• 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

CastorTroyy said:
If you find it necessary to ask that question, you clearly didn't even read the post haha.

Would you care to answer a couple of the questions within my post, as well as why you believe you don't need line of sight?

Just to get an idea.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. Her magical dustification ray gun is purely imaginary so it doesn't have to obey any laws of physics or logic. She doesn't know how it works so it can do anything.
 
WTC Dust said:
Ridiculous. Also, there's no evidence of a wake of air slamming into
the side of WTC 2.

Like boats, planes have a wake. If there had been a plane, there
would also have been a wake. The dust cloud already coming
from WTC 1 was not disturbed as it would have been if
a plane had come flying to within a block of the building.
Click to expand...

Yet another long ago debunked claim of yours. Run out of new ideas?
 
WTC Dust said:
Ridiculous. Also, there's no evidence of a wake of air slamming into
the side of WTC 2.

Like boats, planes have a wake. If there had been a plane, there
would also have been a wake. The dust cloud already coming
from WTC 1 was not disturbed as it would have been if
a plane had come flying to within a block of the building.
Click to expand...
Oops, science steps in and makes your lie of no-plane a silly fantasy. RADAR. You don't do science you do woo.

The video matches the RADAR. It is sad a PhD has to lie to support a delusional dust/foam steel lie.

Did you tell the parents of those killed on the aircraft they are not dead? What did they say?
 
WTC Dust said:
But until then, the fact remains that none of the videos show this kind of evidence.
Click to expand...
WTC Dust said:
No plane debris bouncing backwards means no collision took place.
Click to expand...


See what you did there? You made the mistake of confusing your ability to observe the event with whether the event took place.

There is absolutely no video evidence of my Bar Mitzvah - none whatsoever. At the time, videographers were widely employed for B'Nai Mitzvot by families in my area. Yet, no such video exists.

That doesn't mean that a space weapon destroyed the congregation during services.

There are many, many things that happened that we have no video of. And there are plenty of other types of evidence besides video. Please work on your understanding of evidence.

ETA: This generously assumes that the effect you feel should have occurred actually did. It didn't because physics doesn't work like a Roadrunner cartoon. I let it go to make the larger point that your argument is illogical even if all of your premises are taken as true.


Yeah, I know the plural of Bar Mitzvah. Boo yah!
 
CastorTroyy said:
If you find it necessary to ask that question, you clearly didn't even read the post haha.

Would you care to answer a couple of the questions within my post, as well as why you believe you don't need line of sight?

Just to get an idea.
Click to expand...


She's said elsewhere that the magic weapon could be anywhere, under the ground or in outer space or in a galaxy far, far away.
 
WTC Dust said:
Ridiculous. Also, there's no evidence of a wake of air slamming into
the side of WTC 2.

Like boats, planes have a wake. If there had been a plane, there
would also have been a wake. The dust cloud already coming
from WTC 1 was not disturbed as it would have been if
a plane had come flying to within a block of the building.
Click to expand...

We've discussed this. Wake turbulence does not behave the way you've described.
 
WTC Dust said:
The bottom line is that there would be visible debris crashing
against the steel exterior columns of the WTC. You don't see this,
you don't have a collision.

Nothing else matters if you already proved there was no collision.
Or at least cannot support a collision theory with the available video
evidence. There might be a very high quality video out there that
has been missed. This video might show some plane debris
bouncing in the southerly direction.

But until then, the fact remains that none of the videos show this
kind of evidence.
Click to expand...

Why on Earth would you expect an aircraft traveling at speed weighing that much to not penetrate that building? Are you not familiar with how to calculate force?
 
WTC Dust said:
No plane debris bouncing backwards means no collision took place.
You cannot get around this.
Click to expand...

Have you done the numbers on this? I have, on other fora. As I've said to you in other threads, I'll not be repeating the math for you as you have not demonstrated sufficient return of effort for posts longer than about 140 characters. I expect to be disappointed by your response to this post as well.

That said, consider this:

A random 100 lb piece of "stuff" (such as a chunk of airplane) traveling at 450mph (660 feet per second) (rounding down from most estimates of flight 175) would need to decelerate to zero mph on contact with a target, and the impacted target would need to possess both the strength to resist the impact and the resilience to return some of the impact energy back to the object in the opposite direction. If you give that 100lb chunk of stuff the full length of the plane to decelerate, ~160', that would give a bit less than a quarter of a second for that object to decelerate.

As you claim to be educated to some level or another I'll leave it here for you to do the final calculations, to determine at how many Gs the impacting 100lb object would need to decelerate to come to a complete stop at the surface of the building. Then perhaps you might run the numbers for how much lateral loading the perimeter columns should be able to withstand.

TL;DR VERSION:

Your assertion does not reflect reality.
 
WTC Dust said:
This reply is full of ridiculousness.
It's full of "strong plane" and "weak building" misconceptions.
Click to expand...

If I posted a video of a ping pong ball being fired through a sheet of plywood, or a watermelon being fired through a Dodge van, (and leaving a perimeter hole) how would that affect your understanding of the forces of impact velocity on a target?
 
LSSBB said:
I just wanted to highlight the current state of the operating premise there, in absence of any details of the premise from WTC Dust, PhD. Please carry on.
Click to expand...

This is JREF. Why are you all discussing magic?
Don't you have any intellectual pride? Magic doesn't exist.
Advanced technology appears to be magic to the uninitiated.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Have you done the numbers on this? I have, on other fora. As I've said to you in other threads, I'll not be repeating the math for you as you have not demonstrated sufficient return of effort for posts longer than about 140 characters. I expect to be disappointed by your response to this post as well.

That said, consider this:

A random 100 lb piece of "stuff" (such as a chunk of airplane) traveling at 450mph (660 feet per second) (rounding down from most estimates of flight 175) would need to decelerate to zero mph on contact with a target, and the impacted target would need to possess both the strength to resist the impact and the resilience to return some of the impact energy back to the object in the opposite direction. If you give that 100lb chunk of stuff the full length of the plane to decelerate, ~160', that would give a bit less than a quarter of a second for that object to decelerate.

As you claim to be educated to some level or another I'll leave it here for you to do the final calculations, to determine at how many Gs the impacting 100lb object would need to decelerate to come to a complete stop at the surface of the building. Then perhaps you might run the numbers for how much lateral loading the perimeter columns should be able to withstand.

TL;DR VERSION:

Your assertion does not reflect reality.
Click to expand...



What numbers? I said "some debris". Some debris would qualify.
You don't need numbers to express a quantity.

"Can I have 11 butters?" makes no sense.
"Can I have some butter?" makes sense.

Amounts do not always have to have numbers associated with them.
Some amount of debris bouncing backwards is enough to disprove
my theory. Any amount bouncing backwards is enough.
 
WTC Dust said:
What numbers? I said "some debris". Some debris would qualify.
You don't need numbers to express a quantity.

"Can I have 11 butters?" makes no sense.
"Can I have some butter?" makes sense.

Amounts do not always have to have numbers associated with them.
Some amount of debris bouncing backwards is enough to disprove
my theory. Any amount bouncing backwards is enough.
Click to expand...
Your theory is disproved by RADAR, video, and more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

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