Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[catsmate]

If you disrespect a scientist by using a derogatory name, <snippage of much nonsensical verbiage>

'Disrespect' is a noun, not a verb. Try and use the word correctly.

 

[jammonius]

A better authenticated photo of conditions reliably known to have existed at the 9:03+/- timeframe is the David Handschuh photo, together with his published acknowledgment that he did not see an aircraft (and no evidence of any aircraft is seen in the photo either).

Here is that photo:

The photo shows neither evidence of an aircraft of any size, nor a wake vortex associated with a presumed Boeing 767 at a speed of <542mph (the speed deduced by NIST,and only deduced, as no reliable data of that claim has ever been presented, see Ncstar 1-5A pg 195/392).

In seeking to address the question asked by the OP, it is appropriate to separate out what can be claimed by reference to fact, versus what is only the subject of an exercise in deduction, at best.

Perhaps the best sort of reflection here would be that of examination of each poster's confirmation bias.

I, for example, am a "no-planer" bread and buttered. In support of that positioning, I can confidently say, as a matter of fact, that there exists no NTSB report on any 9/11 aircraft claim, and the NIST Ncstar report provides no valid, reliable claim.

In fact, the NIST report purports to deal only with conditions occurring AFTER the alleged crashes and BEFORE the Twin Towers were annihilated. The preceding sentence is not a result of deduction. It is a fact.

 

[jammonius]

Rebuttal in a debunker's forum is an exercise in futility. Facts are better

If you have a rebuttal to Mackey's assertion that there is no other plausible source for the artifact documented in that image, bring it on. However, it's silly to complain that Mackey should only use evidence in the NIST reports to draw inferences that the reports themselves drew.

The rest of this doesn't require comment at this time.

The phraseology of Mackey's assertion does not mandate rebuttal. It is already qualified enough by its admission that it is nothing more than a claim based on the decidedly weak premise of "no other plausible source." That is rebuttal enough, as far as rebuttal goes.

This is not a forum where rebuttal of debunker claims matters for much. You can trust me on that assertion, as I have a rather extensive track record in documenting the strength of the no-plane claim.

 

[jammonius]

Actually, Makey's post was the kind of well-thought out response that you folks tend to ignore completely and are seemingly unable to produce to support your own positions.

Do you assert Mackey needs your "amen"? Do you think your buttressing of Mackey's deduction adds substance to it; or, are you seeking merely to be more, rather than less, convinced.

 

[Quad4_72]

A better authenticated photo of conditions reliably known to have existed at the 9:03+/- timeframe is the David Handschuh photo, together with his published acknowledgment that he did not see an aircraft (and no evidence of any aircraft is seen in the photo either).

Here is that photo:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/handschuh.jpg[/qimg]

The photo shows neither evidence of an aircraft of any size, nor a wake vortex associated with a presumed Boeing 767 at a speed of <542mph (the speed deduced by NIST,and only deduced, as no reliable data of that claim has ever been presented, see Ncstar 1-5A pg 195/392).

In seeking to address the question asked by the OP, it is appropriate to separate out what can be claimed by reference to fact, versus what is only the subject of an exercise in deduction, at best.

Perhaps the best sort of reflection here would be that of examination of each poster's confirmation bias.

I, for example, am a "no-planer" bread and buttered. In support of that positioning, I can confidently say, as a matter of fact, that there exists no NTSB report on any 9/11 aircraft claim, and the NIST Ncstar report provides no valid, reliable claim.

In fact, the NIST report purports to deal only with conditions occurring AFTER the alleged crashes and BEFORE the Twin Towers were annihilated. The preceding sentence is not a result of deduction. It is a fact.

 

[SUSpilot]

@jammonius: Under what conditions can an aircraft's wake/wingtip vortices be seen?

 

[BasqueArch]

A better authenticated photo of conditions reliably known to have existed at the 9:03+/- timeframe is the David Handschuh photo, together with his published acknowledgment that he did not see an aircraft (and no evidence of any aircraft is seen in the photo either).

