Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[alienentity]

Continues? It's the cutting edge of Truther Mania. It's where all the best minds are at. It's where everything new and exciting and happening is going on. If you want to be a Truther, you gotta be a no-planer. Doctor Tracy Blevins just got the recipe wrong, but like I've said many times, up until recently on her Facebook, she's had many people encouraging her 'theories'.

I think it attracts all the ultra-contrarians: those who believe that all mainstream thinking is wrong, and that another, better and more wonderful reality lies awaiting them. It's like a religious calling, a revelation to them.

Both Blevins, Wood and even to a large extent Jones are caught up with the magical thinking of 'Zero-point', 'Free' energy, which has a lot of followers online.
Judy Wood is very consciously weaving her story into the whole 'Free energy' narrative. She states very plainly that this magic stuff first developed by Nikola Tesla has been 'weaponized', but since that's happened we ought to use it to save the world, instead of destroy it.. etc...

The more mysterious Wood gets the better it sounds to the magical-thinking free-energy types, IMO.
One example which I came across recently is Judy Woods particular interest in this burned out vehicle, which she declares should have had glass shards showing, not clean removal. Don't ask me what in hell she thinks DEW has to do (haha) with it, but it's some kind of mystery, right? So it fits into the great 'mystery' of 9/11 and DEW I guess...

Here's JW's 'toasted car', followed by a random burned car image I found. Guess what? They have the same characteristics.... no way!

In best JW voice 'Why is this car rusted?'

 

[BCR]

Can you tell us what the nature of these data are? What did you actually ask the government for?

What part of "don't care to debate it" don't you get? I was asked my thoughts, I gave them. I don't come to JREF to engage in mindless debates on such things. There are a number of threads I've already posted on the subject. Go find them if you really want to know. My purpose here is to tap the brain trust on data issues or to refute nonsense with data when appropriate. Beyond that, I see no point in it.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I think it attracts all the ultra-contrarians: those who believe that all mainstream thinking is wrong, and that another, better and more wonderful reality lies awaiting them. It's like a religious calling, a revelation to them.

Both Blevins, Wood and even to a large extent Jones are caught up with the magical thinking of 'Zero-point', 'Free' energy, which has a lot of followers online.
Judy Wood is very consciously weaving her story into the whole 'Free energy' narrative. She states very plainly that this magic stuff first developed by Nikola Tesla has been 'weaponized', but since that's happened we ought to use it to save the world, instead of destroy it.. etc...

The more mysterious Wood gets the better it sounds to the magical-thinking free-energy types, IMO.
One example which I came across recently is Judy Woods particular interest in this burned out vehicle, which she declares should have had glass shards showing, not clean removal. Don't ask me what in hell she thinks DEW has to do (haha) with it, but it's some kind of mystery, right? So it fits into the great 'mystery' of 9/11 and DEW I guess...

This makes sense. It was also very helpful to me in relation to another post of Brainsters where he talks about why some Truthers believe.

In some ways, I think 9-11 Truth is a way of short-circuiting the rational and moral arguments against war (particularly the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). There were somewhat reasonable arguments against the war in Afghanistan; I am not saying that I found them compelling personally, but I could respect the people who made them.

But 9-11 Truth circumvented the whole "we should turn the other cheek" and "pigeons coming home to roost" arguments. I don't know if Scott is old enough to remember the Vietnam War arguments but there were similar short-circuits claimed back then: that JFK was assassinated because he wouldn't go along with the military; that LBJ pursued the war because his wife had financial interests in South Vietnamese rubber plantations, etc.

These kinds of arguments are appealing precisely because they don't require a lot of sophistication. If LBJ wasn't really interested in stopping the spread of communism but in lining his pockets, then you don't have to deal with whether communism is good or bad, or whether we need to stop it. If 9-11 was an inside job, then you don't have to argue whether we need to get rid of the Taliban, or (in the case of Iraq), whether a Western-style democracy might serve as a model for the rest of the region.

As LSSB said, there is an intriguing nexus between religion, peace groups and 9-11 Truth, that I have struggled to understand. Certainly there are a disproportionate number of Truthers who are theology professors, including Griffin and McQueen, among others.

These are almost spin-offs of New Age spiritualism. There's the out-of-control hippies who went to school and the more mainstream guys who call themselves Christians but figure that everyone can be saved and we should all be friends.

 

[Robrob]

I think it attracts all the ultra-contrarians: those who believe that all mainstream thinking is wrong, and that another, better and more wonderful reality lies awaiting them. It's like a religious calling, a revelation to them.

Both Blevins, Wood and even to a large extent Jones are caught up with the magical thinking of 'Zero-point', 'Free' energy, which has a lot of followers online.
Judy Wood is very consciously weaving her story into the whole 'Free energy' narrative. She states very plainly that this magic stuff first developed by Nikola Tesla has been 'weaponized', but since that's happened we ought to use it to save the world, instead of destroy it.. etc...

