tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I'm listening to those holes speak right now and they are the voices of the dead groaning in agony because of the lies being told by you.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Directed-energy weapons and the WTC
- Thread starter sts60
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dew judy wood space beams
I'm listening to those holes speak right now and they are the voices of the dead groaning in agony because of the lies being told by you.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
How did a DEW destroy the WTC? Why is this simple question a "cheap trick"? Either you don't know the answer to the question or you know the entire DEW theory is a bunch of bull.
Now on the other hand, if you do know how a DEW destroyed the WTC why not just tell us in simple-to-understand English? If you are holding back information regarding the murders of 2,600 people just to partake in a exercise of "dialogue" or Internet debate, then your behavior is beyond immoral, it borders on the criminal.
So which is it?
P.S. - Please don't suggest Dr. Judy's website. I've been there and she does not explain how a DEW could have destroyed the WTC. Dr. Judy can't even explain how a microwave oven works.
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
I ask again, where do they hide something capable of making a laser beam dozens of feet wide in space?
I certify to you, were it there, I could point you right to it because every observational astronomer on the planet would have had problems with it already.
Since it us YOU who claim it is there, YOU need to tell us how it is concealed, and how it was launched and how it is maintained, because all of those things would appear to be impossible to all engineers who have reviewed the problem.
YOU are the only person here who does not think that this whole line of argument isn't the product of a diseased mind, repeated by a simpleton.
-Ben
I certify to you, were it there, I could point you right to it because every observational astronomer on the planet would have had problems with it already.
Since it us YOU who claim it is there, YOU need to tell us how it is concealed, and how it was launched and how it is maintained, because all of those things would appear to be impossible to all engineers who have reviewed the problem.
YOU are the only person here who does not think that this whole line of argument isn't the product of a diseased mind, repeated by a simpleton.
-Ben
This is my final post in this thread. An end point has been satisfactorily reached, in my view, with all that can usefully be posted having been completed.
I understand posters are not convinced of DEW causal theory and "want more proof" but are reluctant to look for it themselves. Further, no amount of proof presented has been sufficient. There are those who initially said they did not believe DEW existed, but those posts have thinned out.
There are a variety of posts indicating what are claimed to be technical limitations, but those are based on faulty analysis. They treat DEW in a vacuum and do not have, as their reference point, an explanation of what caused this:
The query process isfurther confounded because the event of 9/11 has, for some reason, caused many, many people to relinquish their own thought process, especially as it relates to what they can see. Many people, in looking at the above photo, are unwilling to acknowledge that it depicts steel being turned to dust almost instantaneously. Many others are willing to attribute the conditions seen to the destructive power of gravity, a plane smack and kerosene. When challenged on this they assert there were "other combustibles" available, but the available materials -- carpets and desks -- are less combustible than even lowly kerosene; and, paper didn't even burn.
This leads to inclusion of the outcome of the "Debris" thread which also reached an end point. There, we saw that GZ was flat. Those who initially doubted the claim ended up hanging their hat on the few exceptions to the overall flatness that were always acknowledged to be there because they were plainly visible all along. The point there was whether the overall and general condition applicable to the vast majority of the site would be the determining way to define the site's elevation or whether the occassional exception would be given emphasis.
However, the overall point of the flatness issue is simply that of showing how thorough the annihilation of GZ actually was. Again, the issue here is that the energy available through kerosene, etc. is grossly insufficient to have created that flat landscape.
This leads to the further inclusion of the altered "NIST" thread.
Posters have been shown that NIST "did not investigate the actual collapses." Thus, in actuality, all of the discussion we've had here on DEW and on the flatness of GZ literally is our own work because NIST did not investigate those factors. NIST offers no guidance whatsoever on what is going on in the picture posted above because they did not investigate that destruction. NIST cannot provide any guidance on why GZ was flat and can offer no help to anyone on whether there was any debris underground (there was none) because they did not investigate that either.
That's why they and their contractors are being challenged.
All of the back and forth in these three threads can literally be said to stem from the fact that NIST committed fraud by pretending to investigate the event, but not actually doing so.
