Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[dafydd]

What does "dustified" steel, concrete, furniture, office supplies, etc. smell like anyway?

Ask WTCDust. She's the one who's spent her life smelling office fires.

 

[NoahFence]

So "open air" to you is "inside a building"?

THAT'S open air? Why am I not surprised....

Dusty - answer this please.

 

[JohnG]

I think it was a projected image of a plane. I don't know this. But I think it.

What evidence leads you to think that hologram technology is sufficiently advanced that it could be used to project realistic moving 3D images of planes into an empty sky? Can you link to a paper, an article, anything? As a scientist I'm sure you understand the importance of citations and showing your work.

 

[WTC Dust]

What is your definition of "independently verifiable"? So far, it appears your dust hasn't been independently verified, so I fear you may be using this simply as a way to hand wave away evidence that doesn't support your position.

You wouldn't do that, would you?

I'm subjecting my dust data for review both in this forum and elsewhere.

 

[WTC Dust]

You would rather not take the effort to verify? You can ask the victim's families if their deceased loved ones were scheduled to fly on 9/11.

Why should I do this? I am not a social sciences researcher, and I'm not trained to conduct those types of interviews.

 

[WTC Dust]

We've been through this before, but wakes don't get pulled behind an aircraft, and they certainly don't travel past the aircraft if it were to stop suddenly, for example slamming into a humongous skyscraper...

Some air does get dragged forward along with the plane. Don't be silly.

 

[JohnG]

Why should I do this? I am not a social sciences researcher, and I'm not trained to conduct those types of interviews.

Glad to hear you aren't presuming to work outside your field of expertise.

 

[DGM]

I'm subjecting my dust data for review both in this forum and elsewhere.

What "data"? The pictures you posted?

You can't even say with any certainty what this stuff is or where it came from (originally).

 

[WTC Dust]

Read this article.
"According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

It contains proof that the concept was bantered about in 1990.

But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources.

The average person seems to take it for granted that advanced, realistic "projected imagery" technology like that seen in film and TV is already here or perhaps just a few years away. They are wrong, as you'll discover if you actually research the subject. The technology simply doesn't exist today nor did it exist 11 years ago. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.

When a nonexistent technology is posited to make a theory work, a sane, intelligent person needs to take a breath and consider the possibility that their theory is flawed. I could posit that the city of Atlantis hasn't been found because it is hidden by a cloaking device, but no one need take my "theory" seriously until I first prove that A: Atlantis is a real B: cloaking devices exist and C: cloaking devices are capable of hiding an entire city. There are no exotic explanations required to explain why Atlantis hasn't been found if it never existed in the first place. Similarly you are starting with the conclusion that no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks. You are then forced to reverse engineer some sort of unwieldy and implausible theory to square with your conclusion. All you are doing is committing a "God of the gaps"-type fallacy, but employing a science fiction technology instead of a supernatural agent to patch the gaping holes in your theory. Can't you see that?

 

[WTC Dust]

Other than the flaming right jet engine visible as it is launched out the other side of WTC 2...yeah, no sign of an airplane...

Something certainly came out of WTC 2 on the north side. What, specifically, convinces you that it was a jet engine?

 

[WTC Dust]

What evidence leads you to think that hologram technology is sufficiently advanced that it could be used to project realistic moving 3D images of planes into an empty sky? Can you link to a paper, an article, anything? As a scientist I'm sure you understand the importance of citations and showing your work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

I've given this link before in earlier threads. Maybe you haven't read this article, yet?

 

[WTC Dust]

What "data"? The pictures you posted?

You can't even say with any certainty what this stuff is or where it came from (originally).

Not much is certain when it comes to cutting edge science.

 

[DGM]

Something certainly came out of WTC 2 on the north side. What, specifically, convinces you that it was a jet engine?

Because that's what it was when it landed.

 

[DGM]

Not much is certain when it comes to cutting edge science.

What's "cutting edge" about your science? You look, then you imagine and guess. Children do this everyday.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I said fumes, and I meant fumes. What was going on in the WTC wasn't an ordinary fire, so I refuse to call that stuff smoke. Smoke from a regular fire is largely hydrocarbon, and the fumes didn't smell like that. They didn't smell like anything I had ever smelled before. <---This is independently verified by anyone who does a google search on "WTC stench" or "WTC smell". Many people were confused by the smell.

"Many people confused by the smell" is not a surprising summary here. Most people are limited in the actual amount of burning items they've been exposed to. This, most likely, includes you in spite of what you claim.

