Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[The Big Dog]

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:

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

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

Christ, you may have stumbled onto something. Not only has jamms proved that Ground zero was flat, he proved the Earth is flat! I see absolutely no evidence in that photo of the curvature of the Earth! Well done jamms!

/Every time jamms or Dr. Dust posts, a truther loses its wings.

 

[jammonius]

My goodness. Either read the book or check out her website. The data is there. So many of you claim expertise on Judy Wood, and yet none of you except Jammonius act like you even know what her work is!

Dear WTC Dust,

I'm aware there are name issues in this thread. I, for instance, see nothing wrong in calling you "Dusty" or, if you prefer, Dr.Dusty, but that is because there is a singer by that name that I admire; hence, the reference is a pleasant one for me.

As to the specific point you are making in the above quote, I think there are many here who understand full well the import and the content of Dr. Wood. I detect forms of denial and/or need to go along with the common storyline of 9/11 in order to provide protection from having to deal with the implications that knowledge would otherwise mandate. Perhaps they'll recognize that ignorance is not bliss??

All the best, "Dusty"

 

[phunk]

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

The author's preface says there are no claims about government conspiracy in her class, or in the book?

You have the book don't you? Care to quote the relevant passage for us?

 

[NoahFence]

Ground Zero was flat.

With all due respect,

WHAT?!?!

The **** you people invent to support your asinine theories get more bizarre by the day.

 

[Stellafane]

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.

Hi Jammonius. Do you have any opinion concerning Dr. Wood's DEW theory, which (as has been shown in this thread) she not only presents no evidence that such a device exists; she doesn't even offer any indication that it can exist? Dr. Wood's promotion of this theory indicates she seriously misunderstands weather and the planetary magnetic field (among other things, she says there's a connection where none exists), optics and astronomy (a spaced-based DEW capable of bringing down the WTC would be easily visible from the surface of the Earth), and physics (an Earth-based DEW, no matter where it were located, would leave abundant and extremely obvious physical proof of its existence as it zapped the WTC, since it would also vaporize all matter between it and the target).

In short, Dr. Wood's DEW theory is wildly contrary to all known facts and science, and calls into question her very competence in this area. Thus I'm curious as to whether or not those who support and/or defend Dr. Wood still believe that her views concerning the DEW have merit. Do you have any thoughts regarding this?

 

[Metullus]

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.

To be fair, I am reasonably certain that Ms Blevins is not your "average" five year old.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It is disrespectful [...]

Incorrect. Ms. is actually a title of respect. Your insistence to the contrary is further evidence of your detachment from reality.

You can argue that "Ms." isn't quite as respectful as "Dr.", but since your degree has no relation to the topic at hand, referring to you as "Dr." would be an appeal to false authority. I'm not interested in deceiving people. Why are you?

 

[Gamolon]

The reason I refuse to believe the official story is because I have a good understanding of how fire works and how hot things burn and because a very large fire did not destroy the WTC in the seventies.

Your initial premise is bogus.

Fire did not destroy the towers.

It was a combination of the plane impacts destroying/weakening parts of the structural support system and then fires further weakening it to where those specific areas of support failed.

 

[LSSBB]

Incorrect. Ms. is actually a title of respect. Your insistence to the contrary is further evidence of your detachment from reality.

You can argue that "Ms." isn't quite as respectful as "Dr.", but since your degree has no relation to the topic at hand, referring to you as "Dr." would be an appeal to false authority. I'm not interested in deceiving people. Why are you?

I find the whole concept of someone demanding respect on the Internet rather quaint.

 

[beachnut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N31eEXjNAUU&feature=related

OMG, all planes are fake, no wake.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrcznLbqf1s

No wake, must be fake. Oops, one rooster tail with transonic vapor... REAL??? lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=jysQP8wyyL8
One of the biggest wake makers in the world, no WAKE visible! I knew it was fake!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aulyFhS-eK8&feature=related
Landings with no wake, some wake is seen in smoke...


Who has seen the wind?

If you are searching for wake, can you be a Bigfoot believer too? Chemtrails?

 

[phiwum]

A simple explanation why this thread is literally irrelevant.

Folks here have explained why one should not expect to see a wake. Hence, in the case that we do not see a wake, we can infer nothing. (Note that Mackey has shown a picture involving a wake, but not the sort that WTC Dust expects to see.)

Suppose, now, on the contrary, that some photos actually show a wake (of the sort that Dusty expects, say). What can we infer? Again, nothing, since surely anyone who can fake an image of a plane crashing into a building can also fake a wake.

So, there really is no point at all here. Even if we could show Dusty a wake and she agreed that it was a wake, it would alter her theory none at all. And if we can't show her such a wake, it means nothing given that there is no reason to expect to see a (vortex) wake.

Pardon me if I get any terminology wrong. I know nothing about aeronautics.

 

[WTC Dust]

DEW's isn't my gig, so I'll just point you to the website and book "Where Did The Towers Go?" by Judy Wood.

You can't possibly be a good scientist. A good scientist provides evidence of their claims. Where are the DEW's? Where are they?

Why aren't they everywhere? Why can't the US threaten foreign nations with them instead of conventional ground wars where hundreds, maybe thousands die?

Do you even understand why it's important to know where the DEW was? I'm serious, do you know why saying "I'm not sure where it was" makes your entire argument utterly worthless?

 

[WTC Dust]

Nope. Just proves when a wake may may not be seen. *

Just because I don't see horse manure on a riding trail doesn't mean horses haven't been there.

*ETA: Or are you implying that Bowens wasn't in the back of a B-25 flying formation with the Citation and the picture was either photoshopped or some sort of three dimensional projection system was used?

Analogies are good. Here's a different one. If you saw a video of a car traveling 100 MPH that passed right by a girl with long hair not tied up or in braids, and her hair didn't fly around in the video, would you think that was strange?

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

When there's loads of particles in the air, yes. Particles, like the particles of stuff that was coming off WTC 1 at 9:03AM.

 

[NoahFence]

DEW's isn't my gig, so I'll just point you to the website and book "Where Did The Towers Go?" by Judy Wood.

You've shown no evidence of anything, and dismissed evidence of everything.

You know who else does that?

10 year olds.

 

[WTC Dust]

Your initial premise is bogus.

Fire did not destroy the towers.

It was a combination of the plane impacts destroying/weakening parts of the structural support system and then fires further weakening it to where those specific areas of support failed.

This explanation doesn't satisfy me.

 

[WTC Dust]

He put up a picture of a wake at 9:03AM? I missed that one. Can you repost so I know which picture you're talking about? I want to disprove myself if it is possible.

A simple explanation why this thread is literally irrelevant.

Folks here have explained why one should not expect to see a wake. Hence, in the case that we do not see a wake, we can infer nothing. (Note that Mackey has shown a picture involving a wake, but not the sort that WTC Dust expects to see.)

Suppose, now, on the contrary, that some photos actually show a wake (of the sort that Dusty expects, say). What can we infer? Again, nothing, since surely anyone who can fake an image of a plane crashing into a building can also fake a wake.

So, there really is no point at all here. Even if we could show Dusty a wake and she agreed that it was a wake, it would alter her theory none at all. And if we can't show her such a wake, it means nothing given that there is no reason to expect to see a (vortex) wake.

Pardon me if I get any terminology wrong. I know nothing about aeronautics.

 

[phunk]

Analogies are good. Here's a different one. If you saw a video of a car traveling 100 MPH that passed right by a girl with long hair not tied up or in braids, and her hair didn't fly around in the video, would you think that was strange?

Not if it never came within 400 feet of her.

 

[Gamolon]

Analogies are good. Here's a different one. If you saw a video of a car traveling 100 MPH that passed right by a girl with long hair not tied up or in braids, and her hair didn't fly around in the video, would you think that was strange?

But you are making an analogy that isn't correct.

In your above analogy, you are using two visible objects. One object is the car which creates the disturbance. The other shows the effect of the disturbance.

In the case of the towers, you have the plane that creates the disturbance, but what visible object was there to show the effects? The was no debris or smoke in the area as has been shown with photos.

You are asking for proof of something that couldn't be seen.

If I have a photo taken of me waving my arms around while standing in an office, can I then tell you that since the you can't see the air disturbance that my arms would surely be making, that I don't exist or the photo was faked?

 

[Gamolon]

This explanation doesn't satisfy me.

Based on what reasoning?