The more mysterious Wood gets the better it sounds to the magical-thinking free-energy types, IMO.
One example which I came across recently is Judy Woods particular interest in this burned out vehicle, which she declares should have had glass shards showing, not clean removal. Don't ask me what in hell she thinks DEW has to do (haha) with it, but it's some kind of mystery, right? So it fits into the great 'mystery' of 9/11 and DEW I guess...

Here's JW's 'toasted car', followed by a random burned car image I found. Guess what? They have the same characteristics.... no way!

[qimg]http://image03.webshots.com/3/3/40/70/21934070XFlNSYUYrp_ph.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/burned-car.jpg[/qimg]
In best JW voice 'Why is this car rusted?'

It's typical truther (CT of all stripes really) argument from ignorance. "I don't know what something is or have any experience in the subject so therefore it must be a conspiracy because I don't know."

 

[alienentity]

ETA lost permission to view the image on that server. Here it is again. Judy, RU watching?
Here's your suspicious toasted car, with the suspicious missing glass, followed by a random burned out car with exactly the same characteristics.
Whoops, your argument just failed. Your argument from incredulity is destroyed by an answer to 'why did this happen?'.

But keep shilling yer book, we know you will.

Where'd the glass go? Why is it rusted? It wasn't fire!

 

[alienentity]

This makes sense. It was also very helpful to me in relation to another post of Brainsters where he talks about why some Truthers believe.



These are almost spin-offs of New Age spiritualism. There's the out-of-control hippies who went to school and the more mainstream guys who call themselves Christians but figure that everyone can be saved and we should all be friends.

Yes, many have pointed out the cult-like quasi-religious aspect of 9/11 Truth beliefs.

Magical thinking is a good term to describe the preference for exotic, heretofore unseen technologies and mysterious anomalies.

I sometimes call it 'CD of the Gaps'.

Truth Cult leaders like Judy Wood assiduously avoid bringing qualified experts in to consult and advise. For example instead of finding out from the City of New York and its contractors about towed cars, she speculates that they somehow were 'toasted' even across the city (which is nonsense, of course).
By pretending that the facts are somehow impossible to obtain she manufactures a mystery where there really is none.

And this mystery builds every time she embellishes the fantasy narrative. If she presents a burned-out vehicle, she declares that fire didn't cause it; if fire is seen, she denies that it is really fire, and instead must be something else.
Whether completely conscious or not, she carefully creates an upside-down world where nothing is as it seems, and only she holds the key to understanding it.

But in fairness I don't think her followers are any more gullible than people I know who go to church and believe that Christ died for them and will return; all because a person with enough authority reads it from a book and says it's so.

To me there's hardly any difference in the methods and outcome - a firm belief in things which are almost certainly untrue. (I'm pretty certain Christ isn't coming back for us, and I'm just as certain that DEW didn't destroy the WTC. I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think so).

 

[Sunstealer]

I had a toasted cheese sandwich yesterday. There were no signs of any glass.

Therefore I conclude my Breville is a DEW.

QED.

 

[Robrob]

ETA lost permission to view the image on that server. Here it is again. Judy, RU watching?
Here's your suspicious toasted car, with the suspicious missing glass, followed by a random burned out car with exactly the same characteristics.
Whoops, your argument just failed. Your argument from incredulity is destroyed by an answer to 'why did this happen?'.

Where'd the glass go? Why is it rusted? It wasn't fire!

I've run across this claim many times. I can't fathom what kind of sheltered life someone must have led not to know what a burned out car would look like. Heck, I must pass 2-3 vehicle fires a year just while commuting each year on the highway.

 

[alienentity]

I've run across this claim many times. I can't fathom what kind of sheltered life someone must have led not to know what a burned out car would look like. Heck, I must pass 2-3 vehicle fires a year just while commuting each year on the highway.

I'm actually surprised Judy Wood can get ANYBODY to sit thru one of her presentations or entertain most of her ideas. But apparently they do - it was an eye opener for me.

I suppose that if you're prepared to suspend disbelief, then anything is possible. I actually think Dr Wood is somewhat skillful at creating an atmosphere where everything is 180º from normal perception, but which seems somehow plausible... if you squint hard and don't think too much about it maybe.

 

[Robrob]

I like that quote:

000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I had a toasted cheese sandwich yesterday. There were no signs of any glass.

Therefore I conclude my Breville is a DEW.

QED.

So did you perform a controlled demolition of that sandwich? Or did you just eat it daintily?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Does anyone here have a link to a video or still image shot of the Twin Towers at 9:03 AM that clearly depict the wake of an airplane? Thanks ahead of time. I've been searching and can't find any images that show a wake.

