Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Dash80]

OK. First, compare these two images and tell me what you see.

I see people dying horribly... You do know body parts were found? If this supa-dupa weapon can "foamify" steel why would ANY body part be found?

 

[Bell]

I see people dying horribly... You do know body parts were found? If this supa-dupa weapon can "foamify" steel why would ANY body part be found?

Because the dial was set to "steel"... duh...

 

[hurdygurdy]

It seems she has Bell on ignore:

I'd dump my hypothesis in a minute, if you'd just help me. I'd need to see evidence of an impact at the south face of WTC 2. Really, if I had that, I could dump the no plane theory.

You really couldn't find this by yourself?



(Just one of the many videos.)

What'll be your excuse now, Dusty?

 

[Craig4]

I see people dying horribly... You do know body parts were found? If this supa-dupa weapon can "foamify" steel why would ANY body part be found?

It's perhaps time to consider that Dusty's silly little ideas have nothing to do with evidence. My new working theory is that she wants to be one of the "go to" cranks for the history channel. I believe we can safely dismiss any idea that there's an honest search for the truth or any intellectual rigor applied to her ideas.

 

[pgimeno]

Here's my standard: If I can't verify something myself, outside of any reports, then it doesn't fit into my theory. Reports are words, and people get words wrong all the time.

So your justification for the reports is that they all got it wrong??????

The whole FBI investigation? The tracks of the terrorists taking training as the flight academies reported? The records of phone calls from the planes as provided by the phone companies? The passenger manifests provided by the airline companies? The radar tracks registered and recorded provided by the FAA? All of that was "wrong"??????

If it was not wrong, someone put it there. Your pet hypothesis neglects to consider the vast amount of people that would be necessary in order for it to be carried out. You pretend it's small because you neglect to consider the rest of the documented facts of the day. It isn't. If the documented facts are all faked or planted, then it's a huge conspiracy involving a lot of institutions and individuals. If they are wrong, it's by far the hugest collection of simultaneously wrong facts in the whole world.

I understand why you don't want to consider such things. If you considered them, your understanding on how many people would have been involved (drop the "wrong" argument, it's really silly) would totally invalidate your claim of a small number of people involved, therefore you must dismiss that thought in order to keep your delusion.

 

[JohnG]

Yes.

The problem is that you are operating from a false premise; that the 9/11 attacks didn't go down the way the government and media said they did. This, incidentally is a premise you claim to have arrived at (via some sort of intuition or common sense) whilst listening to the initial radio reports on the morning of the attacks. It's not enough to say the official story is false because the collapses "didn't look right", or the debris "didn't smell right" or that some of the low quality out of focus second generation video of some of the coverage of the attacks make the airplane look like an "orb", you must also explain why the perpetraors would conceive of such a absurdly complicated Rube GoldbergFinger-type scheme in the first place? Why didn't they decide to just "crash planes into the buildings"?

A theologian may try to grapple with what was going through God's mind when he let the 2004 tsunami happen, but said theologian must first demonstrate that God exists. Until he can do that, trying to explain the 200 thousand+ deaths as an act of God is nothing more than an interesting thought experiment. A much more useful activity would be to learn more about plate tectonics, so that increasingly better early warning systems can be developed to reduce the loss of life in future earthquakes and tsunamis. That, however requires science, not fanciful games of "what if?" played by credulous people obliviously out of their depth regarding the subject at hand.

In the same way, you decided on the morning of 9/11 that planes did not strike the towers, which forced you (and lots of other Truthers) to cobble together 31 flavors of alternate explanations that roughly squared with the observable facts while at the same time contradicting the official story as much as possible. This perverse reverse-engineering to make the facts fit your conclusions, where you were ideologically obliged to dismiss the official story on principle, has lead to some of the most ridiculous "theories" ever devised by the human mind.

 

[JohnG]

I've got a lot to say about 9/11 that you won't hear from anyone else. You want to silence me?

If it helps, I'm not trying to silence you. On the contrary, I'm hoping that your past/present/future posts in this forum are the very first things that turn up on a Google search of your name and remain so for the duration of your career.

