phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Nor should there be, so what is the point of you continuing this thread?
-
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
- Thread starter WTC Dust
- Start date
Nor should there be, so what is the point of you continuing this thread?
Pithy and accurate.
TSR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,783
No, it doesn't, since it has been explained to you why a wake or vortexes would not be expected.
It *does* add to the excuses you can use to run away from evidence you don't like, such as the radar tracks...
NoahFence
Banned
except the giant hole
Doesn't mean a damn thing.
Good thing no steel foam was created then.
Last edited:
The author's preface has a clear statement that no claims that Bush or anyone else perpetrated the annihilation of the WTC complex on 9/11 are made. Thus, the author contradicts the anonymous student who posted on a website that doesn't require verification of student status or that the person so posting took a class taught by Dr. Wood or any other professor.
This is not intended to provide a way for you to say you believe an anonymous student or that you find such an entity more credible than Dr. Wood's written preface. As I've said many times, posters are free to believe whatever they choose to believe for as long as they can believe whatever it is they believe.
That includes you, Phunk
Regards
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
I can't even wrap my head around this thread. Your average five year old knows that air is invisible. The idea that you should see a wake left by an aircraft moving through the air is astonishing. Absolutely astonishing.
Hey jammonius. Have you read Judy's website? Have you read her list of 41 pieces of principle data that she thinks must be explained?
How about number 27 below.
She admits that she knows that 1400 motor vehicles were towed away yet thinks that the vehicles on FDR were toasted in place.
What a complete joke. What's even worse is that you defend her.
The above is sophistry, adding little or nothing to the quality of discussion of forensic evidence. Almost all toasted cars were ultimately towed. That is neither the issue nor the claim associated with the post to which this replies. Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed.
The issue was the claim that cars seen to have been toasted on FDR Drive were towed there. That is a debunker claim that has not been supported, other than by reference to one phony photo, crafted and constructed and/or posted for the first time in 2011, I think.
Before that phony photo, the best the debunkers could do was to make the assertion that Dr. Wood had not proven that the FDR Drive toasted cars were not towed there after having been toasted elsewhere, presumably closer to the WTC complex.
It is well understood that, generally speaking, for debunkers, any old claim is good enough and any source is suitable, so long as it may seem to support the common storyline. Case in point, some debunkers cite the NIST report and the 9/11 Commission Report for claims made about the destruction of the WTC complex, when, in fact, neither report sheds much of any light at all on what happened. The NIST report didn't investigate the actual phase of destruction. And, the 9/11 Commission Report simply copied out newspaper clips, for the most part. It certainly conducted nothing at all in the way of forensic examination.
The book WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? addressed the debunker burden of proof shifting tactic by providing independent evidence of explosions occurring on FDR Drive, thus supporting the claim the toasting happened there and not elsewhere, among other elements of proof set out in a full chapter on the subject.
Blessings
Last edited:
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 13,590
So you have no objections to Ms. Postert?
The title "Dr." is not regarded as part of your name in the United States. (Neither is Ms., of course. Both are titles.) It may be different in other parts of the world (Germany, say?), but do stop pretending that Dr. is part of your name.
Others here have a PhD, you know. No one else I know insists on using the title Dr. in this forum. At best, your insistence is remarkably distasteful.
NoahFence
Banned
off-topic.
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 13,590
What convinces you that the photo is a phony?
NoahFence
Banned
Missing the point can either be intentional or happenstance. I make no claims about the element of motivation. I do observe, however, that the point that is of substance here has been completely missed in the above post.
The point was that the claim Dr. Wood "should have been fired" for referencing 9/11 in class was the subject of my post.
See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8253303&postcount=479
The significance was described as an acknowledgment of the element of fear, repression and acquiescence in fascism. Most people in the USofA understand full well that they had better go along and get along with the official, common storyline of 9/11 out of fear of reprisal. That is what the Quad candidly admitted and that is what was responded to.
Blessings
The source of the photo and the lack of authentication. Not to mention the lack of curvature in the numbers on the trunk of the car.
NoahFence
Banned
You think a random picture of a random burned out car needs to be authenticated?
What if I told you I'm an expert on photograph analysis, and I personally authenticate it?
No. the reason you don't think it's authentic is so you can support the most loony of the loonies. No other reason. Don't even presume to insult our intelligence by suggesting otherwise. You people just aren't as clever as you think.
The above is yet another example of any source being sufficient for debunkers. It really adds next to nothing of substance to merely post a google search result without anything further.
AW, can you consider being a bit more specific as to what, if any, point YOU are trying to make; what, if anything, your google search has to do with the forensic determination made by Dr. Wood?
NoahFence
Banned
That sound you just heard was the point flying over your head.
Metal rusts. That's what it does.
Judy is trying to make some sort of fantastic argument based on the fact that metal rusts.
It's like finding it suspect that bread turns green after a while.
No **** sherlock.
How much substance do you think is necessary given the nonsensical nature of the no plane/dew/dustify/foamify fevered fantasies?
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed.
Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed.
Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed.
Great post, jamm. Lulz.
The above might be a clever ploy to re-raise the important topic of lack of debris, or the flatness of GZ. Ground Zero was flat. That is, in fact, one of the meanings of the title to the book WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?
One extremely enlightening way in which the book addresses the flat GZ issue is in the treatment of STAIRWELL B, found at pgs 181-84 of the book. Stairwell B was famously the location of some survivors. It was acknowledged at the time and in the movie detailing that episode, that rescuers had to "go up" in order to locate the firefighters trapped in Stairwell B. But, how high up did they go?
That issue is addressed in the book. In this one instance, I think I'm willing to spare posters the need to either buy or borrow from the library WDTTG? precisely because it supports the thread the Carlitos has recalled:
So, the issue of how high "up" was is clearly illustrated. Up was ground level, or, 1-2 stories at most.
Thank you for recalling that issue, Carlitos