Here is that photo:

The photo shows neither evidence of an aircraft of any size, nor a wake vortex associated with a presumed Boeing 767 at a speed of <542mph (the speed deduced by NIST,and only deduced, as no reliable data of that claim has ever been presented, see Ncstar 1-5A pg 195/392).

......

Interesting observation.
There's no evidence of any aircraft of any size seen in this photo of the Towers either.

Still "Administering medicine to the dead "
- twinstead/Paine

 

[Huttosaurus]

The photo shows neither evidence of an aircraft of any size, nor a wake vortex associated with a presumed Boeing 767 at a speed of <542mph (the speed deduced by NIST,and only deduced, as no reliable data of that claim has ever been presented, see Ncstar 1-5A pg 195/392).

Does it matter that when the location, angle, and timing of the photo are taken into account, one could not reasonably expect either the wake or the aircraft (other than as debris exiting the building) to be visible anyway?

 

[beachnut]

A ... that he did not see an aircraft (and no evidence of any aircraft is seen in the photo either).

Here is that photo:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/handschuh.jpg

The photo shows neither evidence of an aircraft of any size, nor a wake vortex associated with a presumed Boeing 767 at a speed of <542mph (the speed deduced by NIST,and only deduced, as no reliable data of that claim has ever been presented, see Ncstar 1-5A pg 195/392).

In seeking to address the question asked by the OP, it is appropriate to separate out what can be claimed by reference to fact, versus what is only the subject of an exercise in deduction, at best.

Perhaps the best sort of reflection here would be that of examination of each poster's confirmation bias.

I, for example, am a "no-planer" bread and buttered. In support of that positioning, I can confidently say, as a matter of fact, that there exists no NTSB report on any 9/11 aircraft claim, and the NIST Ncstar report provides no valid, reliable claim.

In fact, the NIST report purports to deal only with conditions occurring AFTER the alleged crashes and BEFORE the Twin Towers were annihilated. The preceding sentence is not a result of deduction. It is a fact.

The wake turbulence would descend and be below the smoke, it is invisible.

RADAR proves all no plane claims are delusions, based on ignorance. RADAR proves you are wrong. You don't do RADAR, you don't do evidence. The photos you posted are exactly what an aircraft would do, based on physics. You debunked yourself, and you don't know you debunked yourself.

No plane claims are insane claims.

 

[MarkLindeman]

The phraseology of Mackey's assertion does not mandate rebuttal. It is already qualified enough by its admission that it is nothing more than a claim based on the decidedly weak premise of "no other plausible source." That is rebuttal enough, as far as rebuttal goes.

And yet, instead of making that point -- right or wrong -- you made a different, quite silly point, which you don't attempt to defend. Good choice.

This is not a forum where rebuttal of debunker claims matters for much. You can trust me on that assertion, as I have a rather extensive track record in documenting the strength of the no-plane claim.

No sign of it here.

 

[dropzone]

A better authenticated photo of conditions reliably known to have existed at the 9:03+/- timeframe is the David Handschuh photo, together with his published acknowledgment that he did not see an aircraft (and no evidence of any aircraft is seen in the photo either).

...

The photo shows neither evidence of an aircraft of any size, nor a wake vortex associated with a presumed Boeing 767....

Um, I'm not technical like Mackey, but doesn't the wake trail the aircraft? And that photo is of the side the flaming fuel and bits of aircraft and murdered people came out of milliseconds before, not the side that had a 767, and its wake, collide with the building? And that you can't see the wake because there is not only WTC2 but other buildings blocking the view? And that makes any claim that the photo proves there wasn't an aircraft pretty stupid?

 

[Oz1976]

It's not a matter of belief. It's science. I can be proved wrong,
and I'm 100% willing to change my mind. Just not without proof.


If you haven't spent a hell of a lot of time reading Dr. Wood, then
you don't understand Dr. Wood. Simple enough.

You've been proven wrong by ACTUAL scientists time and time again over the ast 10 years and you STILL have NOT changed your mind. How, you might ask?

What Did and Did Not Cause the Collapse of the Towers in New York
Peer reviewed and published.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?
Peer reviewed, published professors from MIT

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of World Trade Center 1,2 and 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint
Peer reviewed, pubished.

Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis

World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects


That's just from the first page of a google search. You have a PhD? In what? From where? Mail order?

Disrespecting Judy Wood is necessary...why did she write a book instead of presenting her "evidence" to a scientific journal? Don't give me the standard nonsense that journals won't touch the 9/11 Issue, because as noted above...clearly they do, IF THE SCIENCE IS GOOD. Hers isn't. Yours isn't. And I've no fear at all of calling her ******* insane, cause she is. Directed Energy Weapons...yes...that's what took down the towers...now the mere fact that 10 years later with far more advances in "directed energy", such as lasers, the Navy can only take out some unmanned drones with it...a far cry from 2 110 story buildings.Navy Laser Takes out 4 Drones

You want serious discussions? Then come back to reality and stop with this nonsense.

 

[jhunter1163]

Just don't put on the Mod ass less chaps..... lord help us....

All chaps are assless. Otherwise they'd be leather pants.

[/derail]

 

[tfk]

You have plainly asked for visual evidence of wake vortex at WTC2 that should have affected the column of light to medium gray smoke emanting from WTC1 at all relevant times, at and prior to 9:03am.

[bold added]

??

"... all relevant times, at andprior to 9:03am"
(i.e., the moment of impact of UA175 into WTC2).

A wake vortex should have been affecting the smoke emanating from WTC1 at 9:00, when the UA175 was approximately (500 kts * 1.15 mi/kt * 3 minutes/60 min/hr) ~29 miles south of the towers??

Do you realize what the source of the vortex is??

 

[NoahFence]

The photo shows neither evidence of an aircraft of any size,

Seriously.

What? The friggin airplane is inside the building at that time.

YOU KNOW THIS.

Why not complain about the fact that you can't see the sun in that picture either? I guess there's no sun!

 

[Oz1976]

The phraseology of Mackey's assertion does not mandate rebuttal. It is already qualified enough by its admission that it is nothing more than a claim based on the decidedly weak premise of "no other plausible source." That is rebuttal enough, as far as rebuttal goes.

This is not a forum where rebuttal of debunker claims matters for much. You can trust me on that assertion, as I have a rather extensive track record in documenting the strength of the no-plane claim.

So, if you're a no planer what did these college girls see? They clearly say another plane.

30 different camera angles of the 2nd impact, all faked? Watch the whole thing and LISTEN to the witnesses words.

What did I see with my own eyes? What did 1000's of New Yorkers and others in the streets that day see with their own eyes?

No planers disgust me.

 

[fuelair]

The original argumentum latrinum:

http://www.drjudywood.com/wtc/#S




If you cannot ****, you must acquit. /Johnny Cochran

If you can't find brown, it di'n't fall down........

 

[LightinDarkness]

I think part of the reason so many people make fun of Judy Wood
is because they don't understand her. I know how much work it
takes to understand Dr. Wood, because it took me so many dedicated
hours of study before I started to understand her, and I earned my
PhD years before all this happened. I'm used to studying scientific
things, and Judy Wood was hard for me to understand.

I am curious, what is your PhD in and what university awarded it? Since you seem to think that such high levels of knowledge are required to "understand" Judy Wood.

 

[tfk]

You can trust me on that assertion, as I have a rather extensive track record in documenting the strength of the no-plane claim.

Let's see: you have "2408 posts", thus far.

Yes 0 for 2408 is a rather extensive track record.

Not one that would inspire trust, tho.

"...documenting the strength of the no-plane claim"?
You seem wholly unfamiliar with that concept.

 

[triforcharity]

All chaps are assless. Otherwise they'd be leather pants.

[/derail]

I see what you did there Mr. Hunter, very true.

I meant with no underwear or pants on, like I did at the NWO Halloween party last year....