I'm telling you that I smelled different smells. One smell was similar to a carbon-based fire. One smell was the deceased human beings. And there was another smell that lasted for many months. The first and second smells went away rather quickly.

You're silly if you suggest that everything made of carbon smells the same when burned. I'm not the one suggesting this.

All you had to do was answer; "Each has a unique smell of their own" There were 2 choices given.

Does paper/wood, plastic, or synthetic carpet fumes have the same smell while they are burning? Or does each have a unique smell of their own?

This was a simple, non-suggestive question . So why couldn't you see that it was a simple, non-suggestive question?

 

[jammonius]

The Seismic data and analysis done by Dr. Wood falsifies the common storyline of 9/11

Jammonius, I believe your post contains two very important -- and in my view fatal -- flaws. One is an error of commission, the other an error of omission.

The error of commission is the use of seismic data to assess the relative strengths of surface explosions. This is simply invalid. Seismic measurements such as the Richter scale were developed solely to judge the relative energy of earthquakes, which are caused by crustal events far underground, generally several miles or more beneath us. Virtually all the energy of the event is therefore translated into the ground, thus the analysis of ground movement provides a reasonably accurate way to judge the relative strength of such events.

Surface events, by definition, expend only a fraction of their energy into the ground. Much of their energy ends up in other forms -- atmospheric shock wave, acoustic energy, heat, material destruction, and so on. Further, the amount of energy that does make it into the ground is highly dependent on the composition of the local rocks and soils. Some local conditions are very efficient at transporting energy, and some are not. This means that an explosion on say Cape Cod, where the surface is overlaid by a thick layer of sand and other unconsolidated soils, will produce far more modest readings on seismic instruments than the exact same explosion would on a solid granite outcrop somewhere. Without taking such variables into consideration, seismic readings are essentially worthless as a way to gauge the strength of a surface explosion.

The error of omission involves the failure to explain why a devastating shock wave did not wreak widespread damage across the five boroughs on 9/11. Because if a significant amount of the WTC never hit the ground, but instead was instantaneously converted to dust, physics demands that it would have been accompanied by an extremely violent explosion, one that may well have killed more people in the surrounding neighborhoods than all who died in the Towers themselves.

The instant conversion of solid matter into another form is a highly explosive and energetic event; even a small amount of solid matter can produce a large explosion this way. Even something as stable as a glass of water will explode violently if tossed into a fire hot enough to vaporize it instantly. Doing the same to an appreciable portion of the WTC would have therefore produced an explosive shock wave that would likely have leveled the surrounding buildings and at a minimum killed many thousands. Again, this is just basic physics. There is no known method for instantaneously converting steel and other solids into dust without causing an explosion of epic proportions in the process -- many, many orders of magitude more violent than anything observed on 9/11.

This of course still leaves unaddressed my previous points about the complete lack of evidence for the existence of a DEW, even though the use of such a device on 9/11 would have left abundant and obvious evidence, irrespective if where it were located.

So although you may find Dr. Wood's material compelling, I cannot, because basic science indicates it fails on multiple counts.

Greetings Stellafane,

Your post requires placement into proper perspective; otherwise, your claim of error--of commission and of ommission--are out of context. In placing them into proper context it will be seen that your said claims lack merit.

Your post comes after several others, with the proper beginning of this go 'round on seismic data having been initiated by Compus in post # 1003.

Thus far, the posting on seismic data and the WTC annihilation has generated the following posts:

compus post # 1003 051112 7:21pm
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8277812&postcount=1003

jammonius post # 1017 051212 6:17AM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8278445&postcount=1017

dust post # 1028 6:55AM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8278505&postcount=1028

compus post # 1034 8:29AM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8278758&postcount=1034

jammonius post # 1038 9:08AM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8278824&postcount=1038

jack by the hedge post # 1039 9:18AM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8278852&postcount=1039

scott sommers post # 1040 9:21AM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8278859&postcount=1040

stellafane post # 1045 10:04AM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8278975&postcount=1045

mikillini post # 1053 1:08PM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8279318&postcount=1053

compus post # 1056 2:00PM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8279473&postcount=1056

compus post # 1060 2:57PM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8279670&postcount=1060


A review of those posts will reveal that I have plainly stated that the Seismic data and analysis done by Dr. Wood falsifies the common storyline of 9/11.

Thus far, no one has taken any real exception to that claim. The claim of falsification is entirely consistent with scientific method. Moreover, the claim goes to the common storyline of 9/11 that the Twin Towers "collapsed" as a result of the fire generated by, at most, a few 1000 gallons (not barrels) of kerosene, assisted by gravity.