 

[1337m4n]

Pop quiz for you, WTC Dust:

What is the layman's term for "iron oxide"?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Falling items can never cause bronze to curl up >360 degrees,

I must have missed that Law of Physics when I was in school.

Please elaborate--why not?

Is this law true regardless of the thickness of the bronze or the mass and velocity of the falling items?

 

[Hokulele]

If you look at the last picture linked, you can also see a giant divot in the top of the sphere, which is exactly the type of damage you would expect to see...



...if something extremely heavy fell on it.

 

[tsig]

Obviously the buttons sent signals to the advanced weaponry. Pressing any old buttons wouldn't have done the job.

So, push button,magic happens, buildings fall down?

You might want to get a bit more specific on that part in the middle.

 

[tsig]

Dammit I hate when that happens! I almost took out the Sears Tower trying to order a Chicago style deep-pan. What a butterfingers!

I did the Japanese tsunami trying to wipe a Twinkie crumb off the keyboard, boy was my face red.

 

[WTC Dust]

So...why didn't they just do that?

As I've told you many times, plane crashes can't do THAT to a steel framed building.

As simple as hijacking airplanes would have been, it wouldn't have resulted in the damage that was seen.

 

[JohnG]

That's not how it works. You have to start with the forensic evidence and work from there. My story is incomplete, but it starts with the forensic evidence and it doesn't discount any of it.

Your 9/11 story began with forensic evidence? Really? Who wrote this? Your evil twin?

I heard about it on the radio, and by the time I got to a TV, it was 7PM. When I saw the two events played out, one right after the other, I realized that I hadn't believed the radio announcer. When I saw the video of the buildings crumbling, I had a thought. "Wow. I didn't believe the radio announcer when he said the buildings were gone." I just thought I was mishearing things and something less global had actually happened than what I was perceiving from the radio.

My second thought was, "Well, he wasn't wrong about the WTC being gone, but something is wrong with this story. Ain't no way an airplane crash could do that. There's nothing in an airplane crash that could do that. It's an aluminum can filled with gasoline. Big deal. Throw that at the WTC, and it will catch fire, yeah, but THAT wouldn't happen to it." I lived near the WTC at the time and saw it regularly. I myself had peered directly up at the building and pondered the possibility of a plane crash before it happened. When I heard it on the radio, I didn't realize it at the time, but I was like, "Nah. That can't happen." Then my thought was, "It happened, but a plane didn't do it."

SHE BLINDED ME WITH....science???

 

[WTC Dust]

OK. First picture. The World Trade Center complex just after the South Tower collapsed, due to UA175 and it's crew and passengers crashing into it, resulting in huge fires that were unfought, weakening the steel columns and sagging the trust floors, pulling the weakened steel columns inwards.

The North Tower is still on fire due to AA11 and it's crew and passengers crashing into it and people are still dying in there. It would collapse half an hour later.

Second picture. Hard to tell by just the picture alone. Looks like a rock or stone or a piece of broken concrete. I have no idea where this is from.

You added a lot of things that were not visible in the first photograph. You have quite an imagination, there!

 

[tsig]

Yeah...we really need to talk to Kitty and get the technicians to move that button. You remember what happened when O'Malley tried to order a calzone?

[qimg]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/46946106/oklahoma-city-bombing-6.jpg[/qimg]

Boy...was his face red.

(hehe...I hope this gets made into a cartoon)

I hate it when people copy me before I post.

 

[Resume]

You added a lot of things that were not visible in the first photograph. You have quite an imagination, there!

More imaginative than a sooper-seekrit dustifier and sooper-dooper holograph machine thingee?

 

[332nd]

Yes, that is what the evidence shows.

So there's no way the bronze could've been bent in the collapse or clean up?

Eta:Also, since the the part of the base you are referring to can't be seen until after its been moved, how do you know it wasn't like that all along?

 

[Bell]

You added a lot of things that were not visible in the first photograph. You have quite an imagination, there!

Yes? You still didn't answer how you determined where the foam you found originated from.

 

[The Big Dog]

So there's no way the bronze could've been bent in the collapse or clean up?

Nope, because the part she is referring to was cast that way.

In other words, the allegedly "curled" piece was made that way in the 1960's.

In other words, Dusty is full of ****.