• 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:
Not unexpected given the construction of the towers.



A simple misunderstanding of physics. I'm not even a physicist and I didn't expect to see anything "bounce backwards." Not to mention I was at P.U. that day in class and saw it hit.



Yes, fly planes at very high speeds, filled with fuel, into the buildings, let 'em burn for an hour un-fought.
Also, the towers weren't turned into dust... As seen by the countless photos of steel wreckage.

Why does your weapon selectively not "dustify" the steel in the towers? Why did it not "dustify" the people who survived in the debris?




Okay, but because you don't believe it does not mean it isn't true, especially when there is tons of evidence to support it. Don't expect me to believe a DEW did it when absolutely no evidence is presented.
Click to expand...

You are not the only person that I've talked to who says they
personally saw a plane in the sky that day.

Let me ask you a question: If it was a fake plane, as I'm saying it was,
do you think you'd be able to tell the difference from P.U.?

Personally, I've never seen a fake plane in the sky, and I wasn't home
on 9/11, so I can't give my opinion on the ease in distinguishing a fake
plane from a real plane. Oh, you didn't know objects could be faked
in the daytime sky? Neither did I, before I examined (almost by force)
the hijack theory.

I was focused on the WTC debris, which has none of the characteristics
of the rubble from a plane crash or an office fire.
 
CastorTroyy said:
Not unexpected given the construction of the towers.



A simple misunderstanding of physics. I'm not even a physicist and I didn't expect to see anything "bounce backwards." Not to mention I was at P.U. that day in class and saw it hit.



Yes, fly planes at very high speeds, filled with fuel, into the buildings, let 'em burn for an hour un-fought.
Also, the towers weren't turned into dust... As seen by the countless photos of steel wreckage.

Why does your weapon selectively not "dustify" the steel in the towers? Why did it not "dustify" the people who survived in the debris?




Okay, but because you don't believe it does not mean it isn't true, especially when there is tons of evidence to support it. Don't expect me to believe a DEW did it when absolutely no evidence is presented.
Click to expand...

Dustify is a stupid placeholder word for "foaming". If you ask me about
dustification, I'll tell you to ask someone else.
 
WTC Dust said:
Yeah, it does.
Click to expand...

As I recall, you stated that wake turbulence follows along and "catches up" with the aircraft that caused it, when said aircraft stops generating lift, correct? In other words, when United 175 crashed into the second tower, at a level lower than the first impact, the wake should have (for lack of a better term) "piled up" against the side of the building and disturbed the air, and thus the smoke and dust that was suspended above it. Before I go on, is that a reasonable summation of your point?
 
WTC Dust said:
Right on, bro! Are you with the "video fakery" camp, or are you with
the "fake plane" camp?
Click to expand...

Digital fakery is the only plausable explanation. Although I know there were some bad actors that were involved, giving interviews after the 'blast' and such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIaPwHeup44

^ woman who worked at near by hospital tell camera man that they were waiting for 9/11 victims but there was none. That might have some thing to do with the fact that there was no real victims, just simulations (vicsims)
 
WTC Dust said:
You are not the only person that I've talked to who says they
personally saw a plane in the sky that day.

Let me ask you a question: If it was a fake plane, as I'm saying it was,
do you think you'd be able to tell the difference from P.U.?
Click to expand...

Define "fake plane". Feel free to include as much detail as you are able.

Personally, I've never seen a fake plane in the sky, and I wasn't home
on 9/11, so I can't give my opinion on the ease in distinguishing a fake
plane from a real plane. Oh, you didn't know objects could be faked
in the daytime sky? Neither did I, before I examined (almost by force)
the hijack theory.
Click to expand...
You mean you never imagined such a thing was even possible but then suddenly found you needed it to be true in order to make your ridiculous version of events hang together.

In other words your proof that fake planes can be projected into the sky rests solely on your wish for it to be true.



Boy, do I know how that feels. I didn't believe in tiny toadstool houses until I heard about the Cottingley Fairies. Now that I've seen the photographic proof of the fairies, I know that tiny toadstool houses exist because, you know, where else would they live, right?

I'm not a toadstool expert, so if you ask me how such houses form I'm going to tell you to ask someone else, but the proof that they do exist is incontravertible.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
You are not the only person that I've talked to who says they
personally saw a plane in the sky that day.

Let me ask you a question: If it was a fake plane, as I'm saying it was,
do you think you'd be able to tell the difference from P.U.?

Personally, I've never seen a fake plane in the sky, and I wasn't home
on 9/11, so I can't give my opinion on the ease in distinguishing a fake
plane from a real plane. Oh, you didn't know objects could be faked
in the daytime sky? Neither did I, before I examined (almost by force)
the hijack theory.

I was focused on the WTC debris, which has none of the characteristics
of the rubble from a plane crash or an office fire.
Click to expand...


I will say you have quite the imagination. I'm trying to grasp how you make such leaps to justify your thoughts.

How would 'they' fake it? Since when do they have this technology to fake it?
How can you say for sure it was fake if as you say, you've never seen a fake plane?

Would you mind answering my questions about the lack of steel and survivors being dustified turned to foam?
 
WTC Dust said:
Dustify is a stupid placeholder word for "foaming". If you ask me about dustification, I'll tell you to ask someone else.
Click to expand...
?
The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.
Click to expand...

Turned to dust? Did the people turn to dust too? The ones who lived inside the stairwell? Looks like a made up a fantasy. A stupid one, with a stupid placeholder word for the dumber "foaming" nonsense.

The wake turbulence is silly too.

Have you figured out the weapon used yet to make steel turn to foam and let people live? Why was all the steel found and recycled? Did you lie about foam?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_York_(LPD-21)
A ship made with foam?

Got some math? How much steel was turned to foam?

Two steel processors bid for the steel from the trade center. Huge Neu Schnizter Steel and Metal Management each were awarded 25,000 tons of the first 50,000 tons of steel to come from Ground Zero. Metal Management also has won two more bids for steel. These two scrap processors have offloaded 20,000 tons of structural steel beams.

not foam - why is your research empty?
 
OneTime said:
Digital fakery is the only plausable explanation. Although I know there were some bad actors that were involved, giving interviews after the 'blast' and such.
Click to expand...

LOL @ "some bad actors". It's very hard not to just assume you're a Poe, but let's play along for a bit: It would be hard to think of an event with more direct eyewitnesses than the second plane impact. It was watched by people from miles around in one of the most populous places on earth. There are people on this forum who saw it with their own eyes. Claiming they have been digitally faked is just extraordinarily silly.

What precise "digital fakery" do you think was used on those live TV broadcasts? Please include as much technical information as you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIaPwHeup44

^ woman who worked at near by hospital tell camera man that they were waiting for 9/11 victims but there was none. That might have some thing to do with the fact that there was no real victims, just simulations (vicsims)
Click to expand...

Or, back on planet earth, simply because 9/11 produced 3,000 fatalities rather than traumatic injuries.
 
waht amazes me about this thread is the tuthers flight from reality as withnessed by the convalutions they come up with when presented with hard facts and real science, all they can respond with are kook youtube videos and bogus scientfic sounding stuff that is nothing but guff.
 
Loss Leader said:
Not all of it. There are two steel beams on display at the Liberty Science Center - one of them bent completely in half. You can go there and touch them. I did.
Click to expand...
You only think you did. 3D/tactile holographic projections. Obviously.
 
plague311 said:
It amazes me these threads make it as long as they do.
Click to expand...

That's because generally those who don't want to bother to evaluate and change their own opinion tend to fight tooth and nail to avoid that minimal effort.

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)
 
Loss Leader said:
Not all of it. There are two steel beams on display at the Liberty Science Center - one of them bent completely in half. You can go there and touch them. I did.
Click to expand...

A medical examiner takes a small sample of a cadaver's body tissue
to make certain determinations about the cause of death.

The few leftover beams are the equivalent of a tissue sample.
Whatever destroyed the WTC, it has to be capable of doing
that to large steel beams.
 
Bending them? I think half a million tons of collapsing building can manage that.
 
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