There's always the compendium provided by ApolloGnomon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

At 2 minutes the "plane" suddenly appears from behind the dark building well into the long shot. The plane is not in the picture even though about 29% worth of the view should show the plane going behind the dark building.

Why wasn't the alleged plane visible before it reached the dark building?

I would like this to be my only post regarding "no planes" in this thread. I find the "no planes" theory to be the least intelligent theory of them all.

Other people are not "adding planes to the mix" when all the evidence points to the presence of planes in the event, and no (zero) evidence is explained by the absolute and specific absence of planes.

You, yourself, are "adding" something to the mix that is not there, some outside force other than gravity-driven kinetic action. Deleting or ignoring the planes is not a subtractive action on your part, but an additive one. You are adding "no planes" to the event in addition to your hypothetical outside force.

Regardless of your theory about the actual mechanisms in play during the collapse of the towers the airplane impact evidence must be accounted for. There are videos (try watching this compendium) of the second impact ranging from about 100' from the tower to about 5 miles away. These videos are exactly consistent in showing the airplane, the impact, the fireball and in the closer videos the ejecta which was later found downrange of the impact. In one video the WTC is seen to flex in the direction of impact after the initial contact, at a point in time consistent with the airframe impacting on the core columns and then oscillate noticeably for several minutes after. In all videos where the ejecta can be seen, a spiral smoke trail emerges from the corner of the tower at a time consistent with the travel time for an engine through the building. The engine was found at the intersection of Church and Murray, consistent with the fall time for an object traveling at around 400mph falling a hundred stories. (I've done the math before and posted it at DIF; I'd prefer not to do it all again as I find the effort not rewarded by sufficient return on investment)

 

[beachnut]

There's always the compendium provided by ApolloGnomon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

At 2 minutes the "plane" suddenly appears from behind the dark building well into the long shot. The plane is not in the picture even though about 29% worth of the view should show the plane going behind the dark building.

Why wasn't the alleged plane visible before it reached the dark building?

Because of the limitation of video and distance. Called science. The easy questions are so... easy. RADAR matches the video.

The planes are visible on RADAR, from takeoff to impact. The inability to understand video, lens, etc, are amusing as the evidence, proof of which aircraft it is, is found in RADAR data from multiple RADAR sites.

The no plane theory is the least intelligent one. Made up by idiots who can't do research, don't understand RADAR, and have no clue what reality is. Lucky we have reality and the insane rant of a few nuts who claim there were no aircraft on 911 is shown to be lie by evidence. And evidence and rational thinking are two of many things 911 truth cult followers never use.

Why can't 911 truth use RADAR? Are they incompetent or crazy?

 

[Clayton Moore]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04LCvk2KYfY

Proof positive begins at about 14 minutes in.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Aw please, not that **** again. Clayton, if that where the only video of the event in existence then you might have so much as a leg to stand on. But it isn't and you don't.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Because of the limitation of video and distance. Called science. The easy questions are so... easy. RADAR matches the video.

The planes are visible on RADAR, from takeoff to impact. The inability to understand video, lens, etc, are amusing as the evidence, proof of which aircraft it is, is found in RADAR data from multiple RADAR sites.

The no plane theory is the least intelligent one. Made up by idiots who can't do research, don't understand RADAR, and have no clue what reality is. Lucky we have reality and the insane rant of a few nuts who claim there were no aircraft on 911 is shown to be lie by evidence. And evidence and rational thinking are two of many things 911 truth cult followers never use.

Why can't 911 truth use RADAR? Are they incompetent or crazy?

yadda yadda yadda Why wasn't the plane in the video before it reached the dark building?

 

[The Platypus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04LCvk2KYfY

Proof positive begins at about 14 minutes in.

This is just another BS video made by some other conspirakook. Such videos aren't proof positive of anything except that you are easily fooled.

 

[dafydd]

What part of "don't care to debate it" don't you get? I was asked my thoughts, I gave them. I don't come to JREF to engage in mindless debates on such things. There are a number of threads I've already posted on the subject. Go find them if you really want to know. My purpose here is to tap the brain trust on data issues or to refute nonsense with data when appropriate. Beyond that, I see no point in it.

We are used to mindless debates with truthers.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

At 2 minutes the "plane" suddenly appears from behind the dark building well into the long shot. The plane is not in the picture even though about 29% worth of the view should show the plane going behind the dark building.

Why wasn't the alleged plane visible before it reached the dark building?

It's a very soft, low resolution video, and you can't see the plane clearly for much of its path. It's just a dark blur at first, but I can see it from the point where it emerges from behind the building on the far left. I wonder why you can't.

 

[aggle-rithm]

yadda yadda yadda

Careful! You don't want to overthink it!