• 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

WTC Dust said:
Yo, yo, yo! You added "significant" to the question. Water does follow a boat as the boat moves through the water. You are admitting it.

Responses in red.
Click to expand...

Stop puting your responses inside someone else's quote. It makes them not show up when people reply to you.

Yes, I added "significant", because tiny insignificant amounts do cling to the skin of the plane or boat. But it doesn't "follow" the boat. Behind a boat is turbulent water, not a current.

Aha! So you're admitting that, to a certain degree, I'm right.
Click to expand...

No. What I'm talking about is not a wake, it's parasitic drag.
 
Last edited:
Wrong answer.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8212339#post8212339


WTC Dust said:
Contrails, maybe, but I'm talking about the air that gets moved around when a plane is flying. Some of it is swirled around. Some of it moves forward along with the plane.

This air, the forward moving air, would have slammed up against the explosion coming from WTC 2 at 9:03AM. Videos don't show clear evidence of a wake disturbing this explosion, or the dust cloud being emitted from WTC 1 at 9:03AM.
Click to expand...
 
Read the link. It is empirical evidence and accepted technical information on wake turbulence.

You still don't understand the subject, that's painfully obvious. Try reading before making these wild and obnoxious claims.




WTC Dust said:
Wake turbulence? I'm not mentioning this specifically.

Are you saying that air isn't dragged horizontally by an aircraft moving through it? This is a silly claim.
Click to expand...
 
alienentity said:
WTC Dust,
Your eyes are closed, I'm amazed you can still read through your eyelids. The evidence has been given.
It's over. Your game has been exposed again and you've failed to trick anybody here with your tactics.
Click to expand...

You didn't provide it when I asked for it, so the failure you speak of isn't mine.
 
phunk said:
Stop puting your responses inside someone else's quote. It makes them not show up when people reply to you.

Yes, I added "significant", because tiny insignificant amounts do cling to the skin of the plane or boat. But it doesn't "follow" the boat. Behind a boat is turbulent water, not a current.



No. What I'm talking about is not a wake, it's parasitic drag.
Click to expand...


I didn't say a current, either, and once again, you are agreeing with me that there is some horizontal movement of water.
 
Dusty, as an exercise, please go and hit the quote button on the post where you did "answers in red" and try to reply to one of the red parts, so you can see why putting your answers inside someone else's quote is annoying.
 
WTC Dust said:
Nah. My "career" was supposedly ruined when I began advocating for medical pot a long time ago. It wasn't.
Click to expand...



? Yet you resorted to this......

344914fa40c809f89a.jpg


Compus
 
WTC Dust said:
I didn't say a current, either, and once again, you are agreeing with me that there is some horizontal movement of water.
Click to expand...

Well, the "some horizontal movement" that I'm talking about is several orders of magnitude smaller than what you're talking about, so I wouldn't call it agreeing. I'm talking about a layer on the skin of the boat/plane that is measured in mm.
 
WTC Dust said:
Why are you talking about sonic booms when I'm mentioning weather reports of thunder at all three NYC airports?
Click to expand...

How do you think thunder gets reported? Do you think there is someone at each airport pressing a button whenever there is thunder?

It's done automatically by weather sensors, which would not know the difference between a sonic boom and a thunderclap. And we already know there was no thunder.
 
WTC Dust said:
Contrails, maybe, but I'm talking about the air that gets moved around when a plane is flying. Some of it is swirled around. Some of it moves forward along with the plane.

This air, the forward moving air, would have slammed up against the explosion coming from WTC 2 at 9:03AM. Videos don't show clear evidence of a wake disturbing this explosion, or the dust cloud being emitted from WTC 1 at 9:03AM.
Click to expand...

I have observed wake turbulence on many occasions over decades of working as an aircraft mechanic. They do not appear to behave as you seem to think they do. I could get a video within a couple of weeks for your observation. They are only clearly visible in very humid conditions or during precipitation. The do not appear to move forward with the aircraft, and if they do in fact move forward at all it is at a speed a small fraction of the aircraft's speed. I would liken it to expecting a butterfly to slam into an explosive wave and be observable and continuing forward against the explosive force.

Maybe in a very controlled experiment with very sensitive measuring instruments these two could be summed or measured. With what we have available I would expect the wake turbulence to be rendered completely unobservable by the explosive blast orders of magnitude more powerful than the wake turbulence.
 
WTC Dust said:
Who said anything about cloudy skies? I said "reports of thunder at all 3 NYC airports". You guys aren't even trying.
Click to expand...

Yeah, about that - yesterday you said:
Thunder at each of the NYC airports indicates that the field extended at least that far from the eye of Hurricane Erin.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you can explain what you mean by that. I mean, I'm under the impression that thunder is caused by lightning, and that lightning is the discharge of static electrical charge typically in storm clouds.

Are you suggesting that the sound of lighting strikes occurring hundreds of miles away were heard at New York airports? If so, were there similar reports from other equally distant airports all the way up and down the coast?

Or are you suggesting that some nebulous "field" reached out from the eye of a storm several hundreds of miles away across the ocean and caused a thunderbolt to strike out of a clear sky somewhere local to New York?
 
phunk said:
How do you think thunder gets reported? Do you think there is someone at each airport pressing a button whenever there is thunder?

It's done automatically by weather sensors, which would not know the difference between a sonic boom and a thunderclap. And we already know there was no thunder.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how you came to this conclusion? Seems like you're making stuff up to me, but maybe not.
 
No, actually, this is well covered and cited in Dr. Wood's book. I'm talking about Judy Wood in this thread.

Jack by the hedge said:
Yeah, about that - yesterday you said:


I wonder if you can explain what you mean by that. I mean, I'm under the impression that thunder is caused by lightning, and that lightning is the discharge of static electrical charge typically in storm clouds.

Are you suggesting that the sound of lighting strikes occurring hundreds of miles away were heard at New York airports? If so, were there similar reports from other equally distant airports all the way up and down the coast?

Or are you suggesting that some nebulous "field" reached out from the eye of a storm several hundreds of miles away across the ocean and caused a thunderbolt to strike out of a clear sky somewhere local to New York?
Click to expand...
 
phunk said:
Well, the "some horizontal movement" that I'm talking about is several orders of magnitude smaller than what you're talking about, so I wouldn't call it agreeing. I'm talking about a layer on the skin of the boat/plane that is measured in mm.
Click to expand...

Not true. I'm not speaking of orders of magnitude. I'm saying that this horizontal movement exists, and so are you. Yet again, you are agreeing with me. Water moves along with the boat in the direction of the boat. Air moves in the direction of the airplane's movement. I didn't say 100% of the air, and I didn't say 1% of the air. I said that some air does move in the direction of the airplane flight. And you agreed with me. Again.
 
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