Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[jammonius]

AW


Thank you for your post.

Firstly, your post is yet another quibble. You have not sought to challenge the main issue; namely, that Dr. Wood's seismic analysis falsifiesthe common storyline of 9/11. Your first quoted statement confirms you are merely offering your interpretation, containing obvious unsupported assumptions about a tangent, not the real issue.

You start by saying:

Apples to oranges, The massive concrete roof of the Kingdome collided with NOTHING before it hit the earth,

Come on AW, you should be able to spot the woefully insufficient, assumption riddled claim you are wanting to make. Use of language like "massive concrete roof" is an incomplete unsupported claim. Domes are designed to have lightweight roofs. Some are supported by nothing more than air. Your use of the word "massive" serves no purpose other than that of misleading yourself, not others.

The same is true of the next element of statement "...roof of the Kingdome collided with NOTHING before it hit the earth..."

There is no analysis on your part of either distance or effect this would have on seismic readings. Further, you do not analyze that claim in conjunction with your later mention of "95 percent air."

Your inconsistency and your incompleteness of analysis does nothing whatever to counter any analytic proof, or rather disproof of common storyline contained in Ch. 6 of WDTTG?

of course you will get the profiles documented. The 110 floors of each tower collided with subsequent floors separated by approximately 12 feet as they collapsed. You may even say the collapse was arrested at the sub basement levels, as there are some areas that are almost intact. The Wood papers comparison of GPE is a red herring. Wood attempts to use seismology for a structure that's 95 percent air. It is the wrong tool.

Your above statement is quite a hodge-podge. Are you still, at this late date, a supporter of the discarded "pancake collapse" theory? If so, why have you clung to that one? In the first place, the visual data of the <10 second annihilation of the Twin Towers shows there was no pancaking. The towers were seen to do otherwise; that is, they were seen to disintegrate in midair and to leave next to nothing on the ground.

Science depends on observation, AW. Not on obfuscation.

There is one (partially) positive element of your post; namely: Your partial acknowledgment the subbasements were intact. In point of fact, as proven by Dr. Wood, the subbasements and the bathtub were by and large intact, not partially so. That factor is consistent with a dearth of material from two 500,000 ton buildings hitting the ground.

By the way, AW, it is misleading to say that the towers were "95 percent air" as you imply they were lightweight. Contrast that dodge with your attempt to make the Kingdom roof "massive" by comparison. That is not the proper way to post up meaningfully, let alone scientifically.

The Twin Towers, the tallest buildings in the world, when built, are the structures to which the word "massive" properly applies. That there are some who claim they were "95 percent air" tells us nothing at all about the towers; and, instead, only tells us that those who use phrases like that are seeking to make excuses for the falsification of the common storyline of collapse.


Blessings

 

[NoahFence]

If you want to know about something, it's a good idea to ask a person experienced in that field. Even better, a person who makes his living in that field. Ask a blacksmith about smithing; ask an analytical chemist about chemical analysis. How many truthers have actual expertise in the fields they make claims in?

I think at last count, 4.

2 of them have lost their marbles, and the other 2 their jobs, so they bilk ignorant, gullible people.

 

[NoahFence]

jammie - you do realize of course that when referring to 9/11, and trying to pin it on some unseen but obviously evil force, you need to tell the complete story, right?

In your mind, what IS the complete story? Yea, dustification and DEW. Tie that into Shanksville and the Pentagon if you don't mind.

 

[jammonius]

jammie - you do realize of course that when referring to 9/11, and trying to pin it on some unseen but obviously evil force, you need to tell the complete story, right?

In your mind, what IS the complete story? Yea, dustification and DEW. Tie that into Shanksville and the Pentagon if you don't mind.

I do mind. Do your own homework, please. Is there a claim or a point you are seeking to make? If so, make it.

In science, falsification of one claim does not mandate proof of another. Dr. Wood, a citizen scientist, carefully explains that determination of the nature of the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11--by exotic weaponry in the nature of DEW--is the claim made. To request from her the details, indeed, the serial numbers of the secret weapons used by whomever to do that, is nothing short of willful disengenuity.

