Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

I loved your recapping of my theory. I really loved the transition. Questions? hahaha REally good stuff, there, and I'm a bit flattered you paid such close attention to my cartoon enough to satirize it.

Getting to the questions. Responses in red.

How do we project holographs of planes when there's no technology in the world that can do that? This question is one of those "When did you stop beating your wife?" type questions that presumes something within the question that makes it unanswerable. To attempt to answer it generally, it is indeed impossible to do anything when technology doesn't exist for it. However, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a technology. To amend the question to make it a proper and answerable question, you'd have to put the word "known" before the word "in".

How do I think the holographic technology works? By differentially heating and cooling the air in a very precise manner so that it very precisely refracts light to produce the 3D moving image in the daytime sky. We can already project images into the nighttime sky, but what we are doing there is adding light to a dim sky. In the daytime sky, there's already a superabundance of light, so you'd have to subtract light in order to produce an image. Precise heating of air? Just a guess. Subtracting light from a bright daytime sky? Just a guess.


How do you "dustify" two giant skyscrapers? I don't know, and I'm trying to find out.

What does "dustify" even mean, anyway? Dr. Wood invented a term in order to describe the process in a neutral way. Now that I've discovered that the WTC was largely turned into foam, we don't have to use this artificial word. At the time, it referred to an unknown process that destroyed the WTC and produced a large amount of dust at the same time. You started with some giant skyscrapers, and you ended up with a large amount of dust.

Where is the energy for all this going to come from? From the material itself. The energy contained within the molecules that made up the WTC is what was used to destroy the WTC.

 

[beachnut]

This image depicts the WTC immediately after the attacks looking up from the ground at the south face of WTC 2. No clear evidence of a wake here, either.

The wake is invisible in clear air. You lost this argument.

 

[WildCat]

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

No, it doesn't.

 

[Wolrab]

That I am correct that there is no clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM is established.

An assertion? From a scientist? Weren't you taught the scientific method in high school? College? I'll explain as I have a science degree. Here are some bullet points from http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

• Ask a Question
  
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

The question is, "Should there be evidence of a wake from the second plane that hit WTC?"

Background research would entail finding out what a wake is, under what conditions a wake would be visible, and if those conditions were met on 9/11/01.

Your hypothesis could be,"A wake should be visible because ..."

I already gave one possible experiment, you could use computer models if you know enough about the subject, and have the skills to construct it.

You would have to analyze your own data.

The best way to communicate your findings is to submit them to a peer reviewed journal, not make bare assertions on an internet forum.

Really, someone with a Ph.D should already know this. Did your schooling neglect this? I'd be seriously ticked off if they did, if I were you.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Hey Tracy...you want to see the state of the art when it comes to holograms? Check this **** out...those crazy Japanese have live concerts with anime characters singing.



This is only accomplished because it's done in a dark auditorium...and if you look carefully you can see the opaque screen that the holograms are be back-projected on. It's still pretty damn cool!

 

[minnemouse]

This is - by far - the most hilarious thread on this forum! My tummy aches from all the outbursts of laughter! Thanks, DUST - you are an eternal source of humor!

 

[twinstead]

Am I correct that there is no clear evidence of flying jelly beans at 9:03AM?

 

[Dumb All Over]

Bravo, Horatio. That was great!

Oh lovely. A guy uses a fancy-schmancy comic generator and gets a "bravo" while my inferior etch-a-sketch, ugly as it it, gets nada.

 

[Resume]

The wake is invisible in clear air. You lost this argument.

Black Knight Syndrome.

 

[beachnut]

Easy to murder a few people, I think.

For who? How many people have you murdered?

19 terrorists did 911, you lost this round.

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

I did, in Post #14, a month ago. You act as though it never happened.

Have a nice life.

 

[X]

This is pathetic.


Unless you are willing to provide evidence of:

1) Foamification (or whatever the **** you call it)
2) Holographic projections that can create the image of an airplane, as seen on 9/11, how it worked and was developed and controlled
3) Details of the Directed Energy Weapon and how it worked,was developed and was controlled
4) Proof that heat does not weaken steel
5) Proof that your cherished dust is actually from WTC 1 and/or 2
6) A way to explain how the aircraft parts, the remains of the victims and the massive amounts of steel left behind were faked
7) And that all of the above technologies were available in 2001

Then you have nothing. Nothing but the deluded ramblings of an ineducable ignorant moron (by which I mean your beloved Ms. Woods, whom you seem hell-bent on emulating). I don't know if you're serious about this, or if it's some sick, perverse form of performance art (or attention-whoring, which might be the same thing).

