Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Macgyver1968]

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

Considering the towers were some 60 stories taller than the average office building...then I would say yes...there was more plastic items in the towers compared to other office buildings.

 

[phunk]

Considering the towers were some 60 stories taller than the average office building...then I would say yes...there was more plastic items in the towers compared to other office buildings.

Even including several giant buildings built after 9/11, there isn't a building on earth with as much office space as what was destroyed at ground zero.

 

[Macgyver1968]

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.

What the heck does carbon have to do with anything? How is carpet "made of carbon"? Carpet is made from manmade fibers like polypropylene, nylon or polyester. Computer cases are made from ABS plastic (Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) How are those "made of carbon"?

 

[Stellafane]

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."

"Summarize" probably isn't the exact word. As I noted in my posts, at least equally important are the facts that (1) there is zero evidence that a DEW of the type Dr. Wood proposes exists, thus there is no reason at all to believe that it does; and (2) there are very serious technical and scientific problems that in all likelihood render "directed free energy technology" impossible. But it is fair to say that yes, a DEW capable of bringing down the WTC would have left adundant and obvious evidence visible to millions, and the fact that no such evidence was visible that day is pretty much a fatal flaw in Dr. Wood's reasoning.

...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.

I seem really proud of myself? From what did you derive that conclusion? Because I bothered to respond to your posts seriously, probably a lot more seriously than they merited? I cannot fathom where you think I exhibit anything resembling pride; please feel free to quote my "prideful" passages that gave you this idea. For the record I'm not proud of my posts, nor should I be -- anyone acquainted with middle-school science can utterly demolish Dr. Wood's ideas, so it's hardly something anyone should take particular pride in.

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

I'm never content with what I know or how I express it; I can always do better and constantly strive to do so. But of course, that's not what you meant. Instead, I suspect you think this is some form of insult, an attempt to put me in my place or something. After all, since you failed to offer any counter to my previous posts -- and demonstrated an astonishingly high level of scientific ignorance in the process -- I suppose that this is all you've got left.

 

[grandmastershek]

I seem really proud of myself?

Please understand that this is the same person who thinks referring to her as "Ms." is a demonstration of universal misogyny, and that by contending drywall is a more likely source for her dust you inherently believe that the buildings should have outright fallen over.

The engine's running, but no one is behind the wheel.

 

[LSSBB]

(2) there are very serious technical and scientific problems that in all likelihood render "directed free energy technology" impossible.

If by this comment you mean "in the case of destroying the World Trade Center", then you would be correct, as this is the best anyone has able to do as far as the destructive capabilities of such a weapon:

 

[Stellafane]

If by this comment you mean "in the case of destroying the World Trade Center", then you would be correct, as this is the best anyone has able to do as far as the destructive capabilities of such a weapon:

Very cool! Actually, my biggest problem is with the "free energy" part, which as I'm sure you know does not apply to laser technology.

 

[Macgyver1968]

To quote Captain Picard from the STNG episode entitled "Allegiance": "I think this charade has gone far enough, don't you?"

Clearly, Dusty is just having a little fun with us at our expense, and is only posting things that she thinks will frustrate and upset us....and is doing a damn fine job of it. I'm done here.

 

[X]

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."

That's overly simplistic. Our debunking would be as follows:
1) There is no need of that hypothesis to explain what was observed.
2) Accepting the DEW hypothesis requires ignoring/denying much of the observed evidence.
3) There is none of the evidence that a DEW could be expected to leave behind.
4) There is no description of what the supposed DEW is, how it works or where it was located.
5) There is no known directed energy device capable of creating the damage seen on 9/11.
6) There are severe physical limitations on energy weaponry that render such a device impossible.


The hypothesis fails on several fronts. Occam's razor, evidence, physics and the necessity of denying reality all show DEW to be the wrong hypothesis. An insane hypothesis. A hypothesis only followed by those with mental problems, a severe lack of scientific understanding or an agenda.

 

[Stellafane]

To quote Captain Picard from the STNG episode entitled "Allegiance": "I think this charade has gone far enough, don't you?"

Clearly, Dusty is just having a little fun with us at our expense, and is only posting things that she thinks will frustrate and upset us....and is doing a damn fine job of it. I'm done here.

Gotta agree. I must admit, I'm feeling kind of silly now -- and certainly not "proud"...

 

[MarkCorrigan]

WTCDust, Dr Blevins, whatever you want to be called...What do you think a taser is?

 

[NoahFence]

WTCDust, Dr Blevins, whatever you want to be called...What do you think a taser is?

Magic!

 

[LSSBB]

Very cool! Actually, my biggest problem is with the "free energy" part, which as I'm sure you know does not apply to laser technology.

Ahhh, yes, overlooked that. I'm thinking they mean "free electron" laser and were confused.

 

[Stellafane]

...I'm thinking they mean "free electron" laser and were confused.

Perhaps, and it certainly would be nice to give Dr. Wood the benefit of the doubt. However, I suspect that, given her other ideas and misconceptions, "free energy" in this case is being used in the pseudoscientific sense. In which case I'd say, what a misuse of technology -- if we had free energy, we could use it generate our own power forever and end our reliance on imported petroleum. Thus we wouldn't need false-flag operations like faking 9/11!

 

[MIKILLINI]

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.

Congratulations, you've acknowledged fuel sources available for a smoldering fire to consume.
Carbon based smell sample test: Burn a piece of paper, then burn a piece of plastic, then burn some synthetic carpet. Do they all smell alike? Or different?

 

[Macgyver1968]

I'm still wondering how plastics are made of carbon. They are derived from hydrocarbons...which have an atom of carbon in their molecules attached to 3 or 4 atoms of hydrogen. It's kinda like saying bleach and table salt are both "made of chlorine"..because they both have chlorine atoms in their molecules.

 

[SUSpilot]

I'm still wondering how plastics are made of carbon. They are derived from hydrocarbons...which have an atom of carbon in their molecules attached to 3 or 4 atoms of hydrogen. It's kinda like saying bleach and table salt are both "made of chlorine"..because they both have chlorine atoms in their molecules.

Exactly.

And, Doc, "witches brew" is simply a literary allusion to a mixture of unknown compounds.

Sheesh.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Exactly.

And, Doc, "witches brew" is simply a literary allusion to a mixture of unknown compounds.

Sheesh.

Ooops...I just noticed...she said that everything was made of carbon, except the filing cabinets. But guess what...filing cabinets are made of steel...which is iron mixed with carbon! So technically....filing cabinets are made of carbon too!

 

[NoahFence]

Were they burning? Mixed with plastic?

She's lying.

 

[Macgyver1968]

She's lying.

No...she is "attention seeking" by saying crap that she knows we will respond to.

Case in point...her sign that read "Ronald Reagan sucked balls!"

Ronald Reagan has been dead for years...and hasn't been in office in 30 years.... But many republicans and right wingers hold him in high regard. By holding up a sign that insulted the right wing icon....she knew she would get press coverage. Which she did. Classic attention whore behavior.