Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

Minadin said:
My favorite all-time warning label of all time was on a bag of charcoal. It said:

WARNING: DO NOT BURN INSIDE
Charcoal smoke contains carbon monoxide, a substance which has been found by the state of California to cause cancer.

Not that you would possibly burn down your residence and even die by lighting a fire indoors. Not that you might die fairly quickly of asphixiation / smoke inhalation as the indoor fire used up oxygen in your house and produced toxic smoke. Not even that the carbon monoxide in that smoke could give you carbon monoxide poisoning, which causes people to pass out and die in a matter of hours. No, if you do it often enough, over a long enough period of time, there is a chance that you might someday develop cancer. Maybe. According to California.

Heck, by the time you develop that cancer it may be cureable.
Click to expand...

But...but....but......it's CANCER!!!!

And California.....

:D
 
Alt+F4 said:
He won't. TS's MO is to ask questions. Posters answer his questions. He ignores answers that go against his star wars beam theory so he just reposts the same questions again.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I know. I've just noticed that every now and then, he actually makes some progress. I figure in about 10 years, we'll have him whipped into shape....
 
Kent1 said:
Why are you so dishonest?
Or do you simply not read our replys just like you didn't read the NIST reports?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2099388&postcount=289

We are serious when we say maybe you should think about some professional help.
Click to expand...

[Kent style] Kent, stop robbing banks and get the help you need. [/Kent Style]

NIST says in plain English that they did not study the "collapses", you know it, and I know it. They truncated their timeline at "collapse initiation". If you can link me to studies of the behavior of the towers, I'd be glad to look at them.

Your guys' relentless ad hominems show the vacuous nature of your claims.
 
IT WAS THE XINDI WHO MELTED THE WTC!!! :eek:

xindiweaponeden.jpg
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
[Kent style] Kent, stop robbing banks and get the help you need. [/Kent Style]

NIST says in plain English that they did not study the "collapses", you know it, and I know it. They truncated their timeline at "collapse initiation". If you can link me to studies of the behavior of the towers, I'd be glad to look at them.

Your guys' relentless ad hominems show the vacuous nature of your claims.
Click to expand...

If you simply read my link you would have seen it. What's wrong with you? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2099388&postcount=289
Here is some cut and pasted from the NIST report

For example:
page 319 9.3.3 Events Following Collapse Initiation

Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC 2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The titlting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of collapse initation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential enery released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of demformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, futher incresing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing materical, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos.

There is also other sections where they discuss Bazant's paper and the observations regarding the antenna collapse.

There was also some information in NIST FAQ that came out not too long ago

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
 
Last edited:
I agree with the ealier post, this SWBT is pretty much one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard. This goes with the explosives in concrete when it was built idea I reckon. What was that guys name...alex was it? Maybe thats TS1234!
 
hellaeon said:
I agree with the ealier post, this SWBT is pretty much one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard. This goes with the explosives in concrete when it was built idea I reckon. What was that guys name...alex was it? Maybe thats TS1234!
Click to expand...

Look Steven Jones makes the same silly error.
Steven Jones paper from http://www.st911.org/
What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.”
Whoops I guess he should of read the NIST report......DOH!!!!

(NIST's reference to the antenna dropping first in the North Tower is even in Jones OWN paper LOL!)
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
How about this: The rest of us wait and see if any evidence for a Giant Space Beam shows up.
Click to expand...


The Wood/Reynolds data set is evidence. If there are mundane explanations for them, bring them on.

Thus far all we've gotten is:

The dust streaming from the disintegrating steel is trapped drywall dust.

WTC3,most of 4, and the inside of 6 disappeared because rubble hit it.

The round holes were carved because there were structural beams inside the buildings.

Paper failed to catch fire next to melting vehicles because I'm a conspiracy theorist, or something.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Paper failed to catch fire next to melting vehicles because I'm a conspiracy theorist, or something.
Click to expand...
vehicles didnt melt

paper needs only to be a few inches from a flame to keep from catching fire, how far was the paper sway from the car? was the paper in that same spot while the car was burning, or did it blow there later? is the paper dry?
 
Ok, TS, I now do believe your doing this on purpose. You dont believe any of this.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
vehicles didnt melt

paper needs only to be a few inches from a flame to keep from catching fire, how far was the paper sway from the car? was the paper in that same spot while the car was burning, or did it blow there later? is the paper dry?
Click to expand...

Oh, and the paper was below the fire. It's not like heat rises or anything, right?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The Wood/Reynolds data set is evidence. If there are mundane explanations for them, bring them on.

Thus far all we've gotten is:

The dust streaming from the disintegrating steel is trapped drywall dust.

WTC3,most of 4, and the inside of 6 disappeared because rubble hit it.

The round holes were carved because there were structural beams inside the buildings.

Paper failed to catch fire next to melting vehicles because I'm a conspiracy theorist, or something.
Click to expand...

"all"? What more do you want? What's wrong with any of those (except maybe that last one, admittedly :) )

Seriously. If you can't articulate why any of our explanations aren't satisfactory, what exactly do you expect us to do about it? Put up or shut up time.

ETA: also, the "data set" isn't any sort of evidence, as some of those assertions have been shown to be entirely wrong. We don't have to offer explanations for things which never actually happened.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
NIST did not study the "collapses", only the events leading up to them. You know that Gravy, stop pretending otherwise.
Click to expand...
And of course the reason for that is that they determined that earlier work examining the collapse in the more general terms of energy being coupled from floor to floor was correct.
One of the nice things about science is you don't have to reinvent the wheel. You can cite earlier work that has been independently verified, and go on from there.
They went on to find the likely initiating factors. That is, the sequence of failure that matched the data of this wall bulging, that antenna tilting, windows cracking... Once you get to the point where the collapse has initiated, and the energy coupled from floor to floor is enough that it will continue, there are a couple of things to consider:
The collapse is immensely chaotic, and there are many different possible failure modes, all of which continue the collapse.
The dust cloud prevents getting any data which would allow you to differentiate between the different failure modes, even if you were inclined to.
And from NIST's point of view, why bother? NIST doesn't do this sort of research to satisfy conspiracy theorists, it does it to see if there's any way to improve the safety of structures. Once the structure has failed, and you can calculate that it must continue, you're done. The previous work showed that the collapse had to continue, even if it did not have a millisecond-by-millisecond timeline of which structural member failed when.

TruthSeeker1234 said:
No, there are many observations for which I have not heard a scientific explanation. Posting pictures of kittens does nothing to further science.

What about the round holes? The unburned paper next to the exploding cars? THe exploding firetrucks? THe melting car parts, what is the explanation for this? WTC3, where did it go? What about the south part of WTC4? Please describe the mechanism by which WTC6 ended up so hollowed out. What about the "shooters", what causes this phenomenon?
Click to expand...
You need to read the thread more carefully. This has all been explained. And frankly, if this stuff is confusing you, you need to get out in the real world and build some stuff, and have it break, and be around a real fire and see how it works. No one is spending much time trying to explain this stuff because the events are not anomalous.
TruthSeeker1234 said:
And where is all the missing mass?
Click to expand...
Where's any evidence for "missing mass"? How much is missing, and how do you know?
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Where are the floor assemblies? Where is the core of WTC2? It was standing after the colllapse, 700 feet of it, then, it disappeared. Where did it go?
Click to expand...
Missing from where? Where should they be, and what condition should they be in? With regard to the core, what should have happened to it, and why? What does the difference between what you think should have happened to it, and what you can show did happen to it, indicate, and why?
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Are there records of the steel that supposedly went on barges to China? Not that those couldn't be fudged, but, do they even exist?
Click to expand...
Why don't you find out? How long should people keep records to satisfy your curiosity? If you're not going to believe any answer you get, why ask?
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Is "drywall dust" really your best explanation for the dense white and brown dust which is churning out of steel members continually as pieces fall? I certainly don't buy that one. This looks as though the ends of the steel columns are belching smoke. What would explain this?
Click to expand...
Somewhere on the web, there's a video taken by someone blocks away from the WTC, being overtaken by the dust cloud. In seconds, the lens is so dusty that the remainder of the video is mostly useful as soundtrack, because the images are just gray blobs.
That's blocks away, after the dust has spread to hundreds of times the volume of the towers. I think the dust at the point of the collapse, being "strained" through the openings of the prefabbed column sections as all the air on several floors is escaping through them, would be much denser, and would load them up with quite a lot of dust. I know, from driving on dirt roads behind other people, that the back of a truck will shed dust for quite awhile even after you get back on the paved road. Certainly longer than the few seconds it took each piece to fall. And the back of the truck just got dusty. It wasn't sandblasted with a dense load of dust.

However, I don't insist on that explanation. I have no idea if that's an "official" explanation or not. It's simply speculation on my part. I could be wrong.
I like it because, unlike a science-fiction beam weapon with characteristics that have never been seen before on any scale, all the things in it are things that I know happen in the real world.
Smoke and drywall and concrete dust blasting past a steel beam will stick to it. Bluff bodies do set up vortices behind them, and because of the viscosity of the air, the dust on the back side or even on the sides doesn't come off all at once. That's just how it is. If you haven't stirred around in the real world enough to have encountered such things, it's not my problem.

If you have evidence that something different is happening, or a simpler explanation that consists of things that happen in the real world, I'll consider it.
 
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