Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

I'm just addressing the amount of people required. When you focus on the office with the operators, you neglect to take into account that many other people told us what happened. Note that I am not talking about the accuracy or reliability of the reports, only about the fact that they exist and point to a plot in which 19 islamic terrorists were involved, therefore either they are correct and your pet hypothesis is wrong, or they are fake and there are many more people involved than you claim in covering up the real deal and inventing the plot.

Which is it? Are you wrong in your pet DEW hypothesis, or are you wrong in the amount of people involved?

If there's another possibility not contemplated in the reasoning above, please elaborate.

Please also respond to why "they" couldn't project an impact just as "they" projected a plane.

By the way, your expectations on the impact are wrong. Indeed if you held a tower like a bat and smashed into a plane with it at the same velocity, you'd obtain the same result we saw, because the plane has a lot of inertia due to its mass, causing it to not move much from its point, and the speed of the tower would pierce through it (think of a racket string breaking when hitting a ball, even if the rackets are much harder). And airplanes (especially airliners) are much stronger than their light envelope, otherwise the wings would break before taking off because they wouldn't be able to hold the weight of the plane! There's a strong skeleton behind that cover.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/boeing2.jpg

And don't forget the kinetic energy. If you throw an empty can against a glass, you will probably not even crack it. If you throw a full can, you will probably smash it, the material being the same.

I did read this, but it contained far too many errors for me to go over it with you.

 

[NoahFence]

Not at all. I'm saying that fragile things can't cause damage to stronger things without also damaging themselves.

No evidence of a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2? No plane crash.

There IS evidence. You're just too thick-headed to admit it. Why, we'll never know.

 

[swright777]

You keep saying that. It doesn't get any righter less wrong the more often you claim it. Stick to your strengths; pardon me if I want the opinion of real experts.

ftfy

Don't want Dusty to misinterpret this as saying she is a little right.

 

[Resume]

No evidence of a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2? No plane crash.

Except for all the evidence of a plane crash. And no evidence for a sooper-seekrit space beam thingee. Or a sooper-dooper hologram dohickey. Neither of those things.

 

[swright777]

Not at all. I'm saying that fragile things can't cause damage to stronger things without also damaging themselves.

NoMassive amounts of evidence of a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2? No There was a plane crash.

ftfy

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm saying that fragile things can't cause damage to stronger things without also damaging themselves.

And so are the rest of us. We all agree. The planes were reduced to shredded wreckage by the crashes.

Isn't it nice when we all agree?

No shortage of evidence of a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2? No shred of doubt at all it was a plane crash.

Fixed that for you.

 

[WTC Dust]

And so are the rest of us. We all agree. The planes were reduced to shredded wreckage by the crashes.

Isn't it nice when we all agree?



Fixed that for you.

Video and still images do not depict an impact between any large object and the south wall of WTC 2 at 9:03AM. You might say that the planes were shredded inside the building, once they pierced through the exterior steel beams, but you are wrong and not on topic. The impact was said to have taken place at the exterior of the building, and yet no clear evidence of this impact is found at the exterior of the building, despite the large number of videos capturing the event.

The dog that didn't bark is the airplane that didn't crash. Absence of evidence (when evidence is expected) is evidence of absence.

 

[WTC Dust]

If it's not evidence of a wake vortex what should that look like? Because it sure as hell looks like one to me, and I'm not the only one. You are the one saying it doesn't look like it, so you explain what we should see.

If you can be bothered to watch the impact videos you will see the vortex in motion, rotating. I don't see how it can be made any clearer to you.

ETA: The smoke, dust and debris allows this vortex to be seen, in the same way a tornado is not technically visible without moisture to create the condensation funnel.

According to the newly posted video of Richard D. Hall's work, there was a physical drone in the sky. Doesn't look like the wake from a recently crashed airplane to me, but it might have been a vortex caused by the drone.

I'm willing to be convinced, but I'm not yet, on that column of fumes. Do you have more to say on it?

 

[Dash80]

According to the newly posted video of Richard D. Hall's work, there was a physical drone in the sky. Doesn't look like the wake from a recently crashed airplane to me, but it might have been a vortex caused by the drone.

I'm willing to be convinced, but I'm not yet, on that column of fumes. Do you have more to say on it?

Yes, Mr. Hall's "work" is rudiculous.

The vortex is directly resulting from an aircraft in that location. How close would this drone be? If it was that damn close it would be seen, and a bit too close to the tower. Stop.being. silly.