I'm done with you, Ms. Tracy Blevins/Postert. I hope no one else dignifies your sick need for attention, either. I also hope any future employers Google your name, and find this thread.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

This question is one of those "When did you stop beating your wife?" type questions that presumes something within the question that makes it unanswerable. To attempt to answer it generally, it is indeed impossible to do anything when technology doesn't exist for it. However, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a technology.

Not true. If a technology violates the laws of physics I'd say you can discount it. That rules out the DEW, and thus your idea is idiotic from the beginning.

Also, even if what you said were true, that doesn't matter. You know what "burden of proof" is right?

Seriously you are having a joke here right? You can't possibly believe this inane nonsesne? The child-like cartoons are meant to illustrate that you're a Poe aren't they?

You can't possibly be this deluded.

 

[DGM]

I did, in Post #14, a month ago. You act as though it never happened.

Have a nice life.

I think you misunderstood. She wants evidence of the wake she expected to see, not what is expected.

Can you disprove what she visualizes in her mind?

 

[R.Mackey]

Not my job. That's one for a shrink.

 

[DGM]

Not my job. That's one for a shrink.

So, she "wins" the thread.

I can live with that.

 

[Wolrab]

Oh lovely. A guy uses a fancy-schmancy comic generator and gets a "bravo" while my inferior etch-a-sketch, ugly as it it, gets nada.

I laughed.

 

[Greedo]

What is this I don't even

 

[Montag451]

I actually quite like a bit of discourse but this is just comedy gold.

Holograms caused by vibrating air?
A giant death ray that dustifies and foamywoamifies steel?
Collecting samples from years later?

I hope you are a troll, if not try yellow pages and turn to the section beginning with P, you need help.

 

[Horatius]

How do I think the holographic technology works? By differentially heating and cooling the air in a very precise manner so that it very precisely refracts light to produce the 3D moving image in the daytime sky. We can already project images into the nighttime sky, but what we are doing there is adding light to a dim sky. In the daytime sky, there's already a superabundance of light, so you'd have to subtract light in order to produce an image. Precise heating of air? Just a guess. Subtracting light from a bright daytime sky? Just a guess.

See, the problem you have is, you haven't answered the original question of "How to project holograms in the air", all you've done is create more questions.

"By differentially heating and cooling the air in a very precise manner"

Okay, how do you do that? There's no known technology for heating the air in this manner.

"...so that it very precisely refracts light to produce the 3D moving image in the daytime sky"


...and then you add yet another complexity on top of that. You'd need to control you heating to tolerances measured in microns to produce any sort of optical effect in visible wavelength ranges, and you'd have the control needed to tailor them to produce particular colours, and do it all with absolute relative position accuracy to produce a recognizable image. And then animate it.

I work on optics at the patent office, and any one of those technologies would be groundbreaking work even today, and yet, you posit all of them just to come up with a handwaving answer to only the first question your hypothesis generates.

How do you "dustify" two giant skyscrapers? I don't know, and I'm trying to find out.

What does "dustify" even mean, anyway? Dr. Wood invented a term in order to describe the process in a neutral way. Now that I've discovered that the WTC was largely turned into foam, we don't have to use this artificial word. At the time, it referred to an unknown process that destroyed the WTC and produced a large amount of dust at the same time. You started with some giant skyscrapers, and you ended up with a large amount of dust.

And here, all you've done is move on to the exact same question, except with "foam" in place of "dust". There is no known technology for "foaming" metal at a distance, without even mentioning the quantities involved. And then you have to do it even with all the other material in the way. Again, complexities built on complexities.

Where is the energy for all this going to come from? From the material itself. The energy contained within the molecules that made up the WTC is what was used to destroy the WTC.

...and then you come up with a whole new energy source as well. Somehow they extract energy from the material to produce huge changes in the material, requiring energies on the scale of nuclear power. This isn't just new technology now, it requires new fundamental physics, on a par with fission or fusion energy.


Any one of these technologies could make the inventor rich, and some of them could revolutionize the world, and yet, you would have us believe the only use that was ever made of them was to destroy the WTC. And you posit all of these just so you can appear to have some idea of what you're talking about, when people ask you the hard questions.

And you wonder why we're not convinced?