Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

Because, Doc, if the temperature/dew point spread were close together, say within one or two degrees Celsius, the wake turbulence behind a heavy aircraft will likely condense the water vapor in the air. My point is that I'd like to see, from you, an unaltered photograph of a transport category aircraft showing visible evidence of a wake with a temperature/dew point spread of 10 degrees or greater. Even the heaviest glider ever built, a/k/a the Space Shuttle, one with a very high wing loading, doesn't show a visible disturbance in its wake below subsonic speeds when the air is reasonably dry, even at high angles of attack.

The fact that you want to close this thread tells me that you're basically cornered here.

I'm not speaking of dew or humidity, or relying on a far distant wake.

I'm talking about evidence of a wake at 9:03AM near the still standing Twin Towers. The fumes being emitted from WTC 1 were visible, and they were not disturbed. Nobody disputes this.

I might be wrong about no planes, but so far I haven't been proved wrong about the lack of evidence of a wake at 9:03AM.

 

[WTC Dust]

You are trying to teach Shakespeare to someone who hasn't mastered the alphabet.

Hi Mackey, "Mr. Straight Above the WTC", how are you doing?

Can you provide any sort of evidence of a wake at 9:03AM near the Twin Towers?

I want to ask you specifically, so this thread can be closed. If you provide evidence of a wake, I'll retract my assertion that there wasn't evidence of a wake.

 

[WTC Dust]

Dusty, explain under what circumstances a plane in flight would not produce a wake. Now, why would you even be concerned with this. It's perfectly clear that the aircraft were in flight immediately prior to impact (this being evidenced by the fact that the impacts in the WTC were well above the first floor). What you're asking is no different than saying "show evidence that airflow produced lift. We don't need any evidence other than the aircraft were in flight to show they produced a wake.

The fumes coming from WTC 1 would have shown evidence of a plane flight, had one come within a block or two of the fumes, as is claimed by the silly theory.

The fumes were real. The plane? Unproved.

 

[Resume]

I'm talking about evidence of a wake at 9:03AM near the still standing Twin Towers.

Can you provide any sort of evidence of a wake at 9:03AM near the Twin Towers?

Might you iterate what you don't understand about the explanations offered so far? Not your critique of those explanations mind you because you've demonstrated your lack of expertise in this area. Just what you're confused about. In regard to a "wake" of course.

 

[twinstead]

The fumes coming from WTC 1 would have shown evidence of a plane flight, had one come within a block or two of the fumes, as is claimed by the silly theory.

The fumes were real. The plane? Unproved.

The planes are 'proved' to the satisfaction of any rational person. Case closed. Your opinions are no better than mine, so I'll defer to the real experts if you don't mind. Thanks anyway though.

 

[WTC Dust]

The planes are 'proved' to the satisfaction of any rational person. Case closed. Your opinions are no better than mine, so I'll defer to the real experts if you don't mind. Thanks anyway though.

Just remember that I didn't question the planes for years, but I literally never believed the plane crash mechanism for a moment.

Plane crashes might eventually be proved, but they haven't been to my satisfaction, and then you have the problem of proving the plane crash mechanism of destruction of the WTC. I've probably studied this issue in more depth than you have, considering you never had a reason to look into it. Amiright?

 

[Resume]

Plane crashes might eventually be proved, but they haven't been to my satisfaction,

They been proved for years. Get out more.

 

[Craig4]

The fumes coming from WTC 1 would have shown evidence of a plane flight, had one come within a block or two of the fumes, as is claimed by the silly theory.

The fumes were real. The plane? Unproved.

But the plane was in flight establishing that it did indeed produce a wake.

 

[WTC Dust]

How It Was Done, 9/11

This is how I believe the attacks of 9/11 were accomplished.

 

[DGM]

Setting up a new thread so jammonius doesn't steal all your attention?

I don't know which one of you is worse.


Have at it, don't forget your proof.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Ummm...Tracy...you didn't post anything.

 

[fitzgibbon]

This is how I believe the attacks of 9/11 were accomplished.

Hmm...pretty much sums things up nicely: big wall 'o nuthin'

And BTW, is it really too much to expect you to stick to one of the two threads you authored and seem to be running away from? Starting another distraction thread seems to be your MO

Fitz

 

[WTC Dust]

A secure and undisclosed location

The place could be anywhere.

 

[WTC Dust]

Inside the office

Workers working. Sounds of typing.

 

[WTC Dust]

On the computer screens

Images of downtown Manhattan. One technician controls the 3D projection technology. One guy controls the energy weapon.

 

[Macgyver1968]

The place could be anywhere.

Actually not. I just checked my closet and it's not there. Maybe you should revise that to almost anywhere.

 

[EventHorizon]

This movie stinks. I'm changing the channel.

 

[WTC Dust]

The simulation goes live

Maybe the technicians didn't realize that it was more than a simulation.

 

[GlennB]

"The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground."

Even your sig betrays your utter ignorance. Dust falls really slowly. It's a 'terminal velocity' issue.

 

[WTC Dust]

Goodbye, technicians

Easy to murder a few people, I think.