And, it is not that she did not seek to get those details; for, indeed, she did. That is why she sued SAIC and ARA and other MIC contractors. Do you get it? Science Applications International Corp; and Applied Research Associates Inc. SAIC, ARA

 

[NoahFence]

I do mind. Do your own homework, please. Is there a claim or a point you are seeking to make? If so, make it.

In science, falsification of one claim does not mandate proof of another. Dr. Wood, a citizen scientist, carefully explains that determination of the nature of the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11--by exotic weaponry in the nature of DEW--is the claim made. To request from her the details, indeed, the serial numbers of the secret weapons used by whomever to do that, is nothing short of willful disengenuity.

And, it is not that she did not seek to get those details; for, indeed, she did. That is why she sued SAIC and ARA and other MIC contractors. Do you get it? Science Applications International Corp; and Applied Research Associates Inc. SAIC, ARA

Of course you mind.

Because you know that HAARPing on only one aspect, and a small one at that, you don't have to wrap your brain around the complete picture. You get to just try to be an expert on one silly aspect.

Trouble is, 9/11 was not just NYC. Any and all theories surrounding 9/11 MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT that there was a plane crash at the Pentagon and in Shanksville. All 4 locations are connected.

Unless you're saying that 2 other plane crashes were simply coincidence?

by exotic weaponry in the nature of DEW-

What evidence is there of this happening at Shanksville or the Pentagon? Do you or your ilk have a theory on why there were 2 other crashes?

NO?

You'll just ignore those because they can't be shoehorned into a retarded theory on DEW.

Is there a claim or a point you are seeking to make?

Yep. You, Judy, Dusty -you all need to make a connection to the ENTIRE day's events.

 

[swright777]

...
Originally Posted by CompusMentus
Noted that jammonius gives no source other than that of Dr. Judy Wood for this claim. I must conclude the reason for this is that such a source does not exist. [/COLOR][/B]

You therefore completely ignored my actual response.

In particular, you have now completely ignored the plain as day fact that I have posted that confirms that the seismic data analysis done by Dr. Wood falsifies the common storyline of how the WTC complex was destroyed.
...

You are using JWs analysis to confirm her analysis. What could possibly be wrong with that?

 

[swright777]

...
Come on AW, you should be able to spot the woefully insufficient, assumption riddled claim you are wanting to make. Use of language like "massive concrete roof" is an incomplete unsupported claim. Domes are designed to have lightweight roofs. Some are supported by nothing more than air. Your use of the word "massive" serves no purpose other than that of misleading yourself, not others.
...

On what planet can this happen? Do you understand anything about anything?

 

[swright777]

I don't think jammonius is JW. He is widely accepted (on JREF) to be lawer/truther Jerry Leaphart close associate and confidante of the Lady of the Dust.


Compus

Oh, so he's a JW cheerleader/promoter. And a lawyer. No wonder his posts are READ THIS SILLY BOOK surrounded by babbling nonsense.

Thanks for the info.

 

[triforcharity]

You can't look that up in a table somewhere? Whatever, just say it's lower than 3000 degrees Farenheit.

And steel melts at around 25-2700 deg. F.

Fail much?

 

[triforcharity]

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

Desperation.

 

[twinstead]

It smells like sour cream and failure

 

[X]

On what planet can this happen? Do you understand anything about anything?

I think he means an inflated building, like this.

Difficult to be sure, what with the amount of nonsense he spews and the fact that he only exists for me only in the posts of others.

 

[Sunstealer]

No. "Significantly" weaken steel, as was seen on 9/11. Carbon fires can't do that.

Talking BS as usual dusty.



Don't you ever get bored of being wrong every time you post?

The thing is you are pig ignorant and refuse to learn from others who know vastly more about a subject than you will ever know.

Steel will suffer a reduction in yield strength and Young's modulus way below maximum temperatures that house and office fires will produce. As a rule of thumb 600°C will reduce room temperature f_y and ε by half.

Here's a paper that you might like to read in order to educate yourself on the topic of the effect of heat on structural steel. So now all you have to do is find reference to fire temperatures. Oh look here's one http://www.aisc.org/DynamicTaxonomyFAQs.aspx?id=1996

There are dozens more. Why don't you try to find them. Nope you won't do that because it will show your ignorance. I expect you to source every statement you make otherwise it's safe to take the default position that your statement(s) is/are wrong.

 

[Resume]

I do mind. Do your own homework, please. Is there a claim or a point you are seeking to make? If so, make it.

The point is that the bat-excrement crazy no-planer/dustify/foamify conspiracy nonsense is so frikken daft and incoherent that its enthusiasts need to pony up big-time in the burden of proof arena. Silly claims like plymouth wheel caps as airliner engines don't fool grade schoolers.

Your movement is beyond silly; it's irrelevant.

 

[Craig4]

AW


Thank you for your post.

Firstly, your post is yet another quibble. You have not sought to challenge the main issue; namely, that Dr. Wood's seismic analysis falsifiesthe common storyline of 9/11. Your first quoted statement confirms you are merely offering your interpretation, containing obvious unsupported assumptions about a tangent, not the real issue.

You start by saying:



Come on AW, you should be able to spot the woefully insufficient, assumption riddled claim you are wanting to make. Use of language like "massive concrete roof" is an incomplete unsupported claim. Domes are designed to have lightweight roofs. Some are supported by nothing more than air. Your use of the word "massive" serves no purpose other than that of misleading yourself, not others.

The same is true of the next element of statement "...roof of the Kingdome collided with NOTHING before it hit the earth..."

There is no analysis on your part of either distance or effect this would have on seismic readings. Further, you do not analyze that claim in conjunction with your later mention of "95 percent air."

Your inconsistency and your incompleteness of analysis does nothing whatever to counter any analytic proof, or rather disproof of common storyline contained in Ch. 6 of WDTTG?



Your above statement is quite a hodge-podge. Are you still, at this late date, a supporter of the discarded "pancake collapse" theory? If so, why have you clung to that one? In the first place, the visual data of the <10 second annihilation of the Twin Towers shows there was no pancaking. The towers were seen to do otherwise; that is, they were seen to disintegrate in midair and to leave next to nothing on the ground.

Science depends on observation, AW. Not on obfuscation.

There is one (partially) positive element of your post; namely: Your partial acknowledgment the subbasements were intact. In point of fact, as proven by Dr. Wood, the subbasements and the bathtub were by and large intact, not partially so. That factor is consistent with a dearth of material from two 500,000 ton buildings hitting the ground.

By the way, AW, it is misleading to say that the towers were "95 percent air" as you imply they were lightweight. Contrast that dodge with your attempt to make the Kingdom roof "massive" by comparison. That is not the proper way to post up meaningfully, let alone scientifically.

The Twin Towers, the tallest buildings in the world, when built, are the structures to which the word "massive" properly applies. That there are some who claim they were "95 percent air" tells us nothing at all about the towers; and, instead, only tells us that those who use phrases like that are seeking to make excuses for the falsification of the common storyline of collapse.


Blessings

And planes still struck the WTC.

 

[jammonius]

Dr. Wood's seismic data and analysis falsify the common storyline of 9/11

And planes still struck the WTC.

And posters' obvious "change the subject" tactics do not refute the fact that Dr. Wood's seismic data and analysis falsify the common storyline of how the Twin Towers were destroyed.

It's been several pages and posts since that claim was made. It has not been refuted. Take a look at just this page alone, posters have resorted to reference to all sorts of things, other than the existence of proof of falsification.

It is as if posters do not understand that theories, and that is all the common storyline of 9/11 is, are disproved if they fail to predict the outcomes of experiments and or required facts. The Twin Towers did not collapse as the common storyline would have us "believe" because the seismic signaling (lack thereof) disproves that contention.

Hey posters, might as well admit it and move on.

As I've said before, on the issue of seismic analysis, Dr. Wood has falsified the common storyline.

Game over; season over

 

[Resume]

Game over; season over

You are correct sir. Not enough ******** in all the ******** mines in the world to make your version of events float.

 

[jammonius]

I think he means an inflated building, like this.

