Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Wolrab]

There were thousands of wakes in the weeks following 9/11. Explain to those families that there were no planes.

Disgusting. Is this the best and brightest of the truthers? Sad.

 

[phiwum]

There were thousands of wakes in the weeks following 9/11. Explain to those families that there were no planes.

Disgusting. Is this the best and brightest of the truthers? Sad.

Surely, WTC Dust is not representative of the best and brightest of the truthers. Her "theory" is outrageous and silly, even for the average conspiracy theorist.

 

[hurdygurdy]

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

So this is how you face the serious debunking you're looking for, Ms. Blevins?

 

[MIKILLINI]

She has made significant advances in the field of 9/11 research, something I doubt you can claim.

Exactly right; I can't claim Judy Wood has made significant advances in the field of 9/11 research, but there's a reason for that. She hasn't made any significant advances in the field of 9/11 research.

You seem to think she's a genius, so what examples can you provide of Judy's research that proves to be empirical evidence?

 

[CompusMentus]

You seem to think she's a genius, so what examples can you provide of Judy's research that proves to be empirical evidence?

Here's something.

Wood presents, as evidence, seismological data collected at the time of the WTC collapses. But she also insists that the buildings (the Twin Towers) didn't "collapse" but "turned to dust" and "wafted to the heavens". So one has to wonder, if I assume that to be true, what was it that caused the ground disturbances that were recorded in these data?


Compus

 

[minnemouse]

Here's something.

Wood presents, as evidence, seismological data collected at the time of the WTC collapses. But she also insists that the buildings (the Twin Towers) didn't "collapse" but "turned to dust" and "wafted to the heavens". So one has to wonder, if I assume that to be true, what was it that caused the ground disturbances that were recorded in these data?


Compus

Hmmm. I got a twoofer solution for this:

Since there is something called heavy water, there is probably something called heavy dust, so why wouldnt it make the seismographs go nuts that day???

On a serious note; WTF does WTC Dust mean by dust??? Has she not seen any of the GZ pics where tons and tons and tons of mangled steel and concrete chunks and everything else not even close to foam or dust, was hauled away? The workers sure as hell didnt use vacuum cleaners to clean up GZ. So I wonder (except for the entertainment value) why does anyone with even half a brain bother to discuss this horribly idiotic theory with DUST? Just wondering;P

 

[CompusMentus]

Has she not seen any of the GZ pics where tons and tons and tons of mangled steel and concrete chunks and everything else not even close to foam or dust, was hauled away?

There's an old saying minnie, "there's none so blind as those who will not see".


And another, "can't see the Wood for the trees". As Dr Judy seems to have a thing about trees when it comes to the WTC I think that's quite apt.

:=]

Compus

 

[TSR]

So this is how you face the serious debunking you're looking for, Ms. Blevins?

No, that's how she runs away from it...

 

[A W Smith]

So far no evidence that Ms. Blevins is aWake

 

[Scott Sommers]

Surely, WTC Dust is not representative of the best and brightest of the truthers. Her "theory" is outrageous and silly, even for the average conspiracy theorist.

On the contrary. This is what dealing with Truth intelligentsia really is. I make no exaggeration when I say that she is close to as good as it gets. Why would that surprise you?

 

[CompusMentus]

Caption Competition

Caption Competition. Image from HERE

My entry: "Well done Judy! You got it right this time. Remember, elbow here, arse there!"​

1st prize: Signed picture of Dr Judy.
2nd prize: 2 signed pictures of Dr. Judy.


Compus

 

[TJM]

 

[MIKILLINI]

Here's something.

Wood presents, as evidence, seismological data collected at the time of the WTC collapses. But she also insists that the buildings (the Twin Towers) didn't "collapse" but "turned to dust" and "wafted to the heavens". So one has to wonder, if I assume that to be true, what was it that caused the ground disturbances that were recorded in these data?


Compus

Perhaps Godzilla was in the vicinity that day? Has anyone checked on that?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Caption Competition. Image from HERE


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/344914fa864c65a14f.jpg[/qimg]


My entry: "Well done Judy! You got it right this time. Remember, elbow here, arse there!"​

1st prize: Signed picture of Dr Judy.
2nd prize: 2 signed pictures of Dr. Judy.


Compus

[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/Looneytunes-horz.jpg[/qimg]

 

[CompusMentus]

^Serious Contender.


Compus

 

[CompusMentus]

Another....

Compus

 

[MIKILLINI]

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).

Let me be sure I'm getting this...It looked like an airplane, but instead it was a projected image of a plane?

How was this projected image accomplished so outside eye-witnesses believed they had seen a plane? Details are important for trickery, so why would these conspiracists not include the wake?

 

[nomuse]

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.

Some. The question is how much.

A functioning airplane also radiates heat. And has a slight magnetic field. And offers a fairly large ionic imbalance. And even has a slight gravitational attraction.

The point is not that any of these things theoretically exist. It is if they are of a scale to be either a) significant, or b) observable.

You might have a degree but you sure as heck ain't an engineer. Because this is one of the basic things you have to do in the professional fields; to discriminate between first-order effects that you need to include in your calculations, and third-order effects that have no significant impact.

 

[WTC Dust]

Well, it's nice to know that the views of any six JREF forum members outweigh Gage's "over 1,600 architects and engineers and over 14,000 other supporters."

Respectfully,
Myriad

Gage and most of the rest of that group are stuck on airplane crashes, like JREF, so don't consider yourself any different from them in this regard.

What I wanted was six people from this forum who are willing to state that they cannot provide evidence of a wake at 9:03AM. Then I would consider my position to be (provisionally) correct.

Professional debunkers can't find evidence of a wake? Then, I'm willing to agree that there is no clear evidence of a wake and continue to use this lack of evidence as a part of my theory.

Consider the opposite. Consider if only ONE of you were able to show clear evidence of a wake. Then, I'd have to throw out this part of the theory.

 

[WTC Dust]

Let me be sure I'm getting this...It looked like an airplane, but instead it was a projected image of a plane?

How was this projected image accomplished so outside eye-witnesses believed they had seen a plane? Details are important for trickery, so why would these conspiracists not include the wake?

They messed up. They produced an image of an aircraft, but they forgot the wake.