Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[MIKILLINI]

I'm not out to convince you, and I will never take that on as a goal. I'm pointing out that if you want to do some serious debunking, that insults and disrespect destroy your own argument.

I'm pointing out how you're not even close to presenting any kind of compelling evidence to this discussion. If you're trying to make a serious case here, you'll have to present more than speculation and conjecture from unreliable sources.

 

[plague311]

I do. He's rather clever, and he knows the work of Judy Wood better than I do, in some aspects.

Oh, sorry about that, I meant to include you. WTC Dust and Jammie, please don't hurry back. There is no one that gives any weight or value to either of your opinions, theories, or thoughts.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Huttosaurus]

This is just a reason you might use to explain away the fact that an obvious wake isn't visible. I call it a "bandaid", something that fixes up the official hijack conspiracy to make it work.

An obvious wake isn't visible because it didn't interact with anything that would make it visible. There would have been one, but since it didn't pass directly through any smoke or dust it doesn't manifest.

Going back to my original point, it must be a hell of a wake that renders buildings in front of it invisible so photographers with no line-of-sight to either the aircraft or whatever visible wake effects it might have generated can see it.

You call "bandaid", but your answer isn't even an answer, just a prop to help you justify making up your own facts and evidence.

 

[TSR]

The video evidence and the eyewitness evidence is the best evidence we have of planes.

What about the radar tracks?

Hey, you seem to have missed this one, Blevins...

 

[SUSpilot]

Nope. The wake follows the craft for a bit after the craft crashes. Air- or water-craft same deal.

I just re-read this, and it appears that you think that the wake behind an aircraft (or boat) has some sort of momentum from being dragged along. If so, that is not how wake turbulence works. In perfectly calm air, the vortex looks to person on the ground* as if it is being laid out behind the aircraft. It will descend, as the disturbed air is a bit denser than the surrounding air, and "roll away" from the center line of the path of the plane.

Now, if there's a any kind of wind, the surrounding air mass will carry the turbulence with it (the most hazardous situation at a runway is a light, quartering tailwind, as the light wind won't break up the vortices and will push one back onto the runway). But they do not bunch up behind aircraft like the slack running in on a train (another subject about which I know a fair amount), and they are pretty transitory.

================
*And if viewed from another aircraft flying in formation, as was filmed by NASA using a Lear behind a 737 with smoke generators to study the issue, there is no apparent drift, as both planes and the turbulence are all moving in the same air mass.

 

[Oz1976]

The truth is that you couldn't see much of the building above a ten foot fence from street level. Certainly not a tall pile of steel beams, as I expected.

This is just so utterly wrong. And you claim to have seen the devestation, I'm calling you out on it. There's a reason the workers called it "the pile", Ms. Blevins. Stop debasing what happened that day, you are clearly delusional on the facts...

http://www.voanews.com/MediaAssets2/projects/ground_zero_10/03_b.jpg

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/1/132105774_5e9173aec3_o.jpg

Edit: removed image tags to maintain forum formatting.

 

[Oz1976]

True, but even if I'm wrong about the planes, I'm not wrong about the WTC dust. Plane crashes don't produce it.

Building COLLAPSES do!




^^TURNED TO DUST NATURAL COLLAPSE!

You are just plain WRONG Ms. Blevins.

 

[Oz1976]

I'm not out to convince you, and I will never take that on as a goal. I'm pointing out that if you want to do some serious debunking, that insults and disrespect destroy your own argument.

There is no need for serious debunking when the people making the idiotic claims are high on one substance or another or completely off their rocker. Nothing you or Judy Wood have claimed has any real scientific backing. That's why she wrote a book instead of presenting her "study" to an accredited journal. That's why you come here and want a "Serious Discussion of WTC Foam" with zero materials analysis and zero evidence to back up your claim.

Stick to what you know Ms. Blevins...Pot.

 

[Oz1976]

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.

It's real simple Dusty, you do know what fighter jets produce correct? Fighter jets like these patrolling the skies after having been scrambled out of Otis and Langley.



For someone who claims to have researched this event you are devoid of any facts at all.

 

[dropzone]

Any video footage from any angle would be good enough to prove me wrong, as long as it showed clear evidence of a wake.

Need I remind you that the photo you posted showed a couple of opaque buildings that stood between the camera and what was left of the wake so it COULD NOT show clear evidence of a wake? Are you Superman, with x-ray vision? How did you get so firmly married to the totally idiotic belief that there were no planes that you will fabricate insane claims about wakes that a child could figure out could not be seen BECAUSE THERE'S A BLOODY BUILDING IN THE WAY?

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Show us the reports. I checked the weather on 911, there were no thunder storms over JFK that day, there was no thunder reported, no rain.

Judy is making up lies, or she is a bad researcher, or she is incapable of doing reality, or all of the above.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin1.html
The wind did not shift by 180 degrees.

See JFK, no clouds on top of JFK, no rain.
No rain clouds, no thunder. Why is Judy making up the weather? She made up the beam weapon like you made up steel turning to dust. Now she lies about the weather.
Why are you spreading lies for Judy?

 

[A W Smith]

Alright, at last, that's a little bit better. You, at least, are positing an alternative based on something akin to a "rule out" approach. Alright, then, that is fair enough.

What is not fair, however, is for you simply to don the cap of critic, endlessly asking for more proof. If you are not satisfied with Dr. Wood's explanation, quantum of proof then fine. You are not satisfied.

Perhaps there's an explanation you prefer; of course, if there is, you haven't cited it, have you.

I am not here to prove anything to you. I make claims. You and others can dispute them; where "can" means you have the potential to do so. What so many here fail to grasp is that name calling and ridicule is not proof of anything other than the emotional state of the people engaging in that kind of banter.

I do commend you, Macgyver, for rarely engaging in the worst kind of posting.

I'm going to stop for now.

More later on, another time.

here ya go dim bulb, selective "rustification"
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=o...f.,cf.osb&fp=f7acdc60927a537f&biw=939&bih=457

 

[A W Smith]

The truth is that you couldn't see much of the building above a ten foot fence from street level. Certainly not a tall pile of steel beams, as I expected.

couldn't you find a taxi to stand on? or perhaps even taller, a bangbus?

 

[A W Smith]

It's classic dusty, her NPD takes over so she has to have her words first because she sees herself as more important than everyone else. In effect she's putting herself above (literally) the person she is responding to.

Its classic dusty

Please someone pay attention to me! IM a SCIENTIST who was recently fired from wall street! I tried blogs and stripping nude and standing on taxi's, I petitioned for medical pot! LOOK at my PINK HAIR! Wont somebody love me?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Well of course you won't see the wake turbulence... The terrorists didn't know where the hidden switch for the chemtrails were.

(If you're gonna go for the crazy you might as well go all out right?)

 

[aggle-rithm]

The truth is that you couldn't see much of the building above a ten foot fence from street level. Certainly not a tall pile of steel beams, as I expected.

Oh, I know what happened. You were standing about a foot away from the ten-foot fence at the time. What you want to do is back up about twenty feet, then you can see stuff on the other side.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Its classic dusty

I hate to speculate, but...

Oh, who'm I kidding, I LOVE to speculate!

I think Dusty is actually a disgruntled ex of Tracy Blevins, and is trying to ruin her career by making her look like a complete idiot online.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Appeals to authority? I think this has something to do with degree bias, but I'm not sure. Could you explain?

 

[WTC Dust]

It's been proven Ms Blevins. That's more than reliable..get a clue.

The most favored of scientific theories can be overturned by a single piece of evidence. Like some steel foam with WTC 2 victim's DNA in it. That could overturn the entire hijacking theory, GITMO trial and all.

 

[WTC Dust]

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!

If you want to talk about this very difficult subject, I suggest you communicate in a more straightforward way. I can't really understand what you're saying. Too many jokes and reversals.