Difficult to be sure, what with the amount of nonsense he spews and the fact that he only exists for me only in the posts of others.

No, your attempt to help interpret what I meant when I referred to stadia "supported by air" is not accurate. I do not mean inflated buildings like the small-ish one you referenced. Rather, I mean large ones that are comparable in size to the Kingdome.

Like this:

They are a class of stadia known as "air-supported" usually consisting in a soft, pliable roof structure, supported by air.

For more details see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Air-supported_structures

I hope those who did not understand before will be able to grasp the concept now.

 

[grandmastershek]

Jammy you like so many other truthers still fail to understand that just because because someone posts something on the internet does not mean its fact. Forgive me, but if you haven;t figured out how reputable academics go about validating their claims then it solely falls on you for remaining ignorant as such. Just because you think her data & analysis is good doesn't mean anyone else has to take it seriously.

 

[Stellafane]

...At some point, our lurkers are going to realize that the claim of seismic data falsification of the common storyline of 9/11 has not been countered by any poster here at all, not just you.

Hi Jammonius. I hestitate to respond, since our discussion doesn't really seem to be making any progress. Indeed, from my perspective it's actually going backward, since it seems that every time we interact I raise another issue that goes unadressed, until we have now accumulated a collection.

To summarize, in this thread I've noted the following:

* There is no evidence a DEW of the sort Dr. Wood envisions exists. You respond by citing seismic evidence. But seismic evidence cannot be used to interpret surface events in the way Dr. Wood claims (see below). And even if we suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that it could, all Dr. Wood would have would be some potentially anomalous data that may well be explanable in any number of ways, including the "official" story. At best, the DEW would only be one remote possibility among many others, most of which would offer far more viable scenarios. Thus even then, there would be no proof whatsoever that a DEW exists.

* Seismic data is not a valid method for interpreting the nature and magnitude of a surface event, not in the way Dr. Wood attempts. Your response appears to be that you disagree. Unfortunately for Dr. Wood, this is not a matter of opinion or debate: as I've explained, basic science itself dictates that the use of seismic data for this purpose has little or no value. Therefore, even if one is inclined to dismiss me, they'd still have to contend with science and reaility -- which doesn't care about the personal beliefs or preferences of you, me, or Dr. Wood.

* A DEW, irrespective of location, would have left abundant and obvious evidence, much more compelling and unequivocal than seismic readings; and yet no such evidence was observed. Your response seems to be to encourage me to read Dr. Wood's book, which I consider a non-answer. If Dr. Wood's ideas cannot conform with basic science, then nothing she says in her book is going to change that.

* The instantaneous conversion of solid steel into dust would result in a spectacular explosion that would have likely devastated Manhattan and the surrounding environs, yet no such explosion occured, Your response was to state that I needed additional "context" -- a statement I simply do not understand -- and further encouragement to read Dr. Wood's book.

So at this juncture, from my point of view we're looking at four fatal flaws to Dr. Wood's ideas, any one of which renders her work utterly impossible. But although those issues comprise a devastating and insurmountable barrier, in actuality they're just the beginning. You see, to facilitate the discussion, when I joined this thread I initially set the bar very low, indeed as low as I possibly could: Does Dr. Wood's ideas conform with the most basic science principles? This is as rudimentary and unchallenging an entry point as I could conceive, akin to the first bunny question on an exam. And yet, thus far Dr. Wood's ideas cannot surmount even this modest standard.

Think of it this way: in essense, I've built a very large "debate room" in which all are free to enter and discuss any ideas they wish. The door is very wide and always open. Just one thing -- it's almost too trivial to even mention -- like all doors, mine has a threshold. It's a very low threshold, the lowest one they sold at the hardware store, rising barely a quarter-inch above the floor. And it's made of solid basic science.

If an idea trips over that low threshold, there's really no point in entering further, since it's not going to last very long once the real debate gets underway.

Of course, it goes without saying that you're 100% entitled to disagree with me, and completely dismiss everything I've just written. But what you can't do is expect anyone to take Dr. Wood very seriously, not if her ideas cannot even pass the very modest threshold of fundamental science without stumbling.