• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

Craig4 said:
You're clearly not here out of scientific curiosity or a desire to find the truth. Safely dismissing those two options makes a bizarre attempt to get attention the most likely option.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I'm not posting to the JREF forum out of scientific curiosity. I'm seeking a debunking.
 
This is actually far from the truth about me. When it comes to 9/11, I am seeking an audience, yes, but it's not because I crave personal attention. I didn't create these cartoons because I wanted personal attention. I made them because I wanted to demonstrate the physical acts that took place on 9/11.

Some people went into an office and controlled the attack from computer terminals. They didn't wake up early and go to the airport. You see what I'm saying?

MarkCorrigan said:
Yes I do.

People who get a lot of attention start to feel, rightly or wrongly, that they deserve it. It's why some seriously ill people continue to feign illness after they are cured, or even start to make themselves sick.

It's why celebs throw hissy fits and go mental when people stop caring.

It's pretty much the source of all contrived "controversy". People who are desperate for attention doing anything they can to make as many people as possible look at them.

You are either craving attention or you've slipped far far away into your own delusions, because there's no way a rational sane scientist would buy the Hollywood nonsense you are claiming happened on 9/11. "Murder a few people? Easy! Energy weapons that violate the laws of conservation of energy? Fine! Holograms that work perfectly when the largest movie industry in the world with potentially more money than the US government can't even get basic3D cinema right half the time? Why not!"

It's insulting to you if we assume you actually believe this drivel. Thinking you're doing it either for a laugh or for the attention is the most charitable explanation for your behaviour.
Click to expand...
 
I think I've worked it out. When the NWO operative pressed the button on their computer, it sent a signal to hundreds of cars parked near the WTC. This activated their wiper motors and CD players.

Here's the clever bit: discreetly attached to each wiper arm was a magic wand, and the CD played a recorded loop of someone saying 'accio dust' in a Hermione Grainger voice.

That's how they did it, and that's why all those cars mysteriously burnt out. They were destroying the evidence.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
This is actually far from the truth about me. When it comes to 9/11, I am seeking an audience, yes, but it's not because I crave personal attention. I didn't create these cartoons because I wanted personal attention. I made them because I wanted to demonstrate the physical acts that took place on 9/11.

Some people went into an office and controlled the attack from computer terminals. They didn't wake up early and go to the airport. You see what I'm saying?
Click to expand...

So why did you lie in them?
 
Why do you suggest that energy weapons violate the laws of conservation of energy?



MarkCorrigan said:
Yes I do.

People who get a lot of attention start to feel, rightly or wrongly, that they deserve it. It's why some seriously ill people continue to feign illness after they are cured, or even start to make themselves sick.

It's why celebs throw hissy fits and go mental when people stop caring.

It's pretty much the source of all contrived "controversy". People who are desperate for attention doing anything they can to make as many people as possible look at them.

You are either craving attention or you've slipped far far away into your own delusions, because there's no way a rational sane scientist would buy the Hollywood nonsense you are claiming happened on 9/11. "Murder a few people? Easy! Energy weapons that violate the laws of conservation of energy? Fine! Holograms that work perfectly when the largest movie industry in the world with potentially more money than the US government can't even get basic3D cinema right half the time? Why not!"

It's insulting to you if we assume you actually believe this drivel. Thinking you're doing it either for a laugh or for the attention is the most charitable explanation for your behaviour.
Click to expand...
 
Oh dear Ms Blevins, still flogging this particular horse? It died a long time ago, show it some respect and bury it.

How come a "scientist" like you can come across as so blissfully ignorant? I don't even... There are no words.

Now I'm no scientist as such, however I have some meteorology experience. I am a member of the U.K based Tornado and Storm Research Organisation.

http://www.torro.org.uk/site/index.php

So, I do have some limited vortex understanding. They do not work how you think they do. Yes if you look up at an aircraft flying high above you do see something, a vapour trail. CONDENSATION!

Are you saying you expect to see a "wake" like that as the planes hit? Explain scientist, explain! What SHOULD this wake look like? What vortex effects SHOULD happen when a plane strikes a building!
 
I keep checking back on this thread, hoping there is a post that contains a single image that shows clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM.

