• 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

Some air does move forward, and this forward-moving air doesn't stop if the plane comes to a sudden halt. You're also agreeing with me, by the way.

ratcat said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, if you say so, I guess we agree: only a tiny bit of air clinging to the plane moves foward with it, and it's no where near massive enough and doesn't move far enough to be seen in the smoke cloud rising from WTC1. Glad you agree, I guess we can close this thread.
 
WTC Dust said:
No, actually, this is well covered and cited in Dr. Wood's book.
Click to expand...

Is your "No" a response to my "I wonder if you can explain"?

Hmm. There are lots of things "well covered and cited" in books. Libraries are full of books which explain stuff. However it's rather disappointing to pose a question here and be told the answer lies in an obscure book. Ususally people try to explain the point they were making.
 
phunk said:
Oh ok, if you say so, I guess we agree: only a tiny bit of air clinging to the plane moves foward with it, and it's no where near massive enough and doesn't move far enough to be seen in the smoke cloud rising from WTC1. Glad you agree, I guess we can close this thread.
Click to expand...

Yay! I love beginning from places of agreement. If half a dozen regular posters admit explicitly that they cannot provide evidence of a wake near the Twin Towers at 9:03AM, then I am also willing to close this thread.

I actually opened it to see if I was wrong. If I was wrong, and there was clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM, then I didn't want to go around like a dummy saying there wasn't.

OK. Let the admissions begin. I'm counting now. Sorry, it doesn't count if you are on my ignore list, because I won't see the post. Go go six people. Admit!
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Is your "No" a response to my "I wonder if you can explain"?

Hmm. There are lots of things "well covered and cited" in books. Libraries are full of books which explain stuff. However it's rather disappointing to pose a question here and be told the answer lies in an obscure book. Ususally people try to explain the point they were making.
Click to expand...

How much better can I explain the following statement: "There were reports of thunder on 9/11/2001 at all three major airports in NYC."

It seems simple to me, and more importantly, it's a verifiable statement. I can't boil it down much more than that, but I'm willing to listen to your suggestions as to how I might.
 
WTC Dust said:
Some air does move forward, and this forward-moving air doesn't stop if the plane comes to a sudden halt. You're also agreeing with me, by the way.
Click to expand...

OK. I agree a flying aircraft moves air. I do not however expect that to be visible at all in any pictures or videos where the effect is completely overwhelmed by an explosion, as I clearly stated. And even if I did that anomaly would not at all be cause to suspect the overwhelming evidence of aircraft impacting the WTC.
 
WTC Dust said:
Yay! I love beginning from places of agreement. If half a dozen regular posters admit explicitly that they cannot provide evidence of a wake near the Twin Towers at 9:03AM, then I am also willing to close this thread.

I actually opened it to see if I was wrong. If I was wrong, and there was clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM, then I didn't want to go around like a dummy saying there wasn't.

OK. Let the admissions begin. I'm counting now. Sorry, it doesn't count if you are on my ignore list, because I won't see the post. Go go six people. Admit!
Click to expand...

If you agree that the wake shouldn't have been visible, then why continue looking for it?
 
ratcat said:
OK. I agree a flying aircraft moves air. I do not however expect that to be visible at all in any pictures or videos where the effect is completely overwhelmed by an explosion, as I clearly stated. And even if I did that anomaly would not at all be cause to suspect the overwhelming evidence of aircraft impacting the WTC.
Click to expand...

Do you count yourself as one of the "six regular posters who aren't on my ignore list" who admits that they cannot provide clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM at Ground Zero on 9/11? Just say, "Yes, I admit that I cannot provide clear evidence of a wake." and I will count you in towards the goal of closing this thread.
 
WTC Dust said:
Do you count yourself as one of the "six regular posters who aren't on my ignore list" who admits that they cannot provide clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM at Ground Zero on 9/11? Just say, "Yes, I admit that I cannot provide clear evidence of a wake." and I will count you in towards the goal of closing this thread.
Click to expand...

Wow.
 
phunk said:
If you agree that the wake shouldn't have been visible, then why continue looking for it?
Click to expand...

I'm not agreeing to that.

Are you one of the six who will admit that you can't provide evidence of a wake at 9:03AM? I'd like to close this thread satisfactorily.
 
WTC Dust said:
How much better can I explain the following statement: "There were reports of thunder on 9/11/2001 at all three major airports in NYC."

It seems simple to me, and more importantly, it's a verifiable statement. I can't boil it down much more than that, but I'm willing to listen to your suggestions as to how I might.
Click to expand...

So please explain what this has to do with the price of tea in China?
 
Macgyver1968 said:
So please explain what this has to do with the price of tea in China?
Click to expand...

Judy Wood says in her book that the earth's magnetic field was affected in particular ways during the attacks of 9/11. Hurricane Erin is part of that discussion. Thunder at the NYC airports is another part. Magnetometer data from Alaska hasn't even been mentioned, yet, but that's another part.

You do know what Judy says about the magnetic field measurements, don't you?
 
WTC Dust said:
Judy Wood says in her book that the earth's magnetic field was affected in particular ways during the attacks of 9/11.
Click to expand...

But as per-usual she can not explain what the "ways" are and how they actually relate to her "theory".

Dr Judy does this alot.

:rolleyes:
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the dust cloud was there BEFORE the impact and the plane flew through it?

How could the plane have flown through the dust cloud when the dust cloud was created after the plane impacted the tower?

:confused:
 
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