Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

If a boat slams up against a dock, some of the water splashes up against the dock. This is the order of magnitude we're talking about. It's visible!

Some. The question is how much.

A functioning airplane also radiates heat. And has a slight magnetic field. And offers a fairly large ionic imbalance. And even has a slight gravitational attraction.

The point is not that any of these things theoretically exist. It is if they are of a scale to be either a) significant, or b) observable.

You might have a degree but you sure as heck ain't an engineer. Because this is one of the basic things you have to do in the professional fields; to discriminate between first-order effects that you need to include in your calculations, and third-order effects that have no significant impact.

 

[WTC Dust]

Exactly right; I can't claim Judy Wood has made significant advances in the field of 9/11 research, but there's a reason for that. She hasn't made any significant advances in the field of 9/11 research.

You seem to think she's a genius, so what examples can you provide of Judy's research that proves to be empirical evidence?

Her super-abundant photographs of the crime scene.

 

[WTC Dust]

So, when you see the videos of 9:59AM and 10:26AM on 9/11, you don't see dust?

Hmmm. I got a twoofer solution for this:

Since there is something called heavy water, there is probably something called heavy dust, so why wouldnt it make the seismographs go nuts that day???

On a serious note; WTF does WTC Dust mean by dust??? Has she not seen any of the GZ pics where tons and tons and tons of mangled steel and concrete chunks and everything else not even close to foam or dust, was hauled away? The workers sure as hell didnt use vacuum cleaners to clean up GZ. So I wonder (except for the entertainment value) why does anyone with even half a brain bother to discuss this horribly idiotic theory with DUST? Just wondering;P

 

[grandmastershek]

So, when you see the videos of 9:59AM and 10:26AM on 9/11, you don't see dust?

Yes Dustie, and has been pointed out ad nauseum, the presence of dust doesn't mean the buildings turned to dust. See those of use who haven't cashed in our chips on sanity understand the presence of the steel from the WTC and the presence of dust at the WTC are not mutually exclusive. Both can exist at the same time and says nothing at all of the amount fo steel or concrete after the collapses.

Her super-abundant photographs of the crime scene.

You mean the ones where she provides no time reference? I bet you were unaware that there is a cover-up regarding the color of the sky. See the gubmint wants you to believe that the color of the sky is blue, but anyone who has done real research knows it is really not. Look at the "super-abundant photos"!

The fact is that we are not on Earth anymore. We were moved using super secret technology. All my photos prove we are on another planet where the sky is not blue.

 

[SUSpilot]

If a boat slams up against a dock, some of the water splashes up against the dock. This is the order of magnitude we're talking about. It's visible!

That's a result of the energy of the wave dissipating against the dock. The mass of water doesn't actually move. Go look up how waves in water work (that's a classic analogy used in basic physics books because it's a visible effect).

And, regarding your claim, no "they" didn't "forget" to include the wake of any of the aircraft in the photos. It's all been explained to you by people like me who know what they're talking about.

 

[Resume]

Her super-abundant photographs of the crime scene.

Lots of photos of the crime scene taken. Yep, there was a crime, or crimes; those of the AQ terror organization, not the ones rattling around in the upstairs of 9/11 conspiracy enthusiasts. Dr. Woods helped with advances all right, advances in our understanding just what delusions the human psyche will get up to in the wake of human tragedy.

ETA: Not to mention attention-whoring of the vilest sort.

 

[X]

You do know that an airplane is not a boat, right? And that air is a gas and does not behave in the same manner as water, which is a liquid?

Mr. Mackey showed you the wake (link), WTCDust. He explained why it looked the way it does (different than you expected), and why the pictures he showed could only have come from an aircraft. In light of your continued refusal to accept the evidence presented by an individual highly knowledgeable in the field, I am forced to conclude that the following statement:

Consider if only ONE of you were able to show clear evidence of a wake. Then, I'd have to throw out this part of the theory.

Is a LIE.

 

[twinstead]

They messed up. They produced an image of an aircraft, but they forgot the wake.

Interesting conspiracy theorist circuit breaker you have there. It appears you have the ability to hand wave away just about every bit of evidence that is contrary to your position.

It's less aggravating debating my 6 year old kid!

 

[TSR]

They messed up. They produced an image of an aircraft, but they forgot the wake.

And just how was this image produced?

How do you know that your samples were completely undisturbed for nearly a decade before you found them?

How did you get access to the equipment necessary to do your UV testing for DNA?

Why are radar tracks not "raw data", but photographs are?

 

[NoahFence]

If a boat slams up against a dock, some of the water splashes up against the dock. This is the order of magnitude we're talking about. It's visible!

Anything different between water and air? Anything at all?

 

[WTC Dust]

That's a result of the energy of the wave dissipating against the dock. The mass of water doesn't actually move. Go look up how waves in water work (that's a classic analogy used in basic physics books because it's a visible effect).

And, regarding your claim, no "they" didn't "forget" to include the wake of any of the aircraft in the photos. It's all been explained to you by people like me who know what they're talking about.

You can't say that none of the water moves in the forward direction. Some of it does. All you've "explained" is a circular argument. "There is this and that reason we didn't see a wake."

Fine. The conclusion of the thread is that I am correct. There is no clear evidence of a wake. I can move along now.

What did we see? I say we saw a projected image, and that technology exists today and in 2001, unknown to most of us, that can project an image into the daytime sky.

Here's a recent video of some projected image technology. Not what was used on 9/11, probably not, but it's still projected image technology. http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=71660

 

[DGM]

What did we see? I say we saw a projected image,

What is your clear evidence of this? Tell us again why you chose to dismiss the physical evidence?

 

[NoahFence]

Seek help.

Honestly.

 

[NoahFence]

Anything different between water and air? Anything at all?

You fancy yourself a scientist? Even going so far as to proclaim yourself "Dr" - and you can't answer that question?


What possible benefit is there to lying?

 

[TSR]

What did we see? I say we saw a projected image, and that technology exists today and in 2001, unknown to most of us, that can project an image into the daytime sky.

And you know about this sooper seekrit tech from 2001 ... how?

And while you're running from that, here are other questions to help you keep your speed up:

How do you know that your samples were completely undisturbed for nearly a decade before you found them?

How did you get access to the equipment necessary to do your UV testing for DNA?

Why are radar tracks not "raw data", but photographs are?

 

[phunk]

You can't say that none of the water moves in the forward direction. Some of it does. All you've "explained" is a circular argument. "There is this and that reason we didn't see a wake."

Fine. The conclusion of the thread is that I am correct. There is no clear evidence of a wake. I can move along now.

Of course there's no clear evidence of a wake, there shouldn't be any. The fact that there isn't tells us absolutely nothing new.

What did we see? I say we saw a projected image, and that technology exists today and in 2001, unknown to most of us, that can project an image into the daytime sky.

That technology does not exist, because it's physically impossible.

Here's a recent video of some projected image technology. Not what was used on 9/11, probably not, but it's still projected image technology. http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=71660

That's projected on the sand, it's not projected on air.

 

[WTC Dust]

What is your clear evidence of this? Tell us again why you chose to dismiss the physical evidence?

I don't dismiss the physical evidence at all. There are photographs of what look like possible plane parts in various places in downtown Manhattan. Unless these are altered images, then those pieces were in downtown Manhattan. Pieces of what look like plane parts doesn't match my theory.

I'm not throwing out these images of what look like plane parts. I'm just saying they do not match the video and still images of 9:03AM, and they certainly don't match my samples.

 

[WTC Dust]

You do know that an airplane is not a boat, right? And that air is a gas and does not behave in the same manner as water, which is a liquid?

Mr. Mackey showed you the wake (link), WTCDust. He explained why it looked the way it does (different than you expected), and why the pictures he showed could only have come from an aircraft. In light of your continued refusal to accept the evidence presented by an individual highly knowledgeable in the field, I am forced to conclude that the following statement:


Is a LIE.

I didn't see any images of a wake at 9:03AM. All I got was excuses and reasons there wasn't a wake. It's not the same thing. I didn't get what I was asking for!

 

[WTC Dust]

Of course there's no clear evidence of a wake, there shouldn't be any. The fact that there isn't tells us absolutely nothing new.

That technology does not exist, because it's physically impossible.


That's projected on the sand, it's not projected on air.

Let's say I was wrong, and there WAS clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM. You'd have been quite able to show it. You'd have put up evidence of it.

But you didn't. You weren't able to show this evidence. I still haven't heard you admit it, but I'll take it for what it is. Not clear evidence of a wake.

 

[WTC Dust]

Interesting conspiracy theorist circuit breaker you have there. It appears you have the ability to hand wave away just about every bit of evidence that is contrary to your position.

It's less aggravating debating my 6 year old kid!

I can't explain everything, and I'm not trying to.

What I'm doing in this thread is trying to disprove myself. Maybe there was clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM that I didn't see before. But, nope. Nobody could provide the evidence, so I have to walk away still saying there isn't clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM.

You could have changed my mind, but not by convincing me that the lack of a wake 9:03AM is legit. I call shenanigans. I'm not sure what it means. Right now, I think it was a projected image, but I'm willing to change my mind in the future if better evidence comes along.

Still has nothing to do with steel buildings becoming foam, which is the real story of 9/11.