Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[NoahFence]

Your post is a gross oversimplification of the segment in WDTTG? dealing with rustification. Those who have read or are reading the book know this to be true. Those who have not done so might be impressed with your post.

Oversimplification?

Yea, you people sure do have a problem with simple things.

Like 4 hijacked aircraft = 9/11
Like unchecked raging fires actually casing catastrophic damage.

Simple things like that. No, instead we get invisible, impossible machines orbiting the Earth, magical non-explosive explosives, holographic aircraft that can not only be project onto the 80th floor of a high rise, but it can be projected onto a deep blue sky. We get a total of 8x the height of the world record controlled demolition, planned and executed in three buildings populated 24/7/365 without anybody noticing, and of course we have the token Jew at the head of it all.




I'm terribly sorry my comments and questions are too easy. Maybe if you people would provide ONE shred of evidence you'd get somewhere. But nope. You get impossible machines doing impossible things. You point at how obvious everything is, without actually saying what it is that's obvious.

 

[Pyrts]

A good scientist changes their mind based on GOOD evidence. DEWs certainly exist. I haven't been ignoring the question of where the weapon is. I'm telling you I don't know where it is, or where it was situated during the attacks. I'm also telling you that Judy Wood doesn't insist it was in space.

The reason I refuse to believe the official story is because I have a good understanding of how fire works and how hot things burn and because a very large fire did not destroy the WTC in the seventies.

Uhm... Y'know, I'm "ABD" in Information Science and, speaking as another scientist, I can tell without much effort that the initial conditions and the environment were completely different in those two instances. The chemical composition of office furniture and carpets in 2000 is completely different than what they had in 1980. Devices and equipment have changed, too.

It's appalling that someone who says they're a scientist is extrapolating from incomplete data, from a non-identical situation and probably without a good model of the physics of air flow (changed during remodeling) and materials.

I see she's got a lot of videos -- the problem with videos is that visual material overrides our critical thinking circuits.

 

[Pyrts]

I looked at her site, by the way -- and I suspect her knowledge of math and physics is less than mine. Her knowledge of hurricanes is far less than mine. I've been in several and I've had property that was damaged in a hurricane.

No beam weapons.

Soil shifting, projectiles, water, and wind account nicely for things.

 

[TSR]

You know, Foofy Presumptions would be a good name for the Kardashian's "Spice Girls" ripoff...

 

[George 152]

I wish I'd thought of this earlier. Here's a link to one of Paul Bowen's great photos. It's of a Cessna Citation IV climbing out of a fog bank. Note that the only evidence of wake turbulence is in the fog bank.

BTW, I've talked to Mr. Bowen about this and other photos he's taken like it. He said it takes lot of work to set them up.

http://www.av8n.com/irro/gallery/Cessna_downwash.jpg

So that's what we produce in clag

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Can we call you Dr. Dust?

 

[beachnut]

When there's loads of particles in the air, yes. Particles, like the particles of stuff that was coming off WTC 1 at 9:03AM.

Particles of stuff = smoke from big fires started by massive plane impacts. Those particles?

Smoke traveling up, the wake traveling down. Wake remains in clear. Your delusions are easy to debunk. You have no idea you were debunk. Like a vast right wing, and left wing lift conspiracy, a covert invisible wake debunking of the third kind.

The wake is there, you can't see it. Which beats your evidence, which not only we can't see your evidence, but your evidence does not exist.


175 did not descend from above the smoke, or climb out of the smoke.
http://www.av8n.com/irro/gallery/Cessna_downwash.jpg Not sure you know what wake is.
The invisible wake makes your claim, a silly claim.

 

[Stellafane]

...I have given you my thoughts.

Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful reply. The reason I asked about the DEW specifically, is because as I pointed out in post #666 (yeah, the Number of the Beast and all that), the use of such a device to bring down the WTC is impossible. It cannot have happened the way Dr. Wood describes. This really isn't a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact. A spaced-based weapon would be observable from the ground, while a ground-based weapon would have left an explosive trail of vaporized matter between it and the WTC. Neither happened on 9/11. Add to this the fact that a full-scale working DEW has never been demonstrated as feasible, nor has Dr. Wood provided an iota of evidence that such a thing physically exists. Those are formidable barriers that can only be surmounted by a preponderance of unambiguous, verifiable proof.

Instead, she offers up as evidence a rather muddled observation connecting the Earth's magnetic field with the weather -- which, as I explain in post #674 is another impossibility and indicates that Dr. Wood simply does not understand the science involved. Again, the fact that Dr. Wood is seriously in error is not a matter of interpretation or dispute, as a simple review of basic science texts will prove.