Anyone? Beuller?
 
WTC Dust said:
I keep checking back on this thread, hoping there is a post that contains a single image that shows clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM.

Anyone? Beuller?
Click to expand...

There were some posted early in the thread, a very clear vortex. Did you not see the thing that slightly resembled a tornado vortex in the WTC1 photo?
 
I wholly addressed (and, given no response, effectively concluded) the thread when I pointed out that your cartoon has no import or relevance, by virtue of being entirely lacking in verisimilitude.

I wouldn't think any further comment or explanation would be needed, but very well. The persons, places, and events depicted in your cartoon lack any reference to anything outside themselves. You have attributed to them no names, no organizational affiliations, no backgrounds, and no motivations, performing unknown actions with unknown consequences at no known location.

No debunking is possible, as no claims have been made beyond certain irrelevant details. Are we supposed to question whether the door should actually be shown as a double door, the computer keyboards should actually be shown as analog control knobs, the murderer should actually be shown using poison instead of a gun? Of course not. It would be like trying to debunk the sentence, "See Jane run." Who is Jane, and where do you claim she ran? If you don't know or care enough to provide that verisimilitude, we have no way to know (and no reason to care) whether Jane ran (or some unspecified people typed unspecified commands on unspecified computers to unspecified effect at an unspecified location for unspecified reasons) or not.

But of course, you know all this. So your claim to be seeking a debunking is itself absurd on its face, and easily falsified. If you were seeking a debunking you would present claims to debunk.

That's what "entirely lacking in verisimilitude" means, and why it's important.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
I wholly addressed (and, given no response, effectively concluded) the thread when I pointed out that your cartoon has no import or relevance, by virtue of being entirely lacking in verisimilitude.

I wouldn't think any further comment or explanation would be needed, but very well. The persons, places, and events depicted in your cartoon lack any reference to anything outside themselves. You have attributed to them no names, no organizational affiliations, no backgrounds, and no motivations, performing unknown actions with unknown consequences at no known location.

No debunking is possible, as no claims have been made beyond certain irrelevant details. Are we supposed to question whether the door should actually be shown as a double door, the computer keyboards should actually be shown as analog control knobs, the murderer should actually be shown using poison instead of a gun? Of course not. It would be like trying to debunk the sentence, "See Jane run." Who is Jane, and where do you claim she ran? If you don't know or care enough to provide that verisimilitude, we have no way to know (and no reason to care) whether Jane ran (or some unspecified people typed unspecified commands on unspecified computers to unspecified effect at an unspecified location for unspecified reasons) or not.

But of course, you know all this. So your claim to be seeking a debunking is itself absurd on its face, and easily falsified. If you were seeking a debunking you would present claims to debunk.

That's what "entirely lacking in verisimilitude" means, and why it's important.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...


Thank you for this response. I have not, in fact, attributed any names to the individuals depicted. The reason is because I still have no idea who might have attacked us on 9/11. A significant failure of mine, but failures can be overcome and I intend to. I'm not giving up on 9/11 until the perpetrators are known, captured, and tried for their crimes. An oversight on my part might be an explanation of why I haven't named anyone. I'm satisfied provisionally by putting the people's identities in a black box and continuing with my research until more is known and the perpetrators can be identified.

My cartoon might be lacking in some aspects of versimilitude, and they are obviously amateurish. I don't know why you focus on the doorknobs, and I don't know for certain that you even understand the point I was trying to make with the cartoon.

I don't mind re-explaining myself, so I'll do it again. My opinion is that my cartoon is ground-breaking. I've never heard anyone describes the attacks of 9/11 in this way, in terms of the physical actions that human beings took on the day of 9/11.

Most would say that the perpetrators drove to the airport and boarded planes. I say those physical acts weren't the ones that did the deed. That the physical acts were simple, not obvious, and performed at a computer terminal or controller. Pressing buttons is the physical act that destroyed the WTC.

Yeah, it's a little black-boxy, but it describes how 9/11 was accomplished in a unique way. Nobody else in the field is talking about it from this perspective. Nobody else is saying the perps were inside an office somewhere.
 
WTC Dust said:
Thank you for this response. I have not, in fact, attributed any names to the individuals depicted. The reason is because I still have no idea who might have attacked us on 9/11. A significant failure of mine, but failures can be overcome and I intend to. I'm not giving up on 9/11 until the perpetrators are known, captured, and tried for their crimes. An oversight on my part might be an explanation of why I haven't named anyone. I'm satisfied provisionally by putting the people's identities in a black box and continuing with my research until more is known and the perpetrators can be identified.

My cartoon might be lacking in some aspects of versimilitude, and they are obviously amateurish. I don't know why you focus on the doorknobs, and I don't know for certain that you even understand the point I was trying to make with the cartoon.

I don't mind re-explaining myself, so I'll do it again. My opinion is that my cartoon is ground-breaking. I've never heard anyone describes the attacks of 9/11 in this way, in terms of the physical actions that human beings took on the day of 9/11.

Most would say that the perpetrators drove to the airport and boarded planes. I say those physical acts weren't the ones that did the deed. That the physical acts were simple, not obvious, and performed at a computer terminal or controller. Pressing buttons is the physical act that destroyed the WTC.

Yeah, it's a little black-boxy, but it describes how 9/11 was accomplished in a unique way. Nobody else in the field is talking about it from this perspective. Nobody else is saying the perps were inside an office somewhere.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you're resorting to cartoons, it's hard to take that seriously. It's not ground-breaking, it's ridiculous!

Nobody else is saying the perps were in an office?! Wow seriously get over yourself! Some claim it was all masterminded from WTC7, hence why it "had to come down!"

Since WTC7 was an office tower wouldn't you say that counts as you know... IN AN OFFICE?
 
WTC Dust said:
Thank you for this response. I have not, in fact, attributed any names to the individuals depicted. The reason is because I still have no idea who might have attacked us on 9/11. A significant failure of mine, but failures can be overcome and I intend to. I'm not giving up on 9/11 until the perpetrators are known, captured, and tried for their crimes. An oversight on my part might be an explanation of why I haven't named anyone. I'm satisfied provisionally by putting the people's identities in a black box and continuing with my research until more is known and the perpetrators can be identified.

My cartoon might be lacking in some aspects of versimilitude, and they are obviously amateurish. I don't know why you focus on the doorknobs, and I don't know for certain that you even understand the point I was trying to make with the cartoon.

I don't mind re-explaining myself, so I'll do it again. My opinion is that my cartoon is ground-breaking. I've never heard anyone describes the attacks of 9/11 in this way, in terms of the physical actions that human beings took on the day of 9/11.

Most would say that the perpetrators drove to the airport and boarded planes. I say those physical acts weren't the ones that did the deed. That the physical acts were simple, not obvious, and performed at a computer terminal or controller. Pressing buttons is the physical act that destroyed the WTC.

Yeah, it's a little black-boxy, but it describes how 9/11 was accomplished in a unique way. Nobody else in the field is talking about it from this perspective. Nobody else is saying the perps were inside an office somewhere.
Click to expand...


I'm surprised that you ask why I focused on details such as the shape of the door, when I already explained exactly why: because such details are the only information your cartoon conveys.

So, for instance, the cartoon starts with a door. Is the appearance of the door a meaningless detail, or not? If it is not, then I can ask exactly how you know that there was not a double door instead, or a pressure hatch, or a long corridor with no door at all. If you instead insist that that's just a meaningless detail, well then, we can ignore that part of the cartoon and move on.

But then, we can go on to do that for every single thing and person and action in every panel of the cartoon. How do you know that there were two computer operators and not three? How do you know their genders, or how they were dressed? How do you know that the killer used a gun, or that there was a killer instead of contact poison on the keyboards, or a suicide pact among the operators, or the operators are still alive today enjoying their vast hush money wealth? How do you know that the weapons controls weren't analog?

You can keep dismissing those questions as irrelevant, which can only mean that the parts of the cartoon the questions are about are irrelevant, until we have nothing left but some blank empty squares to discuss.

Or you can maintain that the facts are important but admit that you know none of them, which makes the entire cartoon a mere work of fiction.

That's why "lacking all verisimilitude" is a more completely damning criticism of the cartoon than you might have realized at first. Calling it untruthful would have been far more generous.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom