Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Resume]

Judy Wood rules.

She is indeed queen of the nutbars.

 

[dafydd]

Judy Wood rules. What I've added is the concept that foam isn't expected to make a very big THUD when it lands. It makes more of a PLOP.

Yes, she rules InsanityLand. I remember watching the collapse of the buildings and the aftermath. Plop is not the word that comes to mind. Carry on though, you are educating wavering lurkers about this particular truther fantasy and that is all to the good.

 

[dafydd]

She is indeed queen of the nutbars.

I've just been looking at some of her guff on the net and I am surprised that she is allowed out on her own. Hasn't she got a family who could take care of her and get her into therapy?

 

[MIKILLINI]

You'll have to ask your questions more precisely, because I don't know what you mean.

Go back and read post #1121 carefully, but start reading from the bottom.

 

[JohnG]

Read this article.
"According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

It contains proof that the concept was bantered about in 1990.

But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources.

Scientists spitballing ideas? What is that proof of? To take another example, I don't doubt that visual effects artists were thinking about the possibilities of CGI back in the sixties, but it doesn't follow that they were capable of creating Jurassic Park-level effects back in 1967.

And I notice that you perversely debunked your own argument by going out of your way to quote this...

But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources.

Wouldn't it have been simpler to just crash real planes into the buildings?

 

[swright777]

Aluminum doesn't burn at office fire temperatures. We aren't talking about aluminum in a certain composition inside an engine. You're suggesting that the WTC was suffering from an office fire.

You said aluminum doesn't burn. You didn't qualify that statement.

I could say plants don't grow. When someone called me on this obvious lie should I then be able to say "I meant plants don't grow on the moon"?

 

[phunk]

Exactly. Steel was made in olden times using a bellows, not an open air carbon fire. What are you saying about coal softening steel?

What's that you said about open air carbon based fire not weakening steel?

 

[swright777]

What's that you said about open air carbon based fire not weakening steel?

I think those rails were made of foam.

 

[swright777]

Greetings Stellafane,

[Snip lots of crazy stuff and book ads]

Does this mean we have to stop insulting Judy Wood since she is a JREF member now?

 

[phunk]

Something certainly came out of WTC 2 on the north side. What, specifically, convinces you that it was a jet engine?

The fact that it landed on the street in front of witnesses is pretty convincing.

 

[dafydd]

Does this mean we have to stop insulting Judy Wood since she is a JREF member now?

If she is, then I apologize for my earlier remarks and I withdraw them unreservedly. Dr. Woods is as sane as the next truther. Have mercy mods, I only just got back.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Electric currents are intrinsically magnetic.

And lead bullets are intrinsically toxic. That doesn't mean guns work by poisoning you. Tasers don't work by electromagnetism. You're just wrong. Get over it.

Anyway, this taser stuff is just an irrelevance. You brought it up when you were trying to imply that small directed energy weapons already exist and (we must infer) you mistakenly imagined that tasers emit some kind of electric shock beam. Well, they don't and a taser isn't a DEW.

Maybe you can think of a better example.

 

[WTC Dust]

You said aluminum doesn't burn. You didn't qualify that statement.

I could say plants don't grow. When someone called me on this obvious lie should I then be able to say "I meant plants don't grow on the moon"?

Please. We are discussing the events of 9/11, and the official hijack conspiracy theory.

 

[Mudcat]

The combustion of carbon is relevant to the official hijack conspiracy. Carbon only gets so hot when it burns, you see, and pretty much all you have to work with inside the WTC is carbon-based materials.

All hydrocarbons have the same maximum temperature of combustion, or similar. It's not to say that all carbon materials achieve that maximum temperature, but rather they can't get any hotter than the maximum temperature when burned.

Basic chemistry is important here. Those of you who support the official hijack conspiracy have to take a steel building, damage it somewhat, and then add in a hydrocarbon fire to get the devastating results that were seen.

It doesn't add up. Open air carbon fires just don't get that hot.

The use of steel goes back four thousand years. What do you think they worked it with, magic?

You fail at failing, please go back and educate yourself. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

[Mudcat]

Are you claiming this is not enough to weaken steel?

It's more than enough to anneal steel. Really, Dusty, learn a little bit about metal working why don't you?

 

[Oz1976]

After the last few pages, it's quite clear to me the people who have presented evidence of Steel melting and softening in open air charcoal fires must be on MISS DUSTY BLEVINS ignore list (as I'm quite sure I am from routinely presenting facts of the height of the pile). Enough is enough guys. She's not going to answer anything you ask. She's simply trolling now. Waste of time and energy.

 

[A W Smith]

Page 71 shows the S and P waves.

A P wave may be thought of as akin to the snapping of a rubber band, and an S wave more like wiggling a jump rope up and down.

Pages 87-90 coverf the significance of the lack of P and S waves associated with the annihilation of each of the Twin Towers, plus WTC7, to boot.

Lurkers are also invited to note Figure 64a on page 67. That information actually comes from the same Lamont-Doherty document posted up by Compus, as it turns out. Using Fig. 64a, lurkers can note the P-wave and S-wave pointed out and compare it with the smoothed surface wave of WTC1 (red).


Page 74 and 84 of the book show the Kingdome seismic signal. You can see the "snout" pattern leading up to the big signal. That shows the P-wave arrival ahead of the S wave arrival. Also, notice the high frequency compared to the WTC signals.

Page 69 is a good comparison of WTC1,2,and the January 2001 earthquake. You can see the earthquake has the "snout" and also has much higher frequency waves. They are all the same time scale.

So, we have comparisons of seismic signals of earthquake on the same bedrock as the WTC, and a controlled demolition above ground, on a silt foundation (not bedrock). In earlier posts here, we also have a 1983 explosion in Bayonne NJ for additional seismic referencing.

The sum total of that information confirms the 3 buildings that were seen to topple to the ground on 9/11, each in a matter of no more than 10 seconds, did not collapse. Instead, they were dustified and annihilated by exotic weaponry.

Stella, your claims of error did not have the proper context, let alone frame of reference to constitute legitimate critique of the claim of falsification. Perhaps you'd like to take some time to review WDTTG? and try again?

Meanwhile, the commonstoryline of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11 has been falsified.

That is serious.

Apples to oranges, The massive concrete roof of the Kingdome collided with NOTHING before it hit the earth,
of course you will get the profiles documented. The 110 floors of each tower collided with subsequent floors separated by approximately 12 feet as they collapsed. You may even say the collapse was arrested at the sub basement levels, as there are some areas that are almost intact. The Wood papers comparison of GPE is a red herring. Wood attempts to use seismology for a structure that's 95 percent air. It is the wrong tool.

 

[DGM]

After the last few pages, it's quite clear to me the people who have presented evidence of Steel melting and softening in open air charcoal fires must be on MISS DUSTY BLEVINS ignore list (as I'm quite sure I am from routinely presenting facts of the height of the pile). Enough is enough guys. She's not going to answer anything you ask. She's simply trolling now. Waste of time and energy.

This has been obvious since before you joined. No one is trying to change her mind. It's just fun watching her dig her hole.

 

[dafydd]

This has been obvious since before you joined. No one is trying to change her mind. It's just fun watching her dig her hole.

Quite right. I think that she enjoys amusing us.

 

[DGM]

Quite right. I think that she enjoys amusing us.

It's good to like what you do.