Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Oz1976]

Yes...the fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field is directly proportional to the amount solar wind expelled from the sun. The amount of energy from these solar wind bursts compared to a DEW Weapon is like comparing a trickle of water to the entire tidal forces of the earth. Several orders of magnitude difference.

Oh man...now we're going to have them claiming "THEY" have harnessed the sun's solar winds and flares to power this super duper death ray!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But leaving that aside at the moment, I'm afraid a DEW capable of bringing down the WTC would be even more detectable if it were located anywhere other than space.

And anywhere else would make it impossible to toast cars at ground level without taking out other downtown buildings in between.

 

[Stellafane]

And anywhere else would make it impossible to toast cars at ground level without taking out other downtown buildings in between.

I guess there's no way around it: the DEW exists in hyperspace. (You heard it here first!)

ETA: The above is a joke, intended to elicit a humorous response. It is not intended to represent the actual views or opinions of Stellafane and/or the JREF forum, and should not be construed as such by anyone.

 

[WTC Dust]

The simple fact, some JREF'ers want to hear that Dusty was fired from her job with the "Wall Street" company due to her "Controversial Views" It's all Schadenfreude...you can't blame them.

Not on topic.

 

[WTC Dust]

What's your point?

She made it the topic, the very first time she told someone to shut up because she was a scientist and thereby worth of respect. If she hadn't started insisting that she be called "Dr." for a degree in a field completely unrelated to the topic at hand, you might have a point.

And should she now stop, then continuing to note that she has never been able to keep a paying gig for even so much as a school term since that degree was awarded still speaks entirely to the credibility she leans on so heavily to give her daft ideas the weight they cannot muster on their own.

The reason she is currently running from my question about the elapsed decade between her foam being deposited and her having found it is because the answer also destroys that credibility. The reason she finally came up with the "UV method" of determining the presence of DNA (something she has never claimed before) is because she is hoping beyond hope that no one else knows that that technique involves access to a moderately expensive piece of equipment she has no access to.

As so many of her failed ideas, it is only worth to her the attention she can garner from it, apparently and IMO -- and it's just to bad that that attention is not all in the form of adulation.

 

[WTC Dust]

Hey, man. At least I'm clever enough to get a job when I want one.

While I would normally agree, I have to point out that she performed a very public job search for it, she publicly advertised her status as a PhD to obtain it, she sat for media interviews and photographs regarding her success in obtaining a job as the result of it and she mentioned it right here in this thread.

She intentionally became a public figure regarding her inability to obtain employment despite having a PhD, yet has relied on her alleged credentials in order to bolster her credibility.

Seems like fair game to me. Perhaps next time she will decline the media attention. Perhaps she will abandon her claims that she has a PhD and thus that provides gravitas to her opinions.

Until then, I believe that people reading this thread deserve the full story.

That being said, I do strongly believe her consumption of marijuana should be out of bounds. I hereby state that her consumption of pot, notwithstanding how large or how little it is not relevant.

I urge all of you to agree that WTCDust's advocacy of marijuana and questions regarding her use of same are not appropriate.

I submit that every post in this thread from here on in should contain the following disclaimer:

I don't care about WTCDust's decade long advocacy of marijuana nor her use or lack thereof of marijuana.

Fair is fair.

 

[WTC Dust]

Can you please show me, in the photo below, what particles, smoke, dust, etc. are present in the plane's path that would allow a vortex, generated by said plane, to be visible?
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtc-2-plane.jpg[/qimg]

I'm searching for evidence of a wake. This would disqualify my no plane theory. There might be some good reasons for a wake, and not being an expert on planes, I would not rule them out entirely.

However, evidence of a wake at 9:03AM would have forced me to throw away the no plane theory. The tiniest bit of evidence can overthrow any theory, as you probably know. I'm looking to disqualify a theory, not really searching for theoretical justifications of why there isn't a wake.

 

[WTC Dust]

No, SUSPilot mentions nothing at all about boats, because any such mention is completely irrelevant to the topic of a "wake" being "pulled along" by an airplane.

Try reading for comprehension next time, m'kay?

A close reading of his words would reveal that he did agree with me, that some air does move in the direction of the plane flight.

 

[TSR]

I'm looking to disqualify a theory, not really searching for theoretical justifications of why there isn't a wake.

And the radar tracks aren't enough to disqualify your nonsense ... why, exactly?

 

[beachnut]

I'm searching for evidence of a wake. This would disqualify my no plane theory. There might be some good reasons for a wake, and not being an expert on planes, I would not rule them out entirely.

However, evidence of a wake at 9:03AM would have forced me to throw away the no plane theory. The tiniest bit of evidence can overthrow any theory, as you probably know. I'm looking to disqualify a theory, not really searching for theoretical justifications of why there isn't a wake.

There was wake, it is invisible in clear air, you lost due to RADAR. RADAR proves it was Flight 175 and Flight 11 earlier. Not using rational evidence is your failure.

There was Wake, it was descending from the wing tips, invisible in clear air. Make your search delusional.

 

[WTC Dust]

That's quite a lot of air being stirred up. This thread was yet another search of mine for evidence of this air. I've watched the videos. I've searched the still images. I can't find any evidence of a wake.

Saying there shouldn't have been this evidence is neither here nor there. Nobody put up clear evidence of a wake, so my theory cannot be thrown out on this basis.

Nope. You are wrong. The best analogy I can give is that wake turbulence is laid down by the plane, just like paint off a roller. And it stops the moment the wings stop generating lift, with the residual dissipating fairly quickly.

So, please don't tell me I agree.

Eta: I will concede that there is a very small amount of turbulence generated by parasite and form drag from the fuselage, antennae, etc., but it doesn't keep moving forward as some cone of air being dragged along. Also, that small bit of turbulence, especially from a sophisticated shape like an airliner, especially Boeing products, is completely overwhelmed by the wing tip vortices which behave the way I, beachnut, and others have described.

 

[DGM]

I'm searching for evidence of a wake. This would disqualify my no plane theory. There might be some good reasons for a wake, and not being an expert on planes, I would not rule them out entirely.

However, evidence of a wake at 9:03AM would have forced me to throw away the no plane theory. The tiniest bit of evidence can overthrow any theory, as you probably know. I'm looking to disqualify a theory, not really searching for theoretical justifications of why there isn't a wake.

Airplane wreckage and radar data is not enough (I won't mention the reports of eye-witnesses)?

 

[WTC Dust]

And the radar tracks aren't enough to disqualify your nonsense ... why, exactly?

Radar tracks are not raw data like photographs and video images are.

 

[WTC Dust]

Airplane wreckage and radar data is not enough (I won't mention the reports of eye-witnesses)?

I include 100% of the eye-witness testimony as genuine reports. They are reports of what looked like an airplane. What I'm saying is that it only looked like an airplane, and that it wasn't an airplane. Rather, it was a projected image of an airplane (which explains the lack of an impact at the south face of WTC 2 and explains the lack of clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM).

 

[TSR]

Nobody put up clear evidence of a wake, so my theory cannot be thrown out on this basis.

Nor is anyone trying to do so. It's being thrown out because of all of the other evidence, such as the radar tracks.

Your "no wake" whine is being thrown out on its own (lack of merits), independent of the (lack of) merit in the rest of your crap.

 

[DGM]

I include 100% of the eye-witness testimony as genuine reports. They are reports of what looked like an airplane. What I'm saying is that it only looked like an airplane, and that it wasn't an airplane. Rather, it was a projected image of an airplane (which explains the lack of an impact at the south face of WTC 2 and explains the lack of clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM).

So, actual wreckage and radar are out?

 

[TSR]

Radar tracks are not raw data like photographs and video images are.

Because you say so?

Try again -- exactly why is a radar track not "raw data"?

 

[TSR]

Rather, it was a projected image of an airplane...

And just how was it projected, in 3-D and stereo sound in the open air?

 

[twinstead]

This game gets easier to play when one simply hand waves away evidence that is contrary to ones position, doesn't it WTC Dust?

 

[beachnut]

I include 100% of the eye-witness testimony as genuine reports. They are reports of what looked like an airplane. What I'm saying is that it only looked like an airplane, and that it wasn't an airplane. Rather, it was a projected image of an airplane (which explains the lack of an impact at the south face of WTC 2 and explains the lack of clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM).

In this case the simile was not a simile; it looked like an airplane, some of the people identified it specifically to the correct airline, WAS an aircraft.
In a world where eye witnesses are not really used as proof of much, the world of aircraft investigation, RADAR is used to verify where the plane flew.

The projected image nonsense is an insane claim. You have been told this before but persist in spreading lies.

Wake is invisible in clear air - not sure why your ability to take facts and logically arrange them has been disabled.



911 truth LOGIC 101 - a course in how to be all you can be! zero credit hours, no real class work needed to earn your PhD! Credit awarded for believing in insane ideas and avoiding reality.
Flip-flop your logic to protect your delusions and nutty fantasies.
When you cherry-picked and quote-mined people saying they heard explosions, this is proof of Explosives, even is the explosion was the sound of bodies hitting the ground.
When you are presented with thousands of people who saw a plane, this is proof the plane was projected, no one can see a plane when it is backed up by RADAR - it has to be projected.

However, a PhD in Pharmacology could explain the projected aircraft claim if the someone was raiding the Pharmacology, dipping into the stuff so to speak. I strong candidate for making up delusional nonsense could be of ibogaine, a hallucinogen with both psychedelic and dissociative properties. Are you saying this could fight addiction to opiates? Could this drug cause someone to make up wild stories of projected aircraft, steel turning to dust, inability to understand and call gravity slow, not understanding momentum in a gravity collapse and saying the WTC steel turned to foam?

Did you form the projected plane on your own, or adopt it from the insane rant of Reynolds?