In short, Dr. Wood's DEW theory does not make any sense. She presents no evidence for the existence of the DEW, she cannot explain why no one has seen what should be the abundant evidence it has left behind, and the evidence she does present is based on bogus science.

This does not necessarily invalidate all of Dr. Wood's work, of course -- many people can be very wrong about one thing and still be correct about others. But in this case, it's not so much that Dr. Wood is in error, it's how she's in error: flying directly in the face of all known science. To me, this must call into question her other conclusions, because if they're products of similarly sloppy thinking and scholarship, I don't think they can be taken seriously. And in any case, if one extracts the DEW from Dr. Wood's overall scenario of what happened on 9/11, what is one left with? By what other mechanism was the WTC brought down?

 

[WTC Dust]

That's the biggest bunch of BS yet.

GZ was flat...

Not flat, but also not a tall pile of broken steel beams, either. I went there soon after the attacks, and could only see a few pieces sticking up above a ten foot fence and also lots of fumes.

 

[WTC Dust]

See post #14.

It won't satisfy you because you think that you know what a wake ought to look like. For myself, I admit not knowing doodlysquat about aeronautics and defer to one who evidently does. (Hint: that would be Mackey, not you.)

Since planes had nothing to do with the attacks on the Twin Towers, a degree in aeronautics get you doodlysquat when it comes to determining what actually happened.

 

[NoahFence]

Not flat, but also not a tall pile of broken steel beams, either. I went there soon after the attacks, and could only see a few pieces sticking up above a ten foot fence and also lots of fumes.

Were you standing about 1" away from the 10 foot fence?

 

[SUSpilot]

Since planes had nothing to do with the attacks on the Twin Towers, a degree in aeronautics get you doodlysquat when it comes to determining what actually happened.

[John Cleese Voice]No. Wrong. Just wrong. Nope. Sorry. Wrong, wrong. [/John Cleese Voice]

 

[TSR]

Since planes had nothing to do with the attacks on the Twin Towers, a degree in aeronautics get you doodlysquat when it comes to determining what actually happened.

Your premise is wrong -- and you didn't even luck into a correct conclusion.

 

[tsig]

You say that the DEW could be anywhere.

Ok, find a place on Earth, any place, where the DEW could fry the WTC and cars at ground level and not damage any other surrounding features.

They bounce the dustification/foamification rays off the buckle in the Van Allen Belt so the DEW could be anywhere!

 

[tsig]

You want us to call you WTC Dust?

It is disrespectful, and I request that you address me by my name.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Since planes had nothing to do with the attacks on the Twin Towers, a degree in aeronautics get you doodlysquat when it comes to determining what actually happened.

There were passengers on those planes Tracy. How convenient of you to forget about them...That says a lot about you.

 

[Sunstealer]

No amount of plane parts is going to change:

1. No evidence of impact of an airplane at the south face of WTC 2.
2. No evidence of a wake at 9:03AM.
3. That plane crashes don't produce steel foam.

So how do you account for the plane parts that were photographed and catalogued? How do you account for the people that witnessed aircraft parts on the ground?

Are you going to dismiss that evidence with a wave of the hand and magic it away?

Nonsense reply in 1..2..3.......

Oh and perhaps you'd like to explain where the people on those flights went. Perhaps you'd like to do that face to face with some of the people that lost their daughters, sons, fathers and mothers that day. I suspect you won't but a serious scientist such as yourself would surely look at the evidence and interview the surviving members of the deceased, wouldn't you? How many families have you contacted Dusty?

 

[beachnut]

In memory of Flight 175 passengers, murdered by terrorist on 911. Witnessed in real time by thousands of people. RADAR tracks 175 from takeoff to impact.

Plane parts ejected.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111impact175.jpg

Jet fuel fireball. oops

What would a pharmaceutical degree get you, access to a hallucinogen, less than diddly-squat, and an idiotic fantasy of no planes...

Don't need a degree to understand RADAR, I have taught electromagnetic spectrum to GATE students for years, and they comprehend how RADAR works. Kids in grade school can understand 911, something a few PhDs with delusions about 911 can't.

Since planes had nothing to do with the attacks on the Twin Towers, a degree in aeronautics get you doodlysquat when it comes to determining what actually happened.

 

[Oz1976]

Don't misrepresent me. I insist on being called my name, which isn't "Ms." anything.

ok MISS Blevins...semantics

 

[Craig4]

This explanation doesn't satisfy me.

Being as you're a "no-planer" your satisfaction is unimportant.