• 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

I think this is not true. Look here.

No, it doesn't. If you paid close attention to my timeline, you'd understand. I will specify.

Day 0 - 9/11
Day 2 - Tracy arrives home and smells the smell
Day 3 - Tracy views Ground Zero for the first time, or actually just really whatever was visible above a ten foot fence, which wasn't much.
Day 100 - Tracy still smells the smell and swore that nobody would ever convince her that the smell was an ordinary fire
Year 3.5 - Tracy hears about no planesYear 4.5 - Tracy finds out about Judy Wood
Year 5 - Tracy decides in favor of no planesYear 8 - Tracy dumps TV video fakery in favor of 3D projected image
Year 8 - Tracy collects her first dust sample and decides it was metallic foam

What should be obvious is that I was on the case for years before I heard a darn thing about no planes or even considered the idea. Same with Judy Wood. In the early years, I was working without the benefit of Dr. Wood's wisdom.

so she's proud of lying.

LOL
 
Why did the construction guys water down the dump trucks? Is this type of watering rig normal at all deconstruction sites? What was producing all the dust?

:facepalm:

60% use watering sprays in Australia, according to page 6.

I found this yesterday whilst looking for a picture of a dusty truck. Of course you should know all about this, were you a competent researcher. You are clearly not capable of due diligence at this point in your life.

I hope you find the motivation to move on from this superficial attention seeking and do something useful with your life.
 
It's a fairly natural way of saying one is suspending judgment, though it does lead to confusion sometimes.

In any case, the "error" is merely one of imprecise wording. There are surely many more reasons to criticize Woods than this.

A whole book of reasons... and the rest.
 
Damn kids. We haven't even scratched the surface of children's involvement in this conspiracy!

Who knows? Maybe it was just a kid who designed and built the thing? Who'd believe 3 kids blew the WTC with a homemade DEW? No wonder they got away with it. It might have been their science project gone wrong. I understand our Dr. Blevins used to be a school teacher. Maybe she knows more about this than she's letting on.
 
I am very confused right now. The only evidence we have of an impact here is a video of a plane on a track. I was under the impression that video evidence counts for nothing, as no-planers tell us. Dr. Judy Wood could have faked this video, for all I know.

Adding to my confusion, this does not look that much different from videos of UA 175. The plane appears to stay intact as it plows into the wall. Given that the wall is completely different and the plane is different, yet there is still substantial similarity, why should this undermine the reality that a plane hit WTC 2?
 
I am very confused right now. The only evidence we have of an impact here is a video of a plane on a track. I was under the impression that video evidence counts for nothing, as no-planers tell us. Dr. Judy Wood could have faked this video, for all I know.

Adding to my confusion, this does not look that much different from videos of UA 175. The plane appears to stay intact as it plows into the wall. Given that the wall is completely different and the plane is different, yet there is still substantial similarity, why should this undermine the reality that a plane hit WTC 2?

Because Dusty says so, she has a Ph.D and that entitles her to know this stuff.

:p
 
It's a fairly natural way of saying one is suspending judgment, though it does lead to confusion sometimes.

In any case, the "error" is merely one of imprecise wording. There are surely many more reasons to criticize Woods than this.

Truthers jump all over imprecise wording like a fat kid on a cupcake. The majority of the truth movement is focused on a few imprecise words that they blow up.

I see your point though, the fact she's nuttier than squirrel **** will work.
 
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.

If the government really had disinformation agents who went on internet forums to spread disinformation, don't you think at some point some ex-government disinformation agent would write a tell-all book about it?
 
Seriously, dusty...you simply do not possess the tool "set" to allow you to make determinations such as "what does a plane crash look like".

...and given your "history" as a credulous believer, why would anyone care what you think about plane crashes?

I'm being serious...people consider the "source"...you, and it completely destroys any "argument" you might have to make.
 
So the REAL Truthers don't buy the no planes ****, or the Judy Woods woo.

I imagine if they now throw out the controlled demolition people and the one who say the US did the attacks, they may actually become the "Truth" movement.
 
It means that she is suspending judgment on that point. There is nothing at all odd about that.

There are many propositions which I have no opinion on. I do not believe that the 10^80th digit of pi is 7. I also do not believe that it is not 7.

Unfortunately, in plain English, the phrase, "I do not believe X," often means "I believe X is false." Just another unfortunate ambiguity in natural language.

Na, she's just a nutcase.
 
This thread is for discussion re 9/11 No Plane and Energy Weapons and represents the merger of the following:

- Searching for Evidence of a Wake at 9:03am
- What does a plane crash look like?
- A No Plane Confession
- Disrespecting Judy Wood
- Nobody's Paying Attention to the Deutsche Bank

Please do not spawn/start similar themed threads re "no plane", Judy Wood, or energy weapons.
Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited:
I don't understand this. The energy weapons, they did this. So where are the energy weapons in your answer? Are you a scientist? If there are no energy weapons, then how did it happen? A plane doesn't do this, so it had to be the energy weapons. I do not know how they did it or where the energy weapons are, but it had to be the energy weapons. And they are very simple. A child could aim it and another child could fire it. But you would need to be an adult to design and build it. So that's three people, and only 1 of them is an adult.

Do you see anything wrong with my logic? And I am not on drugs. So stop saying I am.

I think children would not be able to pull this off, even 3 of them, and even if one executed the other two. I think it would have to be midgets, because they're more experienced and look more sinister anyway.
3 midgets is far more plausible, IMO, whether it's 'flipping a switch' in Judy Wood's version or 'Pushing a button' in her acolyte's copycat version.
 
Check out the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM

We should have seen a similar impact at the south face of WTC 2, had one occurred.

No evidence of impact? No impact. No impact? No plane.

From a property manager's perspective, this idea is worthy of consideration. This could be the ultimate in "green" building designs. Such a building would have very little power requirements - zero I'd imagine, no HVAC system, no domestic water intake, no waste output; The sky's the limit! Sure, my tenants may object to being encased in a block of reinforced concrete, but that's just a detail to iron out.

Thanks for the idea Dr. Blevins.
 
You got it all wrong. It was the Keebler Elves.

116964fbea9d0a3f02.jpg
 

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