Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[alienentity]

Not being a scientist, do you really think that you are a good judge of what is and isn't proper science? Talk about bafflegab.

I'm not a professional scientist. But I have studied the sciences quite extensively. I'm as qualified in these areas as you are, seeing as your PhD is not related in any way to energy weapons systems.

I also have extensive professional experience with electronics, computers, circuit design and construction so I probably have a significant edge over you in those areas.

Plus I'm not insane, so that's another advantage for me.

 

[cjnewson88]

Dusty is gonna have to go on ignore soon for my own sanity.

 

[phunk]

It's not confusion. Smoke, as it is commonly understood, results from combustion. I specifically use fumes because combustion wasn't going on. To call it smoke would be to imply combustion, and I'm doing the exact opposite. I am refuting combustion as the source of the fumes.

Remember, after 100 days of smelling it, I swore that nobody would ever convince me that it was an ordinary fire.

That's not a very scientific attitude.

 

[Bell]

That's not a very scientific attitude.

And I think that is how Penn & Teller opened their B******* episode about conspiracies.

 

[WTC Dust]

As long as you agree there wasn't an energy weapon in existence in 2001 that could have destroyed the towers, we're good too.

Why are you so certain about this? A genuine question.

 

[WTC Dust]

I'm not a professional scientist. But I have studied the sciences quite extensively. I'm as qualified in these areas as you are, seeing as your PhD is not related in any way to energy weapons systems.

I also have extensive professional experience with electronics, computers, circuit design and construction so I probably have a significant edge over you in those areas.

Plus I'm not insane, so that's another advantage for me.

Do you have any experience with basic science research? Have you ever answered a question that, before you came along, nobody else had ever answered before? Do you have any experience or training in forensics? Please elaborate if so.

 

[Bell]

Why are you so certain about this? A genuine question.

Do you have proof it did?

 

[WTC Dust]

That's not a very scientific attitude.

I knew I'd face many people who would claim that it was a normal fire.

 

[WTC Dust]

The B-25 bomber that hit the steel and masonary clad ESB penetrated, in fact aircraft debris (including an engine) shot right through the other side... Fancy that!

Glad you bring this up. The exterior of the plane was photographed sticking outside the ESB.

 

[WTC Dust]

Where did you dream up that straw man argument? Nobody believes the planes weren't destroyed. You can scarcely be unaware of that.

Would you like us to repeat listing fragile things which can smash through strong things while being destroyed in the process?

Let me start:
1) The soft copper core of an antitank shell punches through thick steel armour but it itself destroyed.

We have videos that depict the object at a time point AFTER it is said to have impacted the WTC, but before it disappears inside the building.

No evidence of a plane crash is found in the video evidence. No evidence of a plane is seen if you look at pictures of the holes, either. Finding plane parts a few blocks away or a few miles away doesn't change this.

 

[Legend]

i just wanted to say that whatever the towers did was dust and the bnaks are also done something.

thanks.

 

[alienentity]

Check out this picture of a dump truck. I don't see anyone actively adding things to the dump truck.

LMAO

Here is an example of extensive 'fuming' from energy weapons in 1935...

 

[WTC Dust]

But only if you neglect conservation of momentum.

Dave

Wrong. If you take conservation of momentum seriously, as I do, you cannot agree with the hijack conspiracy.

 

[Dash80]

LMAO
[qimg]http://stock-image.mediafocus.com/images/previews/large-truck-at-construction-site-dp1773132.jpg[/qimg]

Here is an example of extensive 'fuming' from energy weapons in 1935...

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Dust-storm-Texas-1935.png/800px-Dust-storm-Texas-1935.png[/qimg]

A DEW storm!



Seriously though, I think Dusty has had way too much exposure to "fumes"

 

[Spindrift]

Why are you so certain about this? A genuine question.

Physics.

 

[BaaBaa]

In the early years, I was working without the benefit of Dr. Wood's wisdom.

BAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Oh my, that's just...I mean...phew, I needed a laugh so thanks for that.

 

[alienentity]

Do you have any experience with basic science research? Have you ever answered a question that, before you came along, nobody else had ever answered before? Do you have any experience or training in forensics? Please elaborate if so.

Yes I do. And in fact I set up an experiment to test the interaction of ozone with fluorocarbons in a lab environment in about 1975. That was original research, perhaps not a question unanswered.

But that's not really the issue. The real issue is that you are not even attempting to be scientific when you point to a picture of a dump truck and declare that there is some kind of mysterious 'fuming'. That's infantile and you should stop doing it.

Apparently my critical thinking skills trump your Pharmacology PhD in dumptruck-dust analysis.

 

[Spindrift]

Apparently my critical thinking skills trump your Pharmacology PhD in dumptruck-dust photo analysis.

ftfy

 

[dafydd]

Do you have any experience with basic science research? .

Have you any experience?

 

[dafydd]

BAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Oh my, that's just...I mean...phew, I needed a laugh so thanks for that.

The very idea of Judy possessing wisdom.