Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[CompusMentus]

He's more of a scientist in this area than you will ever be. You're claims are delusional nonsense and you don't deserve the honorific of Doctor. Your attention seeking nonsense is nothing but that...nonsense. I know you have me on ignore, so someone quote me for MISS BLEVINS.

Noticing a pattern with these twooftards...if they get called on their idiocy it's too ignore you go...like Marokkan used to do.

These two threads have grown beyond ridiculous. I suggest burying them.

1. She will NEVER produce any data
2. She will NEVER produce even a white paper
3. She will NEVER admit to her faults and clear misrepresentation of facts.
4. SHE'S A FREAKING NO PLANER, 'nuff said!

As requested :=]

Compus

 

[plague311]

He's more of a scientist in this area than you will ever be. You're claims are delusional nonsense and you don't deserve the honorific of Doctor. Your attention seeking nonsense is nothing but that...nonsense. I know you have me on ignore, so someone quote me for MISS BLEVINS.

Noticing a pattern with these twooftards...if they get called on their idiocy it's too ignore you go...like Marokkan used to do.

These two threads have grown beyond ridiculous. I suggest burying them.

1. She will NEVER produce any data
2. She will NEVER produce even a white paper
3. She will NEVER admit to her faults and clear misrepresentation of facts.
4. SHE'S A FREAKING NO PLANER, 'nuff said!

Exactly, I think you pretty much hit it on the head. I've been playing lurker a lot more than poster lately. Mostly cause of multiple warnings but also because these ideas are just getting too out there. For awhile it made a little bit of debating sense, but now she just doesn't care, she just wants people to reply.

There have been MOUNDS of photographic evidence contesting everything she's ever said. There have been people that take the time to break down every one of her beliefs and she continuously posts. It's just getting to be too much.

 

[beachnut]

..., there is evidence that a plane crash did not take place. ...

How do you show evidence a plane did not crash, when a plane did? Lie?

Oops, Flight 175 tracked from takeoff to impact; RADAR, what no-planers can't comprehend to save their fantasy. yep

RADAR confirms this photo, the photo confirms RADAR, both use part of the electromagnetic spectrum to form real evidence real scientist use to form rational conclusions. Some can't do science, and it hurts when they claim to be a scientist.

An impact of a 767. Flight 175, whose RADAR track ends at the WTC impact zone. Reality is not nice; some people have to have fantasy, and disrespect the reality of murder. Not sure why people lie.

Speaking of scientists. A real scientist could take video and RADAR data of 175, figure out 175 was going 590 mph. A real scientist could take the impact speed, the jet fuel of 66,000 pounds and see that the jet fuel fireball in this photo is exactly what 175 and jet fuel would do. A real scientist could do this instead of spreading delusional nonsense of no planes and steel turning to dust foam. A real scientist would deal with reality.

A real scientist could calculate where an engine from an aircraft impacting the WTC would land and understand this is evidence of an aircraft flown into the WTC. A real scientist could!

Searching for wake, which is invisible in clear air is... yes it is.

Ignore evidence and return to the dark ages of fantasy and nonsense.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1westRectorStreet.jpg
A real scientist knows this is from a aircraft, and could calculate the trajectory; even Balsamo claims he can do it when he debunks no-planers when he is not saving ammunition to dispatch debunkers.

 

[CompusMentus]

.....you find it mysterious that it smelled for 100 days from GZ? Even though the rubble worked almost as a huge crematorium for all the poor people that died that day? Jeeze. How mysterious..... not.

Good point mm.

I believe the final death toll at the WTC was 2,752 (not including the hijackers) that sad, grim figure alone should give a strong suspicion as to what may have caused any unpleasant smell to pervade Lower Manhattan for weeks during the GZ cleanup.

What's the (rough) average weight of a person? 55 kg?

2752 x 55kg ~150000 kg.

150 tonnes or so of mangled and shredded human remains. That's besides all the rest of the muck and filth that lay there during that time.

FFS. These people will write/say anything to bolster their stupid delusions. They've got no class, no dignity, no integrity.

Respect? Never.

Compus

 

[Wolrab]

What else is missing at 9:03?

I have never seen any of that blue lavatory water that was on the airplanes in the wreckage.
Even if someone claimed it was found, I wasn't there to see it. Therefore no planes.

 

[hurdygurdy]

You know what? Between us two, I'm the scientist. Therefore I am actually the one of us who is in a better position to determine what needs to be done in a scientific study.

It's the height of rationality to mention that in late December 2001, after 27 rain days in NYC between the 9/11 attacks and then, I could still smell the WTC fumes from a mile away. It's not rational to say that came from an office fire.

Remember: at 100 days I was still in observe and wait mode. I hadn't come to any conclusions about what destroyed the WTC. After 100 days of rainy, cold weather, I concluded that nobody would ever be able to convince me that what I was observing was an ordinary fire. 100 days of observation is a lot of days.

Just another lie rebutted long time ago. The rebuttal was conveniently ignored, as usual.

 

[minnemouse]

Just another lie rebutted long time ago. The rebuttal was conveniently ignored, as usual.

Exactly; but then again DUST really dont care for facts. They are just annoying and disturbing, and ruins a perfectly insane theory.

 

[Drs_Res]

Did you personally participate in this DNA study, or are you believing reports? And if so, why?

Speaking of DNA studies, how did you get access to the equipment to do the the UV study of your worthless samples?

She went to the local hardware store and got a black light bulb and a fixture for it?

 

[CompusMentus]

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?

Come on Dr. Blevins, not slacking are you?


Compus

 

[hurdygurdy]

Other than rattle cages here at JREF what are you doing to expose this ongoing public health problem?

Don't you have a responsibility to the ones suffering to do what you can to alleviate the suffering?

In accordance to her search of a PhD expert in material science, I guess she's willing to talk to them, but she's waiting to be formally introduced by any of us.

 

[grandmastershek]

100% wrong. I count every single photograph as genuine evidence.

I guess thats why you continue lying about how the buildings "turned to dust". ANd now we got a new unique phenomenon, "fumes". Yeah where could they come from?

 

[grandmastershek]

I've smelled dead human beings while accomplishing my job. I've smelled many other types of fires, both at work and in my personal life.

Strange women lighting fires is no basis for a claim of expertise.

I swear, I have no idea how many truthers have tried to tell me what something is just by looking at it, but never have I had one tried to use their sense of smell. Just when I think I've seen it all.

 

[Stellafane]

...You make arguments about what can or cannot be attributed to weather, but you do so in a limited context. For instance, you do not seem to consider weather modification tactics; or, for that matter, the subject of energy weapons, which is the real claim made by Dr. Wood, as I understand it.

I didn't consider "weather modification tactics" because I have never seen any evidence at all that such a thing is possible. And if it were possible, it would certainly not be done through magnetism, as Dr. Wood implies. The fact that she apparently believes that there's a connection between magnetism and the weather indicates a rather large scientific blind spot -- one that must be factored in when considering her other ideas. As for the DEW, I've addressed that in my other comments.

...The above, and in particular that part that states "Dr. Wood's DEW theory does not make any sense" is based on a misapprehension of what Dr. Wood has actually done and said.

I don't believe it is. I have laid out my scientific objections to the existence of a DEW with the capabilities Dr. Wood theorizes. Others may disagree with me of course, but I don't think my thinking is entirely unsound.

...You presume she has a theory. I am not aware that she has a theory as she only presents evidence and an analysis of the evidence. Forensic science is not about producing a theory; it’s about determining what happened.

I believe her suggestion that the WTC was brought down by a DEW certainly qualifies as a "theory."

...I might add that the problem here may be as old as the divergence between Aristotle on the one hand, Plato on the other. For Aristotle, reality was empirically derived, based on what could be sensed; i.e., seen and heard for the most part because that is how humans sense reality. For Plato, the role of internal knowledge, based on deduction, was given primacy.

Interesting point. I believe that scientific inquiry should incorporate both: deduction based on empirical evidence.

...I think one thing can be said with high accuracy:

The work done by Dr. Wood is highly empirical, it is based to a very large extent on the record of what was seen. Hence, the super-abundance of photographic data. Seeing is believing, right?

Here we appear to diverge. Photographic data is only one part of the evidence (albeit certainly an important one). There are many limitations to photographic evidence, far too many to list briefly. In addition, photographic evidence is highly subject to misinterpretation.

...It also presumes too much, in my opinion, for you to make a claim about "what she can or cannot explain?" Similarly, it is an oxymoron to state, as you have done, that “evidence” is “based on bogus science”?

I stand by my statement. Believing that there's a connection between magnetism and the Earth's weather is certainly bogus science.

...Evidence is evidence. You can analyze it, ignore it, form conclusions about it, form opinions about it, but you cannot PRODUCE evidence FROM opinions.

I'm in complete agreement! The fact is, I use the word "evidence" very loosely when I refer to the material Dr. Wood has put forth in support of her DEW theory (or suggestion or idea, or whatever one may prefer to call it). I would not call what she has offered up as "evidence" of anything; at best it's a small collection of random facts that she attempts to connect through what I consider very faulty reasoning and scientific misunderstanding. I called this "evidence" only out of respect to Dr. Wood.

...If you have formed your own opinion about what happened based on reviewing the evidence and if your opinion contradicts the evidence, it is not the evidence that is wrong; it’s his own opinion that is wrong. Evidence cannot be wrong. It can be wrongly interpreted, to be sure; and it can be incomplete...

I am in complete agreement.

...the issue of incompleteness applies in spades to the official attempts to explain 9/11; yet, debunkers seem willing, on a grand scale, to overlook that incompleteness, even though the incompletness factor has been openly acknowledged, admitted and otherwise disclosed.

Here we do not agree. To echo your own words, I believe you have seriously misinterpreted the evidence to come up with the preceding conclusion. (And to be fair, I recognize you'd probably say the same about me, which is fine.)

...In short, permit me to suggest you would benefit from reading Dr. Wood’s book so that you might know what she does or does not present in it with a greater degree of accuracy than you currently possess.

I am familiar with Dr. Wood's work and ideas. I have not, however, read her book. I recognize that this leaves me vulnerable to the charge that I really don't understand what she's trying to say, a charge that may have some merit -- perhaps there are very valid ideas hidden within it.

But I can say that a DEW cannot have possibly brought down the WTC. I can further say that there is no connection between magnetism and the weather. I can say there is no evidence that a DEW capable of destroying a large building exists, nor is there evidence that Earth's weather can be controlled. These aren't opinions; they are based on basic scientific truths. And if Dr. Wood disagrees, I'm afraid it speaks rather poorly of her scientific credibility.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Stella: What do you think of weapons that use wavelengths of energy? Certainly we have tasers. Do you think the only weapons we have of this nature are already 100% publicly known? Do you think there is 0% chance of the existence of a DEW?

Bahahahahaha.

Wow, that's ridiculous. You're pulling our legs, right? This is all one big joke?

 

[phunk]

In accordance to her search of a PhD expert in material science, I guess she's willing to talk to them, but she's waiting to be formally introduced by any of us.

That's probably so she can blame us when the expert disagrees with her.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Come on Dr. Blevins, not slacking are you?

It's amusing, in a sad sort of way, to watch Ms. Blevins insist that people show her respect by referring to her as "Dr." all while ignoring those who actually do call her "Dr.".

Have you considered dropping the "Dr."? It may increase your chances of at least getting some sort of response...

 

[CompusMentus]

It's amusing, in a sad sort of way, to watch Ms. Blevins insist that people show her respect by referring to her as "Dr." all while ignoring those who actually do call her "Dr.".

Have you considered dropping the "Dr."? It may increase your chances of at least getting some sort of response...

Have you considered the hidden irony? :=]

Compus

 

[swright777]

The data on Hurricane Erin presented in her book is solid and unassailable. Remember field effects, Dr. Wood's specialty? Hurricanes produce changes in field effects. You can continue to talk about weather fronts, but you'll be missing what she says is important about the hurricane. Back to the book! Have you read it?

I thought dentures were her specialty.

 

[swright777]

Ah! Very interesting. So why are my WTC dust samples so full of iron fragments?

The most likely reason is that they're not WTC dust samples. Nor are they WTC foam samples.

 

[swright777]

You protest overmuch. I do not care what other people say about such matters. Certainly, when they do so, they merely say something about themselves, nothing whatever about Dr. Judy Wood or whomever. This is well known. "Whatever person A says about person B, information is imparted concerning person A, not B."
...

This is perhaps the most retarded thing I've read in a while. So I guess when you tell someone that they're wrong about Judy Wood, you're really telling them that YOU are wrong about her.

PS: Did I just say that I'm retarded?