Notice, in the DEW and the Debris thread, there's no way to cite NIST as an authority by anyone because NIST offers nothing whatever that would respond to those two threads. Granted, DEW theory is, of course, startling. But, NIST should have been able to determine whether there was debris underground or not, had they but investigated the event, but they didn't.
Only DEW could have turned that steel to dust instantaneously in the manner seen to have occurred. One thing is for absolutely certain: NIST cannot contradict that claim.
Thanks to all for their participation.
I understand posters are not convinced of DEW causal theory and "want more proof" but are reluctant to look for it themselves. Further, no amount of proof presented has been sufficient. There are those who initially said they did not believe DEW existed, but those posts have thinned out.
There are a variety of posts indicating what are claimed to be technical limitations, but those are based on faulty analysis. They treat DEW in a vacuum and do not have, as their reference point, an explanation of what caused this:
The query process isfurther confounded because the event of 9/11 has, for some reason, caused many, many people to relinquish their own thought process, especially as it relates to what they can see. Many people, in looking at the above photo, are unwilling to acknowledge that it depicts steel being turned to dust almost instantaneously. Many others are willing to attribute the conditions seen to the destructive power of gravity, a plane smack and kerosene. When challenged on this they assert there were "other combustibles" available, but the available materials -- carpets and desks -- are less combustible than even lowly kerosene; and, paper didn't even burn.
This leads to inclusion of the outcome of the "Debris" thread which also reached an end point. There, we saw that GZ was flat. Those who initially doubted the claim ended up hanging their hat on the few exceptions to the overall flatness that were always acknowledged to be there because they were plainly visible all along. The point there was whether the overall and general condition applicable to the vast majority of the site would be the determining way to define the site's elevation or whether the occassional exception would be given emphasis.
However, the overall point of the flatness issue is simply that of showing how thorough the annihilation of GZ actually was. Again, the issue here is that the energy available through kerosene, etc. is grossly insufficient to have created that flat landscape.
This leads to the further inclusion of the altered "NIST" thread.
Posters have been shown that NIST "did not investigate the actual collapses." Thus, in actuality, all of the discussion we've had here on DEW and on the flatness of GZ literally is our own work because NIST did not investigate those factors. NIST offers no guidance whatsoever on what is going on in the picture posted above because they did not investigate that destruction. NIST cannot provide any guidance on why GZ was flat and can offer no help to anyone on whether there was any debris underground (there was none) because they did not investigate that either.
That's why they and their contractors are being challenged.
All of the back and forth in these three threads can literally be said to stem from the fact that NIST committed fraud by pretending to investigate the event, but not actually doing so.
Notice, in the DEW and the Debris thread, there's no way to cite NIST as an authority by anyone because NIST offers nothing whatever that would respond to those two threads. Granted, DEW theory is, of course, startling. But, NIST should have been able to determine whether there was debris underground or not, had they but investigated the event, but they didn't.
Only DEW could have turned that steel to dust instantaneously in the manner seen to have occurred. One thing is for absolutely certain: NIST cannot contradict that claim.
Thanks to all for their participation.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
You're welcome. And thanks, in return, for one of the most outstanding excursions from reality ever to be seen on this forum. The style of argument you habitually employ, of making a claim, presenting evidence that unambiguously refutes your claim, repeatedly claiming that the evidence supports your claim, and then claiming that your claim is thus proven, is quite literally unanswerable.
Dave
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Our heartfelt thanks.
You are probably right, except it can't be termed an endpoint, but rather a starting point. It was evident from post one that nothing useful could be gained by debating with you.
Well, people tend to be reluctant to search for too long in obviously empty spaces.
In fact, no amount of proof has been presented.
Yes, since people naturally assumed that by DEW you meant devices capable of destroying large buildings. As it expired that your definition for 'existing DEW' included shouting "BOO!", most had to agree that, yes DEW exist.
No. [TM]
Neither did they have some other, equally relevant picture, say, one of Mickey Mouse, as reference point.
Yes, we have seen that demonstrated repeatedly.
Perhaps because it shows not the slightest sign of steel being turned to dust. Have you ever seen steel being turned to dust? I have, and I can assure you that it is extremely spectacular.
Let's see: Something falls down, and we attribute it to gravity. Yes, I see the grave errors in this. So sorry.
No. [TM]
No. [TM]
In other words, they were hanging their hat on the well established fact that GZ was, in fact, not flat. Yes.
And, let us see, who claimed that the energy should come from kerosene?
Right! Nobody did.
The basic source of the energy creating the relatively flat landscape (flat as compared to a 110 story building) was something entirely different: Meet Mr. Gravity.
Basically correct. And very elementary.
Wrong. Although NIST did not investigate the details of the collapse, they do indeed provide those answers. And the claim that there was no debris underground is, as we all know, a lie.
No. [TM]
No. [TM]
Startling in its absurdity, yes.
Ehr, if there was no debris underground, why did it take them nearly a year to excavate the "bathtub" structure?
No. [TM]
Yes, they can. Dude, my grandmother can contradict that claim, and make sense.
You are welcome. If only you had participated as well.
Hans
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
BenBurch hit the nail on the head, and it is worth repeating:
YOU are the only person here who does not think that this whole line of argument isn't the product of a diseased mind, repeated by a simpleton.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
You didn't support your claim. You didn't even define your claim. But nobody can make you do that.
It's not a theory. You haven't even defined it.
No. We want you to define your claim and provide evidence for it. The closest you came to this was to show some pictures of holes, but your own photographs flatly contradicted your observations.
No. We've looked at in considerable detail, and quantitatively; we've done all the work for you, but you didn't bother to address any of it.
You didn't offer any proof.
A flat lie. I have challenged you previously to identify one poster here who does not believe that directed-energy weapons exist, at least in the developmental stages.
Do you have any specific objections, or merely an endless stream of vague complaints?
Begging the question. This claim is contradicted by the fact that the vast majority of the steel was recovered from Ground Zero.
Not only is this flatly incorrect - paper certainly did burn on the fire floors - but you have managed again to contradict your own claim. One would expect a significant amount of unburned debris in a building collapse triggered by structural failure as seen at WTC. Your magic ray guns which you claim vaporized the steel would necessarily have burned up all the paper!
As a firefighter, I am amused by your ignorant pronouncements on the effects of high-rise structure fires; but that pales in comparison to watching you so neatly debunk your own claim.
Since you're pronouncing victory and leaving, I guess we'll never get an answer to the question as to whether you are simply incapable of staying on topic, or really do get paid by the word.
Large high-technology concerns are routinely accosted by mentally ill persons. What's both sad and funny is that poor Ms. Wood can't even figure out which companies actually make directed-energy weapons. I hope she receives compassionate mental health care.
I think it's really that you are incapable of staying on topic.
Begging the question, and once again flatly contradicted by the recovery of the vast majority of the steel from Ground Zero.
You're welcome. I only wish you had decided to actually participate in a real discussion - specifying your claim and addressing the analyses we provided - and to address the many self-contradictions, misrepresentations, and errors of fact identified in your posts. But I don't think you can bring yourself to address such challenges; I recommend you seek professional help with that.
That system is not operational yet, and can deliver neither the power nor the total energy to do what you claimed - not by many orders of magnitude.
Well, I must admit, this thread turned out exactly as I thought it would.
Jamm'n Judy flees after a Christophera like production.
Brilliant!
Good try sts60.
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
And she slinked off in embarrassing defeat!
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
Thanks, dogtown (and pomeroo and LashL from previous posts). I almost thought for a minute there that jammonius would actually try to challenge something directly - you know, something like saying the value for heat of vaporization was 100x too high, or that "dustification" required 1,000,000X less energy, or whatever - but that was a vain hope.
Quite evident was her inability to face anything that threatened her world-construct - hence the endless bloviating about "exploring the DEW scenario", but running like a scalded cat from actually doing so, under cover of a thick smokescreen about how "exclusionary" was looking at the elementary physics of the premise. And she never even came that close to the posts by R. Mackey, Myriad, and BenBurch.
I may have come across as a bit repetitious and didactic, but despite the false alarm described above, I had little hope of getting an honest discussion from her. I was interested not only in examining the claim itself, but also getting in a workout on dealing with the numerous fallacies and dodges typical of a conspiracist. That's one reason I picked her posts apart so thoroughly and was unwilling to let slide the same bogus statements no matter how many times they were repeated.
And, boy, did jammonius work the CT playbook. Begging the question, diversion after diversion, poisoning the well, non sequitirs, innuendo, appeals to authority, appeals to equal authority, appeals against authority, out-and-out fabrications, "presenting" information already brought up by other posters, ignoring rebuttals, etc., etc. Most pernicious, in my opinion, were the numerous times she misrepresented what I or other posters said. Many were obvious, some not so much, but they were so consistent I am forced to conclude that these were instances of deliberate dishonesty. And then, of course, there were the multiple times she simply contradicted herself. Some were simply opportunistic - saying whatever might work at a given point - but some seemed to simply be the result of her inability to keep a grasp on her own arguments.
Sad to say, though, such is not unique behavior for most conspiracists. jammonius simply "kicked it up a notch" to an unusually disingenuous and delusional level.
But at least, as usual when arguing with CTs, I learned something (from both other posters, not including jammonius, and my own Googling). I learned a bit more about high-power lasers and more about the water-deluge system at LC39 - I've been there a number of times but didn't know a number of the details.
ETA: No, I still take no position on whether jammonius = Judy Wood or equally delusional fan. "Her" can be considered a generic pronoun in this case.
Quite evident was her inability to face anything that threatened her world-construct - hence the endless bloviating about "exploring the DEW scenario", but running like a scalded cat from actually doing so, under cover of a thick smokescreen about how "exclusionary" was looking at the elementary physics of the premise. And she never even came that close to the posts by R. Mackey, Myriad, and BenBurch.
I may have come across as a bit repetitious and didactic, but despite the false alarm described above, I had little hope of getting an honest discussion from her. I was interested not only in examining the claim itself, but also getting in a workout on dealing with the numerous fallacies and dodges typical of a conspiracist. That's one reason I picked her posts apart so thoroughly and was unwilling to let slide the same bogus statements no matter how many times they were repeated.
And, boy, did jammonius work the CT playbook. Begging the question, diversion after diversion, poisoning the well, non sequitirs, innuendo, appeals to authority, appeals to equal authority, appeals against authority, out-and-out fabrications, "presenting" information already brought up by other posters, ignoring rebuttals, etc., etc. Most pernicious, in my opinion, were the numerous times she misrepresented what I or other posters said. Many were obvious, some not so much, but they were so consistent I am forced to conclude that these were instances of deliberate dishonesty. And then, of course, there were the multiple times she simply contradicted herself. Some were simply opportunistic - saying whatever might work at a given point - but some seemed to simply be the result of her inability to keep a grasp on her own arguments.
Sad to say, though, such is not unique behavior for most conspiracists. jammonius simply "kicked it up a notch" to an unusually disingenuous and delusional level.
But at least, as usual when arguing with CTs, I learned something (from both other posters, not including jammonius, and my own Googling). I learned a bit more about high-power lasers and more about the water-deluge system at LC39 - I've been there a number of times but didn't know a number of the details.
ETA: No, I still take no position on whether jammonius = Judy Wood or equally delusional fan. "Her" can be considered a generic pronoun in this case.
Last edited:
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Well of course yours aren't chocolate. That's what you get for dissing the Soul Cake Duck.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
So you blinkered defenders of the powers that be would like to think. She advanced to the rear at doubletime after declaring victory! With one last bit of evidence to challenge your denial of DEWs:
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
I would like to thank sts60 for engaging jammonius, who I plonked on page two of this thread.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
I would also like to thank STS60. I knew J was full of false information, but I haven't the brains or experience to articulate why. With STS's patience, knowledge, experience, and math, he/she was able to expose J for the fraud that J (and by extension, Wood) is.
ETA:
I would also like to add thanks to Ryan, Ben, and everyone else that eviscerated the arguments with math. As is often said, even if the arguments have no effect on those that espouse the "theories," however,I am sure that they have an effect on the lurkers.
ETA:
I would also like to add thanks to Ryan, Ben, and everyone else that eviscerated the arguments with math. As is often said, even if the arguments have no effect on those that espouse the "theories," however,I am sure that they have an effect on the lurkers.
Last edited:
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
Eh? Not sure how to take your post. How did you form your opinion if you don't have the brains or experience and you can't articulate it?
You got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy!