Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How do you know the "No Planers" really aren't just a bunch of your own fellow Government Truthbots trying to discredit the opposing side through methods of "cognitive infiltration"?

Because we know the other conspiracy theories about 9/11 aren't true either.

 

[Dash80]

I love the recursive idea of a street sign that tells people to "Obey". It's the conspiracy theory equivalent of a billboard saying "Do not throw stones at this notice".

Dave

You should see some of the signs where I live...

In the park is a notice telling you not to steal the notices.

Outside a local pub "Smoking area. Please do not smoke"

I'm not kidding.

 

[minnemouse]

Because that is a retarded idea.

Well, at least the twoofers are consistent

 

[waypastvne]

Let's not forget the long departed Mr. Baker

He's not dead yet. He has a bunch of new videos. Same old crap, new packaging and lots of added special effects.




http://www.youtube.com/user/collinalexander?feature=results_main

 

[Brainster]

The board's truthers stand mutely by, as no planer thread after no planer thread destroys what ever credibility they once thought they had....

I have said for years that this is a false dichotomy. The idea that there are sane/responsible Truthers and that they are distinct from the No-Planers is wrong. All Truthers are nuts; the No-Planers are simply less skilled at hiding it.

 

[dc1971]

Really! I'm at a loss for words because I'm frighteningly confused.

 

[Dash80]

It's really, really difficult to understand how you come up with these observations. Where did those plane parts come from? A spaceship? A flying truck? A flying car? Perhaps a plane?

Actually there was an enormous but cloaked piñata hanging over the area, when the holograms reached the buildings a DEW created the holes. Evil gubmint stealth planes equipped with sticks bashed the piñata and the parts rained down like candy.

This should be obvious to anyone, because I say so.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I love the recursive idea of a street sign that tells people to "Obey". It's the conspiracy theory equivalent of a billboard saying "Do not throw stones at this notice".

Dave

You can find this sign in the Taipei Airport

I suspect an attitude like this would have robbed the US of its No-plane Truther experts.

 

[Dash80]

Really! I'm at a loss for words because I'm frighteningly confused.

You're not the only one.

 

[dafydd]

So much attention! Dusty is reveling in it.

 

[dafydd]

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/01/believe-it-zoe-the-cat-phd/

 

[Bell]

Quick, Tracy! Head to the ocean!

 

[Sunstealer]

Interesting point. What if the weapon didn't impart energy, but rather USED the energy contained within the material itself to do the damage?

See? The Casimir effect is not widely known, but it does govern the interactions between molecules in a "conducting, non-ionic solid" a.k.a. "a metal". It says that there is an attraction that works on a micrometer level that pulls the molecules of a metal together.

From a materials science point of view, this answers the question as to why metals are so much denser than other materials. The molecules of the metal are attracted to one another more than the molecules of non-metals are attracted to each other.
This attraction between molecules of a non-ionic, conducting solid is highly sensitive to changes in the electromagnetic field. You have already experienced one aspect of this phenomenon, knowing that metals conduct electricity better than non-metals. Has anyone ever asked the question as to why metals are denser than non-metals? Maybe, maybe not. The answer is self evident that "something" keeps the molecules of a metal together compared to the molecules of, say, a gas or a liquid or even a solid like graphite. Graphite isn't strongly held together, even though it is a solid. Does carbon conduct electricity efficiently? No. There you go. Carbon isn't one of those molecules that the Casimir effect is talking about. It doesn't conduct electricity. It's not that dense.

Add this to Judy Wood's detailing of the variations of the magnetosphere and other evidence of energy weapons, it makes sense. Something altered the electromagnetic field around the WTC, causing the molecules of steel to repel each other, and the molecules came apart at normal temperatures, resulting in different types of metallic foam.

Some of the foam was aerosolized, and it went up into the atmosphere or people breathed it. Some of it wasn't quite so finely disassociated, and came down in dusty clumps and filled the neighborhood nooks and crannies. I found one of these nooks and collected the dust. It was years later, but I found it!

You haven't got the first clue what you are talking about. This post proves you've never done any chemistry at all. Try looking at the periodic table and you'll see that Lithium and Beryllium are far lighter and less dense than most other materials. Metals have a wide range of densities and strengths. The highlighted part is total horse-plop. Why are you using the word molecule when you are talking about atomic bonding? You do realise that bond strength is not the only factor that affects a metal's density? Of course not.

Atomic bond strength in descending order

covalent > ionic > metallic > h-bonds > dipole-dipole > dispersion

Crystal structure (FCC, BCC, HCP etc), atomic radius, nuclear charge and the number of bonding orbitals have an effect. Most metals have d-orbitals which are relatively small. If you consider Lithium which has an s-orbital which is quite big relative to d-orbital you can see how the bonding orbitals have such an effect. Larger bonding orbital = larger electron cloud.

Oh and graphite is metallic bonded by the way and DOES conduct electricity. It's considered a semi-metal. Look up "Carbon Arc Lamp" you ignoramus.

Funny how diamond does not conduct, but graphite and graphene will, yet they are made of Carbon only. How does that work dusty? Magic? You haven't the first clue about atomic bonding or structure in materials. This is the stuff a 14 year old chemistry student will know. You don't know this and yet you claim a PhD that requires an advanced level/degree level in chemistry.

I love the way she uses micrometer scale when the actual scale for atomic bonding is orders of magnitude smaller. Typically measured in Angstroms (Å), 1 x 10 ^-10m.

Again it shows she has no understanding of the scales involved when anyone who has studied this basic science will know.

I don't respond to your nonsense however, on this occasion it's important to correct you so the reader learns something.

Why do you continue to spout crap when anyone can look up your absurd claims in 10 minutes and see you are full of it?

 

[Bell]

The most disgusting thing about the no-plane 9/11 denying terrorist apologists is the fact that most will not address the question as to what happened to the passengers.

And when they do, they claim they weren't there or were government agents.

Disgusting.

 

[twinstead]

In other words, you can't even begin to answer the question as to how you can differentiate between genuine Truther opposition and false, Government Truther disinformation agents?

Yep. That's what I thought.

In other words, how do we know YOU aren't a Government Truther Disinformation Agent?

 

[WTC Dust]

The most disgusting thing about the no-plane 9/11 denying terrorist apologists is the fact that most will not address the question as to what happened to the passengers.

And when they do, they claim they weren't there or were government agents.

Disgusting.

Disgust is an interesting emotion. It's a basic emotion that stems from the vomit response to tainted food. There are people who are prone to disgust, including vegans, intensely religious people, and the morally hypervigilant.

You apply disgust to the search for 9/11 truth, focusing on reported individuals inside planes. Any discussion of no planes elicits a disgust response from you.

I wonder why you keep dipping into the 9/11 cookie jar, if it makes you want to throw up. Ease up on yourself. If you don't like what you see, don't look.

 

[MIKILLINI]

So much attention! Dusty is reveling in it.

A rebel with a short span of attentiveness.

 

[WTC Dust]

Two passenger jets filled with fuel crashing into the skyscrapers is pretty abnormal in my book. In your world (shudders) who knows?

Even if you were right about the planes, the buildings withstood it. After that, all you have is an office fire.

 

[MIKILLINI]

In other words, you can't even begin to answer the question as to how you can differentiate between genuine Truther opposition and false, Government Truther disinformation agents?

Now you're just making stuff up.

 

[Dash80]

Disgust is an interesting emotion. It's a basic emotion that stems from the vomit response to tainted food. There are people who are prone to disgust, including vegans, intensely religious people, and the morally hypervigilant.

You apply disgust to the search for 9/11 truth, focusing on reported individuals inside planes. Any discussion of no planes elicits a disgust response from you.

I wonder why you keep dipping into the 9/11 cookie jar, if it makes you want to throw up. Ease up on yourself. If you don't like what you see, don't look.

No, disgust does not exclusively mean that.

verb (used with object)
1. to cause loathing or nausea in.
2. to offend the good taste, moral sense, etc., of; cause extreme dislike or revulsion in: Your vulgar remarks disgust me.
noun
1. a strong distaste; nausea; loathing.

Sums up how I feel about no-planers perfectly.

Buy a dictionary!