Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

Witnessed by millions? Why do you insist on this?

First (and just to be pendantic) it's a bit inaccurate to speak of "wavelengths of energy," since energy comes in many forms, and only a subset -- primarily electromagnetic radiation -- are measurable in wavelengths.

That aside, tasers are a singularly poor choice to cite in support for a DEW. Indeed, the limitations of the taser points out the difficulties in developing such a weapon. Tasers deliver an electroshock to the target, and only work when they are in direct contact with the skin. Even a small gap between the electrodes and the target renders the taser useless, since (and this is a critical point) air is a very poor conductor. Yes, large scale discharges (such as lightning) can traverse the air, but that takes vasts amounts of energy to do any large-scale damage of the sort witnessed on 9/11. So taser technology, no matter how vastly scaled up, could not have possibly taken down the WTC.



No doubt there's various classified work underway around particle beam and other "ray gun" technologies, perhaps remnant projects of the heyday of SDI. But that's not really the point. If a DEW weapon of the sort Dr. Wood hypothesize does exist -- and remember, it's up to her to prove it does, not I to prove it doesn't -- then if it were used on 9/11, it would have left copious amounts of incontrovertable evidence behind, evidence that would have been readily witnessed by literally millions. That last statement isn't based on speculation or opinion; it's simply basic science. No such evidence was observed -- none at all.



Its existence, possibly in some prototypical scale-model form? No, I can't say 0% chance. But if you re-phrased the question as "Do you think there is 0% chance that a DEW was used on 9/11 to bring down the WTC?" then I'd say yep -- 0% is 100% right.

 

[WTC Dust]

You do know there were fires burning in the Twin Towers before they collapsed, right? Contents in an office fire can burn as hot or even hotter than carbon fuel. Those burning contents ended up in the rubble pile mixed with unburned contents creating a smoldering mess....Fumes come from a smoldering fire. Don't you know anything about a smoldering fire?

WOW, you are mixed up. Tell me, in an office fire, what is there to burn besides carbon? Answer: nothing. Wood is carbon. Plastic is carbon. Paper is carbon. There was almost nothing TO burn except carbon in the WTC.

Fumes might come from a smoldering fire, but, like I said, I swore after 100 days of smelling this stuff that nobody was ever going to convince me that what I was observing was an ordinary fire.

 

[TJM]

Witnessed by millions? Why do you insist on this?

Because there were.

Those pesky eyewitnesses....

 

[DGM]

I swore after 100 days of smelling this stuff that nobody was ever going to convince me that what I was observing was an ordinary fire.

Do you consider the burning remains of 2700+ people "ordinary"?

You don't really wonder why people don't take you seriously?

 

[WTC Dust]

Just going to throw an idea out there - see what you think:

Would it not be plausible that the people smelling that smell might've, deep down, realised that they were smelling hundreds of decomposing bodies (plus everything else)? The thought of which, in my opinion, is enough to affect even the most hardened heart. Their "dunno" responses are probably symptomatic of their revulsion at the notion that particles of the deceased are being inhaled by them on a daily basis.

NOT ME. I've smelled dead bodies before during the course of my profession. I wasn't confused. Yes, I smelled dead bodies after the attacks, but there was a different smell that lasted much longer. After the dead body smell went away (in a few days), THIS smell stayed. Whenever the wind would blow our direction, we'd smell it.

 

[WTC Dust]

Do you consider the burning remains of 2700+ people Ordinary"?

You don't really wonder why people don't take you seriously?

I know what happened on 9/11 better than you.

 

[DGM]

I know what happened on 9/11 better than you.

Do you plan to ever put it to theory?

 

[WTC Dust]

Well, you have a Ph.D. As for being a critical thinker, I'm not so sure.

It wasn't an office fire, any more than the Yellowstone Park fire of 1987 (smoke visible in Chicago, no less) was a camp fire. As has been pointed out, this was the ruins of several buildings with hot spots that were essentially a coked over witch's brew of organic material, metal, minerals and solvents. Being extremely hot and coked over, they smoldered for weeks.

Witches brew? That seems pretty mysterious. What large amount of fuel do you suggest was located in the WTC? Serious question.

 

[WTC Dust]

Ever been to Auschwitz or Birkenau, Dust? Even after almost 70 years, the smell there is VERY noticeable, and believe me, its not a pleasant smell. It smells like death (and I`ve attended a couple of autopsies, so I recognize the smell). In these camps it has rained and snowed on and off for many decades, but still the smell is very much present. And 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.

I've been to Dachau, and it didn't smell like dead human beings. I know the smell of dead human beings.

 

[WTC Dust]

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

What's in the link isn't a rebuttal. It's a confirmation that I was correct in saying that it rained 27 days in the first 100 post-9/11. I'm not saying it was the rainiest season ever seen in NYC, only that it did rain quite a few times. After each heavy rain, I'd say to myself, "OK. That should do it. The 'fire' should be out."

But, no. The 'fire' didn't go out. In fact, the fumes were as strong as ever, months and months later.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Witches brew? That seems pretty mysterious. What large amount of fuel do you suggest was located in the WTC? Serious question.

Really? REALLY? Now I know you're pulling our leg.

Are you really denying that the WTC towers were filled with chairs, desks, tables and shelves made of wood, or carpets...or file cabinets full of paper, or computers and many other flammable items?

 

[DGM]

Really? REALLY? Now I know you're pulling our leg.

Are you really denying that the WTC towers were filled with chairs, desks, tables and shelves made of wood, or carpets...or file cabinets full of paper, or computers and many other flammable items?

Don't be silly, She knows what every combination ever burned smells like, she's a PhD.

 

[WTC Dust]

Would it be correct for me to summarize your debunking of DEW as, "Millions would have seen evidence of the DEW had it been used."

??

Is this right? Is this your argument? Is there any part of your argument that I missed? You seem really proud of yourself, like you actually debunked something, and I don't want to miss it if your argument is better than this.

On the other hand, you shouldn't be content, if that's the extent of your argument.

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.




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.




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




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




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.




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




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.




I am in complete agreement.




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.)




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.

 

[phunk]

NOT ME. I've smelled dead bodies before during the course of my profession.

Were they burning? Mixed with plastic?

 

[WTC Dust]

Really? REALLY? Now I know you're pulling our leg.

Are you really denying that the WTC towers were filled with chairs, desks, tables and shelves made of wood, or carpets...or file cabinets full of paper, or computers and many other flammable items?

I agree with what you said, except the "many other flammable items" part. What are these many other flammable items, and were any of them manufactured with anything other than carbon? Everything you mentioned so far is made of carbon, except the file cabinets.

 

[WTC Dust]

Were they burning? Mixed with plastic?

Was there a lot of plastic in the WTC, compared to other office buildings?

 

[phunk]

I agree with what you said, except the "many other flammable items" part. What are these many other flammable items, and were any of them manufactured with anything other than carbon? Everything you mentioned so far is made of carbon, except the file cabinets.

And everyone knows that everything made with carbon smells the same when burned.

 

[DGM]

Was there a lot of plastic in the WTC, compared to other office buildings?

You tell us. You're the one with the "theory".

 

[phunk]

Was there a lot of plastic in the WTC, compared to other office buildings?

Yes, that should be obvious. Those buildings were among the largest in the world.

 

[Stellafane]

Witnessed by millions? Why do you insist on this?

With all due respect, it's getting harder and harder to take posts such as this one seriously. Is this an attempt at humor?