• 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

beachnut said:
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?
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the forward movement of the craft. The craft literally drags the fluid behind it. The fluid flows in the direction of the craft movement. Not just vertically.
 
WTC Dust said:
Nope. The wake follows the craft for a bit after the craft crashes. Air- or water-craft same deal.
Click to expand...

Right. Hence the three minute delay for the previously generated turbulence too dissipate. But it doesn't keep generating and it does go away fairly quickly.

Now, I'm going to suggest a deal, since we're both subject matter experts in our respective fields: I won't teach anyone about plant biology if you don't presume to teach people about flying.
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who said "wakes happened on 9/11" besides you and your ilk?

JREF rules prevent me from adequately commenting on the bolded part. I can only hope that some day someone makes light of the death of someone YOU love. Then and only then can you hope to see what it is you're doing.
 
WTC Dust said:
Nope. The wake follows the craft for a bit after the craft crashes. Air- or water-craft same deal.
Click to expand...
The generation of the wake turbulence I am talking about stops at impact, it does not go on. The wake left behind, wake turbulence drops, sinks, and will not be seen in the smoke above the flight path. You will see no wake turbulence unless there is smoke below the flight path.

WTC Dust said:
You are forgetting the forward movement of the craft. The craft literally drags the fluid behind it. The fluid flows in the direction of the craft movement. Not just vertically.
Click to expand...

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/handschuh.jpg

And here is proof of aircraft impact when coupled with RADAR

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf

What is your point? You don't have one.

A photo, and RADAR prove 175 did the damage, and 11. You live in a fantasy world where you debunk yourself with steel turning to dust.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
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.
Click to expand...

Liar it is.
 
WTC Dust said:
Are you talking about making the weapon itself invisible, or that the energy beam might be invisible?
Click to expand...

I never thought that I would actually commend a twoofer, but I am going to commend you for posting the correct way after being told that it was poor etiquette.
 
WTC Dust said:
You are forgetting the forward movement of the craft. The craft literally drags the fluid behind it. The fluid flows in the direction of the craft movement. Not just vertically.
Click to expand...

Look for "wake turbulence" on google image search. See if you can find one where the wake follows the plane rather than spinning in a plain perpendicular to the plane's travel.
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

It has been proved to the satisfaction of most rational people, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding. And with all due respect, you have some nerve lecturing us about saying things happened that haven't been proved.

You also have some nerve lecturing us about doubting your expertise when you are basically telling some people who know a LOT more about planes and flight than you do that they don't know what they are talking about.
 
Last edited:
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...

I was just going to say, "watch a truther ponder this question".

Then, true to form.........

WTC Dust said:
Are you talking about making the weapon itself invisible, or that the energy beam might be invisible?
Click to expand...





:D
 
Last edited:
I think it's very likely, based on their hypotheses, that Space Aliens used some kind of advanced technology to make this all happen, as a False Flag operation against the US government and Mossad.

Why didn't we all see this before? It was probably a giant, cloaked spaceship hovering right over NYC - that explains why Hurricane Erin veered away as well: the aliens either forced it to move, or it was repelled by the negative field effects of the alien flux capacitor.

This is waaaaay bigger than we thought! OMG!!:eek:
 
WTC Dust said:
My degree in biomedical science allows me the expertise to comment on the health effects of the rescue workers. They are suffering from the inhalation of excessive amounts of IRON, not asbestos.
Click to expand...

And this opinion is based on what medical tests? Who performed them, who published them?

Citations are needed, otherwise it's a bare assertion.

Are you a recognized expert in the area of inhaled pathogens or environmental toxins? What is your career experience with health effects of environmental cleanups?

All these things require proper qualification or are meaningless appeals to authority.
 
WTC Dust said:
Are you talking about making the weapon itself invisible, or that the energy beam might be invisible?
Click to expand...

Actually, I was joking. I don't believe a spaced-based DEW exists, for the simple reason I've never been given the slightest reason to believe it does. And if I did, I certainly wouldn't believe that said weapon could be built in such a way that it could be made invisible!
 
alienentity said:
Why didn't we all see this before? It was probably a giant, cloaked spaceship hovering right over NYC - that explains why Hurricane Erin veered away as well: the aliens either forced it to move, or it was repelled by the negative field effects of the alien flux capacitor.

This is waaaaay bigger than we thought! OMG!!:eek:
Click to expand...


Why didn't you consider the hurricane was just afraid of the "giant, cloaked spaceship hovering right over NYC" and turned away in fear? Open your mind man!


:rolleyes:
 
As for the laughable assertion of thunder on 9/11, I wonder if there's some sort of archive that details weather for past days?

I can't seem to find it anywhere on the internet.

This is the closest I've found. I've been trying to find it for seconds! Like a dozen seconds!

:rolleyes:
 
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