Falsification consists in the inability of the common storyline to withstand the scrutiny that Dr. Wood has put it under. In the book WDTTG? there is an entire chapter detailing the extent to which proper analysis of seismic data falsifies the common storyline. The chapter is more than 30 pages in length, has more than 30 graphic depictions, including charts, graphs and other illustrations and 52 footnotes.

That chapter, Chapter 6 in Dr. Wood's book, falsifies the common storyline. It must be borne in mind that falsification in science simply means that a claim or a theory that is put forward can only be considered valid so long as it does not fail a test resulting from either the predictions or the factual premise of the claim.

The commonstoryline claim of "collapse" fails the test of the seismic data; hence, the common storyline has been falsified.

Dr. Wood's use of the seismic data, in the context of falsification, may be said to date from March, 2007. That is when she filed her Request For Correction with NIST. That RFC is a matter of public record because it is filed in NIST's website and can be accessed by anyone. In other words, the governmental entity directly responsible for putting forward the gravity/kerosene collapse theory as and for its explanation of events has been openly falsified.

What Dr. Wood's RFC does in brief, her book does at length.

Lurkers who are interested in this simply must take the opportunity to buy/borrow WDTTG? if they are interested in detailed discussion. As the claim has been made, and thus far not touched by any commentary from posters, that Dr. Wood has falsified the common storyline of 9/11, I should think interest in how she did so would be kean.

I am not going to do posters' homework for them, as I have said. But, I can confirm that the evidence of falsification of the common storyline that is contained within Chapter 6 of the book includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Page 71 shows the S and P waves.

A P wave may be thought of as akin to the snapping of a rubber band, and an S wave more like wiggling a jump rope up and down.

Pages 87-90 coverf the significance of the lack of P and S waves associated with the annihilation of each of the Twin Towers, plus WTC7, to boot.

Lurkers are also invited to note Figure 64a on page 67. That information actually comes from the same Lamont-Doherty document posted up by Compus, as it turns out. Using Fig. 64a, lurkers can note the P-wave and S-wave pointed out and compare it with the smoothed surface wave of WTC1 (red).


Page 74 and 84 of the book show the Kingdome seismic signal. You can see the "snout" pattern leading up to the big signal. That shows the P-wave arrival ahead of the S wave arrival. Also, notice the high frequency compared to the WTC signals.

Page 69 is a good comparison of WTC1,2,and the January 2001 earthquake. You can see the earthquake has the "snout" and also has much higher frequency waves. They are all the same time scale.

So, we have comparisons of seismic signals of earthquake on the same bedrock as the WTC, and a controlled demolition above ground, on a silt foundation (not bedrock). In earlier posts here, we also have a 1983 explosion in Bayonne NJ for additional seismic referencing.

The sum total of that information confirms the 3 buildings that were seen to topple to the ground on 9/11, each in a matter of no more than 10 seconds, did not collapse. Instead, they were dustified and annihilated by exotic weaponry.

Stella, your claims of error did not have the proper context, let alone frame of reference to constitute legitimate critique of the claim of falsification. Perhaps you'd like to take some time to review WDTTG? and try again?

Meanwhile, the commonstoryline of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11 has been falsified.

That is serious.

 

[WTC Dust]

You'll have to ask your questions more precisely, because I don't know what you mean.

"Many people confused by the smell" is not a surprising summary here. Most people are limited in the actual amount of burning items they've been exposed to. This, most likely, includes you in spite of what you claim.



All you had to do was answer; "Each has a unique smell of their own" There were 2 choices given.



This was a simple, non-suggestive question . So why couldn't you see that it was a simple, non-suggestive question?

 

[SUSpilot]

Really, do me a favor. Stop quoting the official hijack conspiracy theory. I've already heard it many, many times and discarded it as unreasonable.

They're reasonable questions. Answer them.

 

[SUSpilot]

Some air does get dragged forward along with the plane. Don't be silly.

Tried to teach you about an aircraft's wake, and you won't learn. That's silly.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I have no idea about any passengers on any flights on 9/11. Lots of strange stories that I cannot independently verify.

You would rather not take the effort to verify? You can ask the victim's families if their deceased loved ones were scheduled to fly on 9/11.

Why should I do this? I am not a social sciences researcher, and I'm not trained to conduct those types of interviews.

So you make assumptions..because...well, because you think what you think; right or wrong. Got it.

How you going to know anything about aircraft wake patterns without some aerospace based training research?