 

[000063]

And by "clear evidence" you mean "sticking out of the building like a dart in a chalkboard", right? Because the giant flaming hole punched clear through the building seems to meat most people's standards of clear evidence, along with the videos, photos, and eyewitness accounts of the plane and impact. Oh, and the people in the South Tower who escaped from and above the impact zone. Tell them there wasn't any plane.

 

[Resume]

Absence of evidence (when evidence is expected) is evidence of absence.

And the evidence is indeed absent for your sooper-seekrit space beam thingee, and the sooper-dooper hologram dohickey.

 

[Dave Rogers]

According to the newly posted video of Richard D. Hall's work, there was a physical drone in the sky. Doesn't look like the wake from a recently crashed airplane to me, but it might have been a vortex caused by the drone.

To the suggestion, implicit in this post, that the poster is able to state with absolute certainty that she can distinguish between, on the one hand, the vortex created by the wake of a crashed airplane, and on the other, the vortex created by the wake of a crashed drone which is itself an aircraft, I can imagine no more fitting comment than:



Yes, that one rates the full five dogs.

Dave

 

[Dash80]

To the suggestion, implicit in this post, that the poster is able to state with absolute certainty that she can distinguish between, on the one hand, the vortex created by the wake of a crashed airplane, and on the other, the vortex created by the wake of a crashed drone which is itself an aircraft, I can imagine no more fitting comment than:



Yes, that one rates the full five dogs.

Dave

No Dave, it's worse than that.

She's saying the wake from a drone nobody saw at all anywhere, that close to the tower. As if this magic drone can somehow produce such a wake from... **** knows where

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You might say that the planes were shredded inside the building, once they pierced through the exterior steel beams

Why would I say that? You are still trying to imply that the 'planer' view is that the planes passed intact through the building's steel supports. That is a false and silly misrepresentation.

I would say the planes were shredded inside the building as they hit the steel supports, breaking through some of them.

The impact was said to have taken place at the exterior of the building, and yet no clear evidence of this impact is found at the exterior of the building, despite the large number of videos capturing the event.

Please describe what 'evidence' you expect to see.

 

[Craig4]

According to the newly posted video of Richard D. Hall's work, there was a physical drone in the sky. Doesn't look like the wake from a recently crashed airplane to me, but it might have been a vortex caused by the drone.

I'm willing to be convinced, but I'm not yet, on that column of fumes. Do you have more to say on it?

Now, caught in her error (not as if catching her was required) the goal posts move. Typical for your kind.

 

[alienentity]

It's not really worth arguing these points, and I still don't quite apprehend why WTC Dust is bothering to make these dead arguments. They're transparently idiotic and false.

But it does explain why she could entertain her collection of Judy Wood-inspired fanciful theories.

IMO these arguments are not much different in substance from the rest of 9/11 Truth's nonsense; rhetorically they are more sophisticated, they are argued by persons with greater skills than average truthers, but that's not substantive.
They are still stupid ideas put forward by relatively intelligent people. But they're still stupid (scientifically and logically speaking) ideas.

 

[Craig4]

Video and still images do not depict an impact between any large object and the south wall of WTC 2 at 9:03AM. You might say that the planes were shredded inside the building, once they pierced through the exterior steel beams, but you are wrong and not on topic. The impact was said to have taken place at the exterior of the building, and yet no clear evidence of this impact is found at the exterior of the building, despite the large number of videos capturing the event.

The dog that didn't bark is the airplane that didn't crash. Absence of evidence (when evidence is expected) is evidence of absence.

I assume you besides the planes impacting the buildings. All those videos are unambiguous in showing the plane impacts. I no some no planners don't think so but they're not a class of person to be taken seriously.

 

[alienentity]

I assume you besides the planes impacting the buildings. All those videos are unambiguous in showing the plane impacts. I no some no planners don't think so but they're not a class of person to be taken seriously.

Exactly. These are not serious arguments. They lack any serious scientific or factual basis, both of which are necessary.

It's definitely a strong case of 'Black Knight' syndrome. The arms and legs are missing, but it's still calling you a sissy and threatening to bite you.....

 

[DGM]

It's not clear evidence of a wake, yet, but I'm listening. Go on.

I would suggest reading post #14 in this thread. Actually read it this time.

 

[Dash80]

I would suggest reading post #14 in this thread. Actually read it this time.

Silly DGM!

Ms "I have a PhD!" Blevins doesn't need to read anything, she knows EVERYTHING!