Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

You could only see a few parts sticking up above the fence. I'm staking a claim in this, because I wanted to see (<72 hours after the attacks), and I couldn't see much above this fence, except lots of fumes and a few pieces of the buildings.

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...

[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/docs/wtc065.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://beyondpoliticsand911.com/photogallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Broken_steel_beams.jpg[/qimg]

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

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

[qimg]http://media.silive.com/latest_news/photo/10452600-large.jpg[/qimg]

Edit: removed image tags to maintain forum formatting.

 

[WTC Dust]

Building COLLAPSES do!




^^TURNED TO DUST NATURAL COLLAPSE!

You are just plain WRONG Ms. Blevins.

It's Dr. Blevins, to you, and tell me again how gravity can cause steel to crumble into dust.

 

[Justin39640]

It's Dr. Blevins, to you, and tell me again how gravity can cause steel to crumble into dust.

It didn't turn to dust.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Why are you talking about sonic booms when I'm mentioning weather reports of thunder at all three NYC airports?

 

[grandmastershek]

It's Dr. Blevins, to you, and tell me again how gravity can cause steel to crumble into dust.

It doesn't and it didn't happen Dustie.

 

[Justin39640]

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.

Um. There was no thunder that morning only fighters going supersonic over LI. It was one of the clearest most beautiful late summer mornings I have ever seen... I was 10 miles form JFK and 20 or so from the towers that morning working outside. Stop making crap up.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Nah. My "career" was supposedly ruined when I began advocating for medical pot a long time ago. It wasn't.

 

[WTC Dust]

It doesn't and it didn't happen Dustie.

Correct on both accounts.

 

[WTC Dust]

Um. There was no thunder that morning only fighters going supersonic over LI. It was one of the clearest most beautiful late summer mornings I have ever seen... I was 10 miles form JFK and 20 or so from the towers that morning working outside. Stop making crap up.

Oh, geez. If I was going to make something up, I certainly wouldn't make up a dang weather report. Those things are archived and easily available to anyone with an internet connection.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

You are confirming what I'm saying. You're saying that the wake doesn't stop at the moment of impact. I am correct.

I'm not teaching anyone about flying. I'm speaking the obvious truth that the wake doesn't stop at the moment of impact, as you agree.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Are you also claiming that air and water aren't dragged in the same direction as the movement of a craft through the fluid? You're saying that when you pull up the boat to the dock, that the water doesn't splash against the dock? You're saying that an airplane doesn't drag any air along with it as it flies? You're saying that there is no horizontal movement of air that is caused by an aircraft?

These are silly claims, and I'm hoping you disavow them.

 

[WTC Dust]

The wake of a boat is a gravity wave in the air/water interface. The wake of a plane is a vortex swirling downwards.

Not just downwards, my companion.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Hey, man. If you would have produced evidence of a wake, I'd have taken back my statements and apologized for being wrong. I didn't ask for a justification as to why there wasn't a wake. I asked for evidence of a wake, and you couldn't provide it. You have failed to provide evidence of a wake at 9:03AM, and I wasn't asking for excuses. Just evidence.

 

[WTC Dust]

Responses in red.

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 didn't show evidence of an airplane crash when I asked for it. You haven't shown evidence of a wake at 9:03AM when I asked for it.


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.

Not at all. The pilot dude is saying just what I'm saying. That the wake would continue forward after the craft stopped.

 

[alienentity]

Does anyone here have a link to a video or still image shot of the Twin Towers at 9:03 AM that clearly depict the wake of an airplane? Thanks ahead of time. I've been searching and can't find any images that show a wake.

Note: WTC Dust is not an engineer, physicist nor any other qualifications to suggest she understands this topic at all.

A comprehensive answer is provided to her question, clarifying that she may be looking for something (because she is relatively uneducated in these areas and may not really understand the situation) which is not going to be found in the exact form she expects.

See below:

Actual answer:
(provides several photographs with a technical explanation of the evidence of wake turbulence and vortices)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8212339#post8212339

After this reply by R. Mackey, WTC Dust appears not to have understood a single word of it.

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.

Notice that WTC Dust isn't even specific enough in her request to ask for evidence of a wingtip vortex, which appears to be what she's erroneously searching for. That is because she didn't have the technical knowledge to do so.

This is a classic demonstration of how a 9/11 Truth denier operates - ask a vague question which belies ignorance on the subject at hand, reject or ignore all competent answers, then continue to pose more or less the same question as if they hadn't been given or did not otherwise exist.

That's how 9/11 Truthers continually fail to learn, to amend their erroneous misconceptions, and to make outlandish claims regarding the events of 9/11.
Classic fail.

Well done, WTC Dust, you fail again! Bravo!

 

[WTC Dust]

Are you saying there is no forward movement of water as a boat moves through the water?

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.

 

[WTC Dust]

I'm actually an engineer, if you count postdoctoral training.

Note: WTC Dust is not an engineer, physicist nor any other qualifications to suggest she understands this topic at all.

A comprehensive answer is provided to her question, clarifying that she may be looking for something (because she is relatively uneducated in these areas and may not really understand the situation) which is not going to be found in the exact form she expects.

See below:




After this reply by R. Mackey, WTC Dust appears not to have understood a single word of it.




Notice that WTC Dust isn't even specific enough in her request to ask for evidence of a wingtip vortex, which appears to be what she's erroneously searching for. That is because she didn't have the technical knowledge to do so.

This is a classic demonstration of how a 9/11 Truth denier operates - ask a vague question which belies ignorance on the subject at hand, reject or ignore all competent answers, then continue to pose more or less the same question as if they hadn't been given or did not otherwise exist.

That's how 9/11 Truthers continually fail to learn, to amend their erroneous misconceptions, and to make outlandish claims regarding the events of 9/11.
Classic fail.

Well done, WTC Dust, you fail again! Bravo!

 

[phunk]

Are you also claiming that air and water aren't dragged in the same direction as the movement of a craft through the fluid?

Not in any significant amount.

You're saying that when you pull up the boat to the dock, that the water doesn't splash against the dock?

No, I'm saying the boat doesn't drag a column of water along with it. Waves on the surface of the water are not piles of water moving horizontally. They are water moving up and down. The wave travels, the medium it's in does not.

You're saying that an airplane doesn't drag any air along with it as it flies?

Not anywhere near as much as you seem to think. There's this little thing called aerodynamics that they spend lots of time and money studying so that planes can be built to avoid exactly what you are claiming.

You're saying that there is no horizontal movement of air that is caused by an aircraft?

Not the kind you seem to expect.

These are silly claims, and I'm hoping you disavow them.

Nope.

 

[phunk]

I'm actually an engineer, if you count postdoctoral training.

Unless you have an engineering degree, please don't insult people who do by calling yourself one.

 

[WTC Dust]

Notice that WTC Dust isn't even specific enough in her request to ask for evidence of a wingtip vortex, which appears to be what she's erroneously searching for.

I'm not asking for evidence of a wingtip vortex, because I'm not looking specifically for a wingtip vortex. I'd accept any clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM.