• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

DGM said:
How do you know it would be "observable"? Have you ever seen a "super secret dustification/rustification" weapon in space before?
Click to expand...

Hmm, good point. If someone could actually build such a thing, I suppose it wouldn't be that much more of a technological stretch to make it invisible!
 
Originally Posted by WTC Dust
Are you talking about the thunder they heard at all 3 NYC airports on 9/11? Are you trying to deny the weather reports? I really don't get it.
Click to expand...

Suppport that with facts or retract it. We'd hate to view you as a garden variety liar.
 
WTC Dust said:
He is apparently away, so I'll answer: any time an airplane vortex passes through air that contains enough particles to be visible. Water condensation is normally what you see a plane flying throughm (ie clouds), but in this case, the dust cloud coming from WTC 1 serves the purpose.

You can see that the dust cloud wasn't disturbed. You have to make the claim that it wouldn't have been disturbed had an airplane flown within a couple hundred feet of it, and I find that to be unsupportable.

The wake of an airplane doesn't stop instantly if the plane crashes.
Click to expand...


The generation of the wake turbulence due to lift stops when the plane crashes, you are not trying.

The wake turbulence due to lift would not be seen on 911 since the smoke was higher than the impact point. The wake goes down from the wake turbulence created by lift.

Wait, you are a no plane person, the insane claim of no plane, which is a lie. If you say no plane was there, then you ignore reality and spread lies. RADAR proves there were planes, and they impacted the WTC, no need to see, we have RADAR which sees. Sad, you don't do real science, and RADAR is real science. Darn.
 
beachnut said:
The generation of the wake turbulence due to lift stops when the plane crashes, you are not trying.

The wake turbulence due to lift would not be seen on 911 since the smoke was higher than the impact point. The wake goes down from the wake turbulence created by lift.

Wait, you are a no plane person, the insane claim of no plane, which is a lie. If you say no plane was there, then you ignore reality and spread lies. RADAR proves there were planes, and they impacted the WTC, no need to see, we have RADAR which sees. Sad, you don't do real science, and RADAR is real science. Darn.
Click to expand...

The wake generation might stop, but the wake already formed before an impact doesn't stop at the moment of impact.
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm going to rearrange your statement.

The plane never flew through that cloud. into ---->
A plane never flew through that cloud.

Just one word changed. "The plane" presumes the existence of said plane. "A plane" doesn't.
Click to expand...

You can say whatever nonsense you want, but don't change my words. I'm talking about a specific plane and used the correct definite article.

I also don't "presume", that implies lack of evidence of the existance of the plane.
 
WTC Dust said:
He is apparently away, so I'll answer: any time an airplane vortex passes through air that contains enough particles to be visible. Water condensation is normally what you see a plane flying throughm (ie clouds), but in this case, the dust cloud coming from WTC 1 serves the purpose.

You can see that the dust cloud wasn't disturbed. You have to make the claim that it wouldn't have been disturbed had an airplane flown within a couple hundred feet of it, and I find that to be unsupportable.

The wake of an airplane doesn't stop instantly if the plane crashes.
Click to expand...

Um... Yes it does. As Beachnut pointed out, the instant the wings stop producing lift, the vortices cease to be generated. Also, the vortices descend behind and below an aircraft.

It wasn't nearly humid enough to see a wake behind the aircraft. Any residual turbulence would have dissipated by the time the towers collapsed (only a 3 minute takeoff delay is required at towered airports when a light aircraft is departing behind a heavy). And the thermal effects and displacement of air would have overwhelmed the wake turbulence anyway.
 
beachnut said:
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111Noweatheron911.jpg[/qimg]

No clouds on 911. Oops, your dust and foam fantasy now spawns weather fantasy.



Silly theory? Steel turning to dust is not only silly, it is insane. Then steel turns to foam, not only silly but delusional, super insane.
Sonic booms can sound like thunder, and I have heard sonic boom trails that sound like thunder.

Post the reports of thunder, times and observation please. Source your junk. I know there were sonic booms on 911, why are you in the dark? Lack of knowledge? Poor research?
Click to expand...

I saw this dust cloud for the first time from the state of Delaware, on Thursday, September 13, 2001. After I crossed the George Washington Bridge, made it downtown to my apartment, parked my car and got out...I could smell it. A strange smell that I continued to smell for a very, very long time. I'd smell it on a daily and nightly basis for months, and occasionally for years.

Judy Wood's book at least has a possible explanation for these phenomena, unlike anything else that's been written on the subject.
 
Stellafane said:
Hmm, good point. If someone could actually build such a thing, I suppose it wouldn't be that much more of a technological stretch to make it invisible!
Click to expand...

Are you talking about making the weapon itself invisible, or that the energy beam might be invisible?
 
WTC Dust said:
Really? How is the wake of an airplane fundamentally different from the wake of a boat?
Click to expand...

The wake of a boat is a gravity wave in the air/water interface. The wake of a plane is a vortex swirling downwards.
 
I'm shocked. This is the first time I've seen a truther ask for evidence for something that isn't expected to have occured, and then declare victory when it isn't found.
 
WTC Dust said:
I shouldn't have to restate this. The answer is no.
Click to expand...

If the wake doesn't extend hundreds of feet above the plane, and the smoke is hundreds of feet above the plane, I'm curious why you expect them to interact.
 
SUSpilot said:
Um... Yes it does. As Beachnut pointed out, the instant the wings stop producing lift, the vortices cease to be generated. Also, the vortices descend behind and below an aircraft.

It wasn't nearly humid enough to see a wake behind the aircraft. Any residual turbulence would have dissipated by the time the towers collapsed (only a 3 minute takeoff delay is required at towered airports when a light aircraft is departing behind a heavy). And the thermal effects and displacement of air would have overwhelmed the wake turbulence anyway.
Click to expand...

Nope. The wake follows the craft for a bit after the craft crashes. Air- or water-craft same deal.
 
phunk said:
The wake of a boat is a gravity wave in the air/water interface. The wake of a plane is a vortex swirling downwards.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting about the horizontal drag of a moving craft. The wake itself moves in the direction of the craft, not just up or down.
 
WTC Dust said:
Really? How is the wake of an airplane fundamentally different from the wake of a boat?
Click to expand...
Because wake turbulence of the plane is due to lift in air. Air, that is the fundamental difference. Called air, not water. If you can't name more difference, it is because you might be anti-science, with your stand on steel turning to dust, how can anything you say be taken seriously?


Are you claim there were no aircraft impact at the WTC towers on 911?
 
twinstead said:
I'm shocked. This is the first time I've seen a truther ask for evidence for something that isn't expected to have occured, and then declare victory when it isn't found.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't been paying attention. Lots of things were said to have happened on 9/11 that haven't been proved. Wakes is just one of them. An impact between an airplane and the south face of WTC 2 is another one.
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm not making that specific claim, no. What I am claiming is that there is no clear video or photographic evidence of a wake at 9:03AM. Unless you can provide some, in which case, I will take back my claim and apologize to the JREF community for wasting their time.
Click to expand...

Stop being fascinated with the shiny new lie. Settle down and look at the big picture.

A plane crashed into the building. Period. That's what caused the massive damage that eventually destroyed the building. Period.
 
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