, videos of the external columns staying stable before being obscured by dust, research on the behavior of air around bluff bodies -- just theoretical stuff.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a reach... :D
 
Sorry, I don't buy it. Look at the ends of those steel perimeter columns. Look at them. They are spewing a steady stream of thick dust behind them after they have fallen 1000 feet. How could enough drywall dust stick onto one end of a broken perimeter section to spew heavy thick dust for 12 seconds straight? Think about it. We have all sorts of huge building sections doing the same thing. Spewing thick dust continually behind it.

In the Bob and Bri video, many smaller objects appear like little rockets pushing out the grey dust like engine exhaust behind them. They arc upwards and out of the main cloud of the WTC1 destruction.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903

North Tower destruction is at about 19:40

This disintegration behavior is all over both of these twin tower events. Barnett reported it. Then they cleansed it out of the NY Times. Clear to see why. There is no place in the official theory for this evaporating, disintegrating steel.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Sorry, I don't buy it. Look at the ends of those steel perimeter columns. Look at them. They are spewing a steady stream of thick dust behind them after they have fallen 1000 feet. How could enough drywall dust stick onto one end of a broken perimeter section to spew heavy thick dust for 12 seconds straight?
Click to expand...

The dust doesn't have to stick to the surface. As the sections fall, they experience drag, which produces vortexes that trap airborne dust, and pulls it along with the debris. As it falls, turbulence gradually allows the entrained dust to escape. That's why so many of the bits of debris you see falling away from the towers sem to leave dust trails - it's not rockets or some weird thing.

It's just like drafting behind a big truck to save on gas, or seeing a truck like that carrying along a cloud of snow or dust behind it. There was just a heck of a lot of dust available that day, so the effect is much more noticable.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Sorry, I don't buy it. Look at the ends of those steel perimeter columns. Look at them. They are spewing a steady stream of thick dust behind them after they have fallen 1000 feet. How could enough drywall dust stick onto one end of a broken perimeter section to spew heavy thick dust for 12 seconds straight? Think about it. We have all sorts of huge building sections doing the same thing. Spewing thick dust continually behind it.

In the Bob and Bri video, many smaller objects appear like little rockets pushing out the grey dust like engine exhaust behind them. They arc upwards and out of the main cloud of the WTC1 destruction.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903

North Tower destruction is at about 19:40

This disintegration behavior is all over both of these twin tower events. Barnett reported it. Then they cleansed it out of the NY Times. Clear to see why. There is no place in the official theory for this evaporating, disintegrating steel.
Click to expand...

No Barnett was making a reference to hot corrosion at close to 1,000ºC. http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
I thought I made this clear.
Anyone can find the NY times article. Your just going ape because the headline changed. BFD
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
No Barnett was making a reference to hot corrosion at close to 1,000ºC. http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
I thought I made this clear.
Anyone can find the NY times article. Your just going ape because the headline changed. BFD
Click to expand...

Yes, going ape with good reason. The Headline used to say "Steel Members partly evaporated". Now is says "Deisel fuel is the culprit." How can deisel fuel evaporate steel. It can't.

You guys can take your wind vortexes and insert them where the sun don't shine. I observe steel disintegrating. Repeatedly.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Yes, going ape with good reason. The Headline used to say "Steel Members partly evaporated". Now is says "Deisel fuel is the culprit." How can deisel fuel evaporate steel. It can't.

You guys can take your wind vortexes and insert them where the sun don't shine. I observe steel disintegrating. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Technicaly severe "erosion". It didn't even reach 1000C so honestly your dead in the water.
You can always talk to these people. http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
(I should add, yes diesel fuel can help cause a sulfidation attack upon the steel.)

Doesn't really matter what the headline used to say. The article is the same, anyone can find the old headline also. As I said BFD!
I don't see any steel disintegrating anymore than I see pink bunnys.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Yes, going ape with good reason. The Headline used to say "Steel Members partly evaporated". Now is says "Deisel fuel is the culprit." How can deisel fuel evaporate steel. It can't.

You guys can take your wind vortexes and insert them where the sun don't shine. I observe steel disintegrating. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Well, I hope you have a nanobot hypothesis ready because it sure as hell isn't a star-wars beam weapon that's evaporating your steel.

The other possibility is that you're just an idiot who wants to see steel evaporating: PDoherty certainly seems to think so. Maybe you should pop over to LC and argue the toss with him, surely the rest of the Truth Movement will be easier to convince than a bunch of JREFers.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't the steel be, you know, glowing if it was evaporating?

And if it was one of these magical beam weapons more at home on an R-9 space fighter alongside the homing lasers and infinite ammo machine guns, wouldn't everything in the picture be glowing?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Yes, going ape with good reason. The Headline used to say "Steel Members partly evaporated". Now is says "Deisel fuel is the culprit." How can deisel fuel evaporate steel. It can't.

You guys can take your wind vortexes and insert them where the sun don't shine. I observe steel disintegrating. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...

There was NO evaporation of steel, fool. You toss words around with no idea of what they mean in an effort to make yourself appear smart but succeed only in making yourself look retarded.

"Evaporation" describes the process of a substance transitioning to it's gaseous state. Speel evaporates at a temperature of ~5,000 degrees farenhiet.

You are claiming that in the few seconds of free-fall before it hit the ground, the steel of the WTC was heated to a temperature of over 5,000 degrees. For even a minor fraction of the steel in the WTC to have been turned into a gaseous state in the space of a few seconds would have resulted in an explosion roughly the same scale as Hiroshima.

Do you have any idea how idiotic this is?

This is what happened in the Arizona desert 10,000 years ago when a chunk of iron the size of a railroad car flash vaporized:

MeteorCraterPanorama.jpg

(BTW, for future reference, THAT is what a "crater" looks like. This is why people laugh when you use that word.)

See how retarded the "evaporated steel" claim is?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Sorry, I don't buy it. Look at the ends of those steel perimeter columns. Look at them. They are spewing a steady stream of thick dust behind them after they have fallen 1000 feet. How could enough drywall dust stick onto one end of a broken perimeter section to spew heavy thick dust for 12 seconds straight? Think about it. We have all sorts of huge building sections doing the same thing. Spewing thick dust continually behind it.

In the Bob and Bri video, many smaller objects appear like little rockets pushing out the grey dust like engine exhaust behind them. They arc upwards and out of the main cloud of the WTC1 destruction.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903

North Tower destruction is at about 19:40

This disintegration behavior is all over both of these twin tower events. Barnett reported it. Then they cleansed it out of the NY Times. Clear to see why. There is no place in the official theory for this evaporating, disintegrating steel.
Click to expand...

This is because the official theory as you refer to it is based in the world of sanity.

Not evaporating pieces of steel with little rockets attached to it pushing out exhaust that arc upwards out of the dust cloud.

Nor is there any room in serious studies of the collapse of the Towers for space beams, disappearing steel, self exploding concrete, self clearing piles of debris and magical craters.
 
Last edited:
maccy said:
The other possibility is that you're just an idiot who wants to see steel evaporating: PDoherty certainly seems to think so. Maybe you should pop over to LC and argue the toss with him, surely the rest of the Truth Movement will be easier to convince than a bunch of JREFers.
Click to expand...

Man, PD'oh is almost sounding sane these days. Whodathunkit?

When someone with a phd in engineering suggests that satellites firing microwaves brought down the towers its disinfo. No engineer could truely believe that.
Click to expand...

You are being intentionally stupid.

Bombs in towers might be ridiculous to you but it is at least feasible.

Microwave weapons and hologram planes is just ridiculous and anyone who hears it will immediately think that all cts are mentally ill.
Click to expand...

So, TS, welcome to the DisInfo Team. Do we have a badge for that?

If fetzer says beam weapons on tv, I shall give up and never mention 911 again.
Click to expand...

So, let's all start cheering Fetzer on, okay?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Well, wait a minute. I thought we were supposed to believe that WTC1 collapsed straight down.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the CTers' contention ? WTC1 clipped number 7 pretty bad.

What part of WTC1 could just wipe out WTC3? And where is that part?
Click to expand...

"Part" ?

WTC4, the north wing of the building survived, there is a very clean cut, and the rest of WTC4 is missing.

You guys don't think this is weird? Really? Impact damage makes whole buildings disappear?
Click to expand...

Er.... yes. Yes it does make whole buildings dissapear. But not the way you think.

Guys, take a deep breath. WTC3 wasn't "damaged". It is gone. Look at the evidence.
Click to expand...

Oh, so now it desintegrated ? They didn't use the "stun" setting ?

I am quite certain that the official story of 9/11 is false.
Click to expand...

I'm quite certain that it's true. Bah! My postcount is higher. I win.

I don't know what really happened on 9/11. I don't know about no planes, I don't know about beam weapons. What I do know is that the correct explanation will be the one that accounts for all the relevant data.
Click to expand...

So you don't know anything but you know that the official story is wrong ? How can you know this if you don't have any conclusions OTHER than the official story ?

See how it is looks like pieces of steel are belching thick dust? Is that not evaportating steel? Sure looks like material is disintegrating as it falls.
Click to expand...

"Looks like" ?

Evaporating steel ?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Look at the ends of those steel perimeter columns. Look at them. They are spewing a steady stream of thick dust behind them after they have fallen 1000 feet.
Click to expand...

How can you tell they're not simply engulfed in that dust ?

many smaller objects appear like little rockets pushing out the grey dust like engine exhaust behind them. They arc upwards and out of the main cloud of the WTC1 destruction.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

They... ATTACHED rockets onto the prepared debris so that it would fall faster ? ROCKETS ?? Are you crazy ? Really ?

Yes, going ape with good reason. The Headline used to say "Steel Members partly evaporated". Now is says "Deisel fuel is the culprit." How can deisel fuel evaporate steel. It can't.
Click to expand...

Who ever said it evaporated ? YOU!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom