Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[sheeplesnshills]

Her criticism comes primarily from non-scientists who cannot
effectively pick apart her claims.

Until she can effectively substantiate her claims there is no obligation on anyone to disprove them.
She has singularly failed to do so.

 

[tsig]

Why don't you rephrase her claims of the seismic effects
right here, and then we can pick them apart?

What is it that you think she is saying?

A a JW advocate you should rephrase her claims here. Are you sure that you understand them?

The last time I looked she had pictures of burned out cars with captions saying that ordinary fire couldn't burn them that way.

 

[Quad4_72]

Am I taking crazy pills? Does WTC Dusts lack of forum etiquette bother anyone else? She writes in some sort of poem paragraph form and puts the quoted message after her thoughts.

 

[carlitos]

Am I taking crazy pills? Does WTC Dusts lack of forum etiquette bother anyone else? She writes in some sort of poem paragraph form and puts the quoted message after her thoughts.

Yeah, it's brutal on tapatalk, because you can't see what she's replying to, and the lines are all wrapped so it's alternating full lines with half lines on my phone. I suppose it could be reported for rule 6, but that's pushing it.

Then again:

Woo proponents eschew traditional formatting the way cool artists eschew traditional dress. Point of difference from the "herd."

And on the subject of text wrap, I'm not sure I want to make
my posts particularly easy to read. Rude people might get tired
of following along.

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution"
-Jay Windley

As to Dr. Wood, she certainly merits no respect. Beam weapons powered by a hurricane?

 

[X]

What I'm saying, Dear X, is that the location of the weapon isn't what Dr. Wood discusses very much or at all.

Has there been extended debate on the addition of Mackay, the positioning requirement? I haven't seen it. Have people thoroughly reviewed his decision to add the positioning requirement to Dr. Wood's concepts? If so, I want to read their criticism of Mackey. (Oops been mispelling.)

Just so you know, forcing extra stuff onto a theory and then trashing the theory because of the extra stuff isn't actually debunking the original theory.

And on the subject of text wrap, I'm not sure I want to make my posts particularly easy to read. Rude people might get tired of following along.

If you were ever wondering why people don't take you (or Ms. Wood) seriously, the answer is in the quoted post.

A directed energy weapon, with no explanations of how it works, and no statement on where it was (why not Australia? or the moon? or Pluto? or the Andromeda galaxy?) does not deserve respectful consideration.

All Mr. Mackey was doing was showing that, for any reasonable location of the DEW (unless you want to assume the ridiculous, like the bottom of the sea or halfway around the world or on a distant planet, requiring the directed energy to be unaffected by matter between it and its target, and not affect the interstitial matter at all), the weapon would be either absurdly impractical or outright impossible.

The fact that you reject it for taking a real-world approach says everything about you (and Ms. Wood) that needs be said.

 

[WTC Dust]

I don't read that and think she's implying a forced position
directly overhead. I read it as it could be in the sea or
on top of a mountain, as in, "the location hasn't been
determined".

She's not implying it, she said it.

I like the 'in the deep sea' part.

On a mountaintop, in the deep blue sea

Sits a weapon that none can see

It wreaks fear in you and thee

From it's mountaintop, deep in the sea.

 

[WTC Dust]

Unless you are a medical doctor who has examined Dr. Wood,
you have no position to claim that she is insane. If you were
a medical doctor who had examined Dr. Wood, and you repeated
that she was insane, she'd have a legal case against you.

Describing an insane person as insane is not name calling and past achievements are no measure of current sanity or future ability.

 

[WTC Dust]

The reason I haven't offered to summarize them is because I want
to start the debate from a point of agreement. Anything I say seems
disagreeable to the majority of JREFers, and most of you haven't
spent the time that is required to understand Dr. Wood.

If you don't understand what she is saying, it's pointless to debate it
until you do. The way I know you understand what she is saying
is if you can put it into your own words and still get it right.

A a JW advocate you should rephrase her claims here. Are you sure that you understand them?

The last time I looked she had pictures of burned out cars with captions saying that ordinary fire couldn't burn them that way.

 

[WTC Dust]

Perfect example. Dr. Wood doesn't insist that a hurricane
powered the beam weapon. You got it wrong. Why debate
from a point of disagreement?

As to Dr. Wood, she certainly merits no respect. Beam weapons powered by a hurricane?

 

[WTC Dust]

So was there extended debate on Mackey's addition, or not?

If you were ever wondering why people don't take you (or Ms. Wood) seriously, the answer is in the quoted post.

A directed energy weapon, with no explanations of how it works, and no statement on where it was (why not Australia? or the moon? or Pluto? or the Andromeda galaxy?) does not deserve respectful consideration.

All Mr. Mackey was doing was showing that, for any reasonable location of the DEW (unless you want to assume the ridiculous, like the bottom of the sea or halfway around the world or on a distant planet, requiring the directed energy to be unaffected by matter between it and its target, and not affect the interstitial matter at all), the weapon would be either absurdly impractical or outright impossible.

The fact that you reject it for taking a real-world approach says everything about you (and Ms. Wood) that needs be said.

 

[Quad4_72]

Yeah, it's brutal on tapatalk, because you can't see what she's replying to, and the lines are all wrapped so it's alternating full lines with half lines on my phone. I suppose it could be reported for rule 6, but that's pushing it.

Then again:





"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution"
-Jay Windley

As to Dr. Wood, she certainly merits no respect. Beam weapons powered by a hurricane?

Ah that's the answer. Trying to separate herself from the "herd".

 

[Quad4_72]

But back to the topic of disrespecting Woods, she belongs in a mental institution and only has the respect of a handful of people who live in a fantasy world.

 

[X]

So was there extended debate on Mackey's addition, or not?

Irrelevant to the matter being discussed.

 

[dafydd]

Am I taking crazy pills? Does WTC Dusts lack of forum etiquette bother anyone else? She writes in some sort of poem paragraph form and puts the quoted message after her thoughts.

Medical marijuana.

 

[dafydd]

Perfect example. Dr. Wood doesn't insist that a hurricane
powered the beam weapon. You got it wrong. Why debate
from a point of disagreement?

The power source is of no importance. The mere fact that Woods believes in an energy beam weapon shows that she is as nutty as a fruitcake.

 

[TJM]

Unless you are a medical doctor who has examined Dr. Wood,
you have no position to claim that she is insane. If you were
a medical doctor who had examined Dr. Wood, and you repeated
that she was insane, she'd have a legal case against you.

She's a loon. Out of her tree, not playing with a full deck, howling mad and has truly gone fishing.

 

[dafydd]

Why should I respect a woman who disrespects science every time that she opens her silly mouth?

 

[Quad4_72]

She's a loon. Out of her tree, not playing with a full deck, howling mad and has truly gone fishing.

In the middle of the skating rink, out in left field, mowing the lawn with a vacuum, riding a bicycle to work without the wheels, etc.

 

[Gamolon]

Her criticism comes primarily from non-scientists who cannot
effectively pick apart her claims. If they had scientific reason
to counter Wood, they'd do that.

Like her scientific claim that cars on FDR drive were toasted in place? She tries to discredit the fact that they were towed to FDR from the WTC area. Here's proof. This is car 2723.

Here is a car BEFORE being towed to FDR. Notice the circle around the tree branch and the arrow pointing to the name of the hotel, The Millennium Hilton.

Here is that same area showing the location of the car. It's a more clear photo showing the same tree branch and hotel name circled in red, but at a later date.

Here is that same car later on FDR drive after being moved from it's location after the attacks.

Yeah, nobody can pick apart her claims.

 

[Quad4_72]

Medical marijuana.

That might actually be a good prescription for Woods.