IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Dustification Simplified, four reasons WTC turned to dust

NP1Mike
post Jan 28 2014, 10:39 PM
Post #21





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 28 2014, 01:40 PM) *
The nuclear theory is the only one that explains all the crazy things we saw, and the damage done.



And after going through each and every last one of the other theories, it is the one that I feel most comfortable with.
It explains the dust, the clouds going up instead of down, the ground fuming for months after the demolition, the molten metal underground etc.

How dumb and blind is the general public? The media?
Don't they know that the jet fires would not burn for months and months?

Isn't that the most obvious 'smoking gun' you could imagine?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
leostokes
post Jan 29 2014, 11:32 PM
Post #22





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 6-January 14
Member No.: 7,654



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 28 2014, 09:39 PM) *
And after going through each and every last one of the other theories, it is the one that I feel most comfortable with.
It explains the dust, the clouds going up instead of down, the ground fuming for months after the demolition, the molten metal underground etc.

How dumb and blind is the general public? The media?
Don't they know that the jet fires would not burn for months and months?

Isn't that the most obvious 'smoking gun' you could imagine?

Would the use of nuclear devices explain everything? How about the huge volume of papers scattered over Lower Manhattan?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 30 2014, 11:36 PM
Post #23





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (leostokes @ Jan 29 2014, 10:32 PM) *
Would the use of nuclear devices explain everything? How about the huge volume of papers scattered over Lower Manhattan?


Certainly several devices could have been used to bring down the towers.
But what would you expect to have happen to paper in the towers after mini nukes were set off?
Paper that was in filing cabinets.
Would you expect them to have burned? Been blown into small pieces/dust?
I would wager that most of the dust we saw was the former concrete and walls in the building.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 1 2014, 11:18 AM
Post #24





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,016
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (leostokes @ Jan 29 2014, 11:32 PM) *
Would the use of nuclear devices explain everything? How about the huge volume of papers scattered over Lower Manhattan?


I think it does. The strangely burned vehicles. The dripping flesh first described by Rodriguez, but later described by other witnesses.

The lateral ejection of massive structural pieces. The pretzel-shaped twisted structural steel pieces, the pulverized and calcined concrete. The Chernobyl-like molten metal for 90 days. The nuclear decontamination protocols in place, described at least by Matt Tartaglia, whose teeth later fell out.

And last but not least, the years-in-the-making epidemiology of those working at Ground Zero.

With Occam's Razor, the reason it appears to be a nuclear event is because it actually was a nuclear event.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 1 2014, 01:05 PM
Post #25





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 28 2014, 10:40 AM) *
The nuclear theory is the only one that explains all the crazy things we saw, and the damage done.


No it isn't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 1 2014, 01:15 PM
Post #26





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Jan 21 2014, 01:27 PM) *
While we are on the subject of dustification...

There is a posting at the "Let's Roll" forum website entitled, "FDNY Fireman Selling Silly Idea WTC and People Turned to Dust!" at http://letsrollforums.com/fdny-fireman-sel...lly-t24308.html .

The following statement is contained therein, and for the life of me I don't understand it. Can someone explain, please?
In my opinion, these very broadcasts set the stage for others, like the directed energy crowd, and the atomic crowd as well, to come and fill the void, and distract people away from the very very obvious, that the buildings were missing all of the contents and debris because it wasn't there to begin with.

Wasn't there to begin with??? Huh?

The author seems to be knocking the directed energy and nuke theories, but what else would explain the undoing of the towers to dust?

P.M.


The evidence supports LRF's conclusion that the towers were gutted and prepped for demolition, as all demolitions are.

The dust was likely an added "feature" just to give Judy's minions something to waste time with; believing in mythical weapons is easier for the gullible to swallow than realizing leaders in media, government, military and academia have been with caught their hands in a massive cookie-jar of lies.

Here are a few examples of the "dustified" contents:







This post has been edited by yankee451: Feb 1 2014, 01:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 1 2014, 01:18 PM
Post #27





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 1 2014, 07:18 AM) *
I think it does. The strangely burned vehicles. The dripping flesh first described by Rodriguez, but later described by other witnesses.

The lateral ejection of massive structural pieces. The pretzel-shaped twisted structural steel pieces, the pulverized and calcined concrete. The Chernobyl-like molten metal for 90 days. The nuclear decontamination protocols in place, described at least by Matt Tartaglia, whose teeth later fell out.

And last but not least, the years-in-the-making epidemiology of those working at Ground Zero.

With Occam's Razor, the reason it appears to be a nuclear event is because it actually was a nuclear event.


Occam leads to corruption, not to 'unclear' weapons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 1 2014, 01:20 PM
Post #28





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Jan 21 2014, 05:12 PM) *
Yes, it does.

Thank you, NP1Mike for your time and trouble.

I am totally aghast, though.

Apparently, the guy(s) at the Let's Roll forum are totally unfamiliar with the old World Trade Center.

That place was a busy tourist attraction with a very busy shopping concourse, this not to mention the very busy Port Authority Trans Hudson (PATH) train station.

When PATH trains would empty out, there would be such a flood of commuters coming up from several levels below street level on upwards of seven or eight escalators to the shopping concourse, that if you were going against the flow you'd be like a struggling salmon trying to swim upstream.

With all of the hustle and bustle in the concourse and the hustle and bustle in the two-level lobbies of the WTC towers, if those towers became vacant, throngs of tourists, shoppers, and commuters would surely notice the ghost town nature of the place.

There is one thing still possible, though. Some video depictions of people jumping out of high windows of the towers may have been falsified for dramatization to incense even though there were numerous true cases of such "flyers."

P.M.


The towers white elephants and real estate liabilities that were sitting atop the mall and the path trains, both of which would have given the place the feeling of a bustling metropolis.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 1 2014, 06:45 PM
Post #29





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 1 2014, 09:20 AM) *
The towers *WERE* white elephants and real estate liabilities that were sitting atop the mall and the path trains, both of which would have given the place the feeling of a bustling metropolis.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 2 2014, 10:35 AM
Post #30





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,016
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 1 2014, 01:05 PM) *
No it isn't.



What other theory does explain all the anomalies?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 2 2014, 01:43 PM
Post #31





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 2 2014, 06:35 AM) *
What other theory does explain all the anomalies?


The towers were gutted and empty of contents, probably since the '93 or earlier. See LetsRoll for the tawdry details:
http://letsrollforums.com/world-trade-center-hollow-f16.html

With any demolition they will remove anything that can become a projectile; everything that isn't integral to the building is removed and recycled. Conduit, plumbing, bathroom fixtures, elevator cables, cars, doors and motors, WINDOWS, etc. This is standard practice with demolitions and it is supported by the photographic evidence. To hide the fact that the towers were empty they ADDED the dust, which is evidenced by the fact that the dust erupts immediately after the towers started to detonate. Even explosives wouldn't have "dustified" the concrete like that, so obviously the dust was in dust form at the time of the destruction. The dust also helped force away curious bystanders and more importantly, gave Judy Wood something to hang her hat on.

As I wrote in the Back Stories to the WTC post, the history of the real estate market in NYC during the time of construction also supports this conclusion. This video also supports it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPZNQTj2hNg

Note how the windows are missing in these images:

This one shows what appears to be canvas attached to the window frames:


This one shows screens draped over what should be windows:


So Occam's razor leads to the authorities setting this charade up since the late 80's, and I'm sure the dust and Judy Wood were part of the original plans.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 2 2014, 04:17 PM
Post #32





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 2 2014, 12:43 PM) *
...To hide the fact that the towers were empty they ADDED the dust, which is evidenced by the fact that the dust erupts immediately after the towers started to detonate. Even explosives wouldn't have "dustified" the concrete like that, so obviously the dust was in dust form at the time of the destruction.


Not so fast Sherlock.

Look at the videos and photos of the huge dust clouds as the building disintegrates.

You will see solid pieces of debris (mostly columns) falling and being ejected and accompanying them are dust trails. Long dust trails.

Question.

Why would pre-planted dust cling to and trail, steel columns falling/being ejected from the towers?

The *logic* behind that please?


Where would this 'dust' be obtained?
How much dust would need to be
stored in the towers to create the dust clouds we witnessed on 9/11?
An approximate figure please?


You're holding back a lot yankee.
How do you explain the ground fuming for months after 9/11?
How do you explain the molten metal under the ground?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 2 2014, 06:32 PM
Post #33





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 12:17 PM) *
Not so fast Sherlock.

Look at the videos and photos of the huge dust clouds as the building disintegrates.

You will see solid pieces of debris (mostly columns) falling and being ejected and accompanying them are dust trails. Long dust trails.

Question.

Why would pre-planted dust cling to and trail, steel columns falling/being ejected from the towers?

The *logic* behind that please


Hollow columns filled with gypsum would make a compelling comet for Judy to use to pull the wool over your eyes but it's really not that difficult to figure out.

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 12:17 PM) *
Where would this 'dust' be obtained?


LOL! Gypsum? Cement? Where do you think such things were obtained? I would go to a cement processing plant or wherever sheet rock is made. Where would you go?

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 12:17 PM) *
How much dust would need to be
stored in the towers to create the dust clouds we witnessed on 9/11?
An approximate figure please?


An "approximate figure?" Quite a bit, but why is this relevant? It's not like there is a shortage of gypsum in the world.

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 12:17 PM) *
You're holding back a lot yankee.
How do you explain the ground fuming for months after 9/11?
How do you explain the molten metal under the ground?


No I'm not but you are repeating fairy tales. There was no molten metal, no molten concrete, nor hot spots visible from space. These stories were supplied by the same people who have been invading the world for the last dozen years, the same people who provided Judy with the credentials she wields like a bludgeon.

'Fuming?' If there were no hot spots and no molten metal (there wasn't), then what could have caused 'fuming'? Maybe something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39IwxayVeIw

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 2 2014, 08:57 PM
Post #34





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 2 2014, 05:32 PM) *
Hollow columns filled with gypsum would make a compelling comet for Judy to use to pull the wool over your eyes but it's really not that difficult to figure out.



Columns filled with gypsum?
That is what is accounting for all of the dust that was released on 9/11?
Huh?

Question.
All of the scientists examining the dust (including Dr. Harrit) using the most sophisticated scientific equipment available, were unable to see they were looking at gypsum board?
Come on.

QUOTE
An "approximate figure?" Quite a bit, but why is this relevant? It's not like there is a shortage of gypsum in the world.


It is very relevant. Not because gypsum is in short supply, but because it had to be stored somewhere in the towers, if it was there. So you are saying all of it was stored in the steel columns?

Question.
What mechanism was used to release the gypsum from the steel columns?
The photos and videos show dust trails coming from the *entire surface* of the columns, not from the column ends.

QUOTE
There was no molten metal, no molten concrete, nor hot spots visible from space. These stories were supplied by the same people who have been invading the world for the last dozen years...


I've seen the photos of the ground at the base of the towers. What exactly were we looking at, when we saw metal that "looked like" molten metal?


QUOTE
'Fuming?' If there were no hot spots and no molten metal (there wasn't), then what could have caused 'fuming'? Maybe something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39IwxayVeIw



You are confusing two separate issues here Steve.
When I referred to the fuming at ground zero, I wasn't referring to black smoke billowing out from the ground (the kind of smoke seen in your video).
I was referring to white smoke gently wafting up from the ground, day after day, week after week, month after month after 9/11.

Are you trying to say the perps installed a white smoke machine under the ground, to make it look like real white smoke was coming from the ground?
And why exactly would the perps do this?

Smoke machines at the Pentagon?
*Yes*. It's very clear they were used.
You can spot them a mile away.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 2 2014, 10:44 PM
Post #35





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 04:57 PM) *
Columns filled with gypsum?
That is what is accounting for all of the dust that was released on 9/11?
Huh?


Come. Judging by the voluminous amount of dust there was much more than just dust in the columns, I was saying that dust filled hollow columns could appear to be "dustified" on crappy video. But the steel was not "dustified", was it? The steel was all there in the debris pile, wasn't it? In fact there was little else.

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 04:57 PM) *
Question.
All of the scientists examining the dust (including Dr. Harrit) using the most sophisticated scientific equipment available, were unable to see they were looking at gypsum board?
Come on.


Until you check his work it's all just hearsay. What, government "scientists" don't lie? Why is that? Is it because he has a "Dr." in his name?

Dry cement (which contains gypsum) can easily account for the dust, but this would mean a massive conspiracy which most people can't wrap their brains around. My personal experience is that this realization caused a paradigm shift which changed the way I view civilization itself; it changed my life and made me an outcast from what most people consider normal society. Who would want to go through that? No, it's much easier to believe the towers were turned to dust with top-secret weaponry, or that jet planes with scary Arabs did it, or some "rogue" military coup was responsible...anything will do.

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 04:57 PM) *
It is very relevant. Not because gypsum is in short supply, but because it had to be stored somewhere in the towers, if it was there. So you are saying all of it was stored in the steel columns?


There would be plenty of room in the core area. The dust cloud would billow from the core-out, as seen on the TeeVee. This is a rational explanation using substances and explosives found in the real world, but it sure does mean the authorities have been involved for many, many years and it's not nearly as sexy as top secret directed energy weapons.

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 04:57 PM) *
Question.
What mechanism was used to release the gypsum from the steel columns?
The photos and videos show dust trails coming from the *entire surface* of the columns, not from the column ends.


How would you expect a falling column to look when dust is coming from both ends and hand holes? And I repeat, the steel wasn't "dustified", was it? The steel was all that was left. In fact it was from the fire department that we heard the dust they were breathing was the people (said like Charlton Heston from Soylent Green), so it must be true, eh?

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 04:57 PM) *
I've seen the photos of the ground at the base of the towers. What exactly were we looking at, when we saw metal that "looked like" molten metal?


Show me the images of molten metal and I'll show you how you're mistaken.


QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 04:57 PM) *
You are confusing two separate issues here Steve.
When I referred to the fuming at ground zero, I wasn't referring to black smoke billowing out from the ground (the kind of smoke seen in your video).


Any color you like: http://www.smokemachines.net/faqs.shtml


QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 04:57 PM) *
I was referring to white smoke gently wafting up from the ground, day after day, week after week, month after month after 9/11.


Have you verified these reports or just repeating what the authorities would like us to believe? You are aware of the sub levels below ground level and that fortune favors to the audacious, yes? Do you think you'd recognize the "big lie" if you saw it? Me, I expect propaganda to be compelling, therefore I think it's healthy to question everything.

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 04:57 PM) *
Are you trying to say the perps installed a white smoke machine under the ground, to make it look like real white smoke was coming from the ground?
And why exactly would the perps do this?


That's what I'm saying, yes. Why? Because TERROR was the name of the game, and since this was a demolition disguised as a terrorist attack there were no real fires that burned for weeks (as was being reported by the authorities), so they needed to fabricate them. We wouldn't be outraged enough to support a decades' long war of aggression without the terror. Come on.

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 2 2014, 04:57 PM) *
Smoke machines at the Pentagon?
*Yes*. It's very clear they were used.
You can spot them a mile away.


What I'm saying is that there are other explanations for the fuming without having to rely on imaginary weapons and if they'd use them at the Pentagon, why wouldn't they also do so at the other sites. You can see the same white smoke fuming from a single point in the Shanksville crater too, and you know what they say...where there's smoke, there's a smoke machine.

This post has been edited by yankee451: Feb 2 2014, 10:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
leostokes
post Feb 3 2014, 01:51 AM
Post #36





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 6-January 14
Member No.: 7,654



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 30 2014, 10:36 PM) *
Certainly several devices could have been used to bring down the towers.
But what would you expect to have happen to paper in the towers after mini nukes were set off?
Paper that was in filing cabinets.
Would you expect them to have burned? Been blown into small pieces/dust?
I would wager that most of the dust we saw was the former concrete and walls in the building.

Conventional explosives burn everything available.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
leostokes
post Feb 3 2014, 02:10 AM
Post #37





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 6-January 14
Member No.: 7,654



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 1 2014, 10:18 AM) *
I think it does. The strangely burned vehicles. The dripping flesh first described by Rodriguez, but later described by other witnesses.

The lateral ejection of massive structural pieces. The pretzel-shaped twisted structural steel pieces, the pulverized and calcined concrete. The Chernobyl-like molten metal for 90 days. The nuclear decontamination protocols in place, described at least by Matt Tartaglia, whose teeth later fell out.

And last but not least, the years-in-the-making epidemiology of those working at Ground Zero.

With Occam's Razor, the reason it appears to be a nuclear event is because it actually was a nuclear event.


There is a post on AE911truth where it is said that the damage to the tops of some cars could be explained by molten iron droplets. Would not that cause the paper to burn??

Partially unignited thermite, thermate, and/or nanothermite falling through the air as it continued to react would have produced molten iron droplets. A still-reacting thermitic mixture drifting down onto the cars in the dust plumes could easily account for the singing of their paint and even igniting the cars (since the highly exothermic thermite reaction can quickly reach temperatures exceeding 4000 F.)

http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-.../505-faq-3.html

According to ae911truth site article, molten iron toasts cars but not paper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 3 2014, 03:06 AM
Post #38





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (leostokes @ Feb 2 2014, 09:51 PM) *
Conventional explosives burn everything available.


How do you figure?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 3 2014, 03:15 AM
Post #39





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (leostokes @ Feb 2 2014, 10:10 PM) *
There is a post on AE911truth where it is said that the damage to the tops of some cars could be explained by molten iron droplets. Would not that cause the paper to burn??

Partially unignited thermite, thermate, and/or nanothermite falling through the air as it continued to react would have produced molten iron droplets. A still-reacting thermitic mixture drifting down onto the cars in the dust plumes could easily account for the singing of their paint and even igniting the cars (since the highly exothermic thermite reaction can quickly reach temperatures exceeding 4000 F.)

http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-.../505-faq-3.html

According to ae911truth site article, molten iron toasts cars but not paper.


OR some of the first responders were in on it and doused the tops of their cars with fuel and set fire to them. It should be noted that recently there were 100 first responders who were busted for ripping off the government to the tune of 24 million dollars in fraudulent stress claims over 9/11, so it's not like corruption in that bunch is unheard of, and that's just the recent news; corruption in New York goes back centuries. It should also be noted that most of the first responders got shiny new vehicles afterwards...a great way to get rid of old hulks but stick the insurance company with the bill. Who would doubt them?

But no - the cops were just innocent victims and the "mysterious fires" were caused by Top Secret Directed Energy Weapons. laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 3 2014, 10:17 AM
Post #40





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,016
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 2 2014, 01:43 PM) *
The towers were gutted and empty of contents, probably since the '93 or earlier. See LetsRoll for the tawdry details:
http://letsrollforums.com/world-trade-center-hollow-f16.html

With any demolition they will remove anything that can become a projectile; everything that isn't integral to the building is removed and recycled. Conduit, plumbing, bathroom fixtures, elevator cables, cars, doors and motors, WINDOWS, etc. This is standard practice with demolitions and it is supported by the photographic evidence. To hide the fact that the towers were empty they ADDED the dust, which is evidenced by the fact that the dust erupts immediately after the towers started to detonate. Even explosives wouldn't have "dustified" the concrete like that, so obviously the dust was in dust form at the time of the destruction. The dust also helped force away curious bystanders and more importantly, gave Judy Wood something to hang her hat on.

As I wrote in the Back Stories to the WTC post, the history of the real estate market in NYC during the time of construction also supports this conclusion. This video also supports it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPZNQTj2hNg

Note how the windows are missing in these images:

This one shows what appears to be canvas attached to the window frames:


This one shows screens draped over what should be windows:


So Occam's razor leads to the authorities setting this charade up since the late 80's, and I'm sure the dust and Judy Wood were part of the original plans.



That's all well and good, but it flies in the face of Occam, and it does not even BEGIN to explain all the other anomalies.

Delivering that much dust would have been a huge and very messy project, contradicting Occam's general principle.

Your theory does not explain the lateral ejection of massive pieces, it does not address the strangely burned vehicles, and it certainly does not address the epidemiology surrounding those who worked at GZ.

Nuclear does, easily and precisely.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th July 2019 - 09:06 AM