Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[CompusMentus]

Didn't you know, those are the exact signals energy weapons make.
They tie in great with the magnetic signatures

I can see where you're coming from :=]


Compus

 

[CompusMentus]

Compus,
Your query post # 1206 does not merit detailed reply because you mischaracterize Dr. Wood's claim.
Rephrase and I will likely reply.

In what way does my question "mischaracterize" Dr. Judy Woods' claim?

Are you implying that she hasn't used the terms "dustified" and "wafted to the heavens"?


Compus

 

[TJM]

<snip>The whole point of the forensic exercise done by Dr. Wood and placed into perspective and context in this thread is WHAT happened<snip>

And in order to do so, thousands of eyewitnesses are handwaved away. For starters.

Carry on.

 

[NoahFence]

Compus,

Your query post # 1206 does not merit detailed reply because you mischaracterize Dr. Wood's claim.

Rephrase and I will likely reply.

Let me see if I can help:

Judy Woods claims seismic data supports a bat guano crazy idea that the WTC complex was reduced to dust almost instantaneously.

Seismic data would not record that.

Please explain.

 

[Resume]

Grasp this: you have repeatedly brought up seismic evidence, and yet when I ask you to show how the comparison of the King Dome measurements to the WTC are valid, you called it a quibble. I asked you to show any evidence the DEW weapon exists, and you fail to provide it. There is no moral equivalence between you and I here. You are making accusations based on conjectures for which you refuse to establish validity, and I am questioning why you refuse to establish scientific and forensic validity for your accusations before you put them forth.

Show me a DEW weapon that can do the DEW you say it can do. Put up, or shut up.

Additionally Jammalamma, I'd like to see the hologram dohicky thingee that projected them there planes impacting the towers.

I'll wait.

 

[NoahFence]

A partial remedy to that sad state of affairs occurred when Dr. Wood determined the WHAT aspect, showing the Twin Towers were destroyed by a form of exotic weaponry in the form of DEW.

She also falsified the common storyline of 9/11 in so doing.

...and coincidentally on the same day, a plane crash at the Pentagon and another in Shanksville.


Strange day indeed.

 

[DGM]

Additionally Jammalamma, I'd like to see the hologram dohicky thingee that projected them there planes impacting the towers.

I'll wait.

So would every movie theater owner/company in the world. How cool would that be? I bet it could even bring back the drive-in.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Hey posters, might as well admit it and move on.

Take your own advice Jammy and realize you have nothing but wishful thinking.

As I've said before, on the issue of seismic analysis, Dr. Wood has falsified the common storyline.

In your dreams son. It's your choice..wake up sometime...

Game over; season over

 

[MIKILLINI]

The above quibble reminds me of the old tactic used to try to defend against speeding tickets.

Officer, where was your radar gun located when you claimed a speed of 80 in a 55?

When did you last calibrate the radar gun?

What brand was it?

LSSBB, enough of the quibble, already. Dr. Wood has falsified the common storyline of 9/11.

Deal with it

One big difference Jammy: Radar guns are real and they do need calibration to insure accuracy.. Brand name isn't a big deal.

Deal with how misguided you are.

 

[MIKILLINI]

So would every movie theater owner/company in the world. How cool would that be? I bet it could even bring back the drive-in.

There are a few drive-ins around in the area where I am. Maybe I should look for an enormous holographic projection unit..

 

[Stellafane]

*I think Wood's agreement to the "space" reference during the Fetzer interview were a mistake by her; she was put on the spot by their mention and didn't have the presence of mind to talk around the question and avoid accidentally committing to any descriptions.

I agree. I've been taken to task in this thread for initially referring to the DEW as a space beam, since Dr. Wood apparently hasn't positively defined where the DEW might be located (or if she did, it was only once, or she wasn't given time to think about it, or...something). But such objections seem misplaced when one considers that space is by far the most logical place for such a device. After all, a ground-based DEW that fried cars at Ground Zero would have equally vaporized all matter between it and those cars. But where were all the reports of what could only be described as the strangest and most unprecedented explosion in the history of Earth, a long streak of unimaginable violence that not only annihilated everything in its path, but also immediately identified the location of the DEW itself?

No matter where you put the DEW it doesn't work. So instead, I guess it's best not to identify where the DEW could be, and leave it as some undefined "out there" that can never be precisely pinned down. Thus no matter how many places you prove the DEW cannot possibly be, Dr. Wood can claim "but I never said it was in any of those places," thereby rendering (in her mind anyway) the DEW unfalsifiable.

It's all nonsense of course. That's why I'm surprised someone in all seriousness hasn't proposed an idea I made in jest: The DEW exists in hyperspace. Sure it's ludicrous, but no more so than some of the other DEW-related ideas I've seen put forth without irony.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Okay, think the hologram thing out logically.

1.The R&D to create the holographic projectors needed to pull off the outdoor/daylight visuals of 9/11 - with sound would have cost billions. Yet it has not been used again.

2. Technology isn't developed in a vacuum, each major technological step was mirrored in multiple labs around the world at the same time. So someone else also has this holographic technology too...yet not a peep.

3. Think about how much money this technology would be worth in the entertainment industry. It would be a godsend. You could watch the Super Bowl in your local stadium via hologram. You could watch the Beatles play Shea Stadium. Movies would become an event again....and the porn industry would...well you get the idea.

4. 9/11 happened in front of hundreds of thousands of people in NYC. Nobody saw anything suspicious? No large generator trucks? Projectors on roof tops? None of those hundreds of thousands knew anything about lasers?

The hologram theory doesn't pass the basic conspiracy theory motive test element: Greed. They could have made hundreds of billions above board by now, and they'd be free to spend it. To use holographic planes in a mass murder and flush all of that money down the toilet makes zero sense.

So you have this huge money maker sitting in an warehouse somewhere that you can never use again because it made the crime of the century. Who signs onto a dumb idea like this?

Great post Axxman..Welcome to the forum! (Tracy will ignore this one)

 

[carlitos]

Maybe it's quantum.

 

[Stellafane]

Maybe it's quantum.

Isn't everything these days?

 

[WTC Dust]

Yeah, really. The WTC was a very, very strong steel cage. It might or might not have been 95% air, it was still a steel cage.

Drop a steel cage, and it doesn't turn into dust. I find it hard to believe that so many people accept the gravity collapse model.

AW


Thank you for your post.

Firstly, your post is yet another quibble. You have not sought to challenge the main issue; namely, that Dr. Wood's seismic analysis falsifiesthe common storyline of 9/11. Your first quoted statement confirms you are merely offering your interpretation, containing obvious unsupported assumptions about a tangent, not the real issue.

You start by saying:



Come on AW, you should be able to spot the woefully insufficient, assumption riddled claim you are wanting to make. Use of language like "massive concrete roof" is an incomplete unsupported claim. Domes are designed to have lightweight roofs. Some are supported by nothing more than air. Your use of the word "massive" serves no purpose other than that of misleading yourself, not others.

The same is true of the next element of statement "...roof of the Kingdome collided with NOTHING before it hit the earth..."

There is no analysis on your part of either distance or effect this would have on seismic readings. Further, you do not analyze that claim in conjunction with your later mention of "95 percent air."

Your inconsistency and your incompleteness of analysis does nothing whatever to counter any analytic proof, or rather disproof of common storyline contained in Ch. 6 of WDTTG?



Your above statement is quite a hodge-podge. Are you still, at this late date, a supporter of the discarded "pancake collapse" theory? If so, why have you clung to that one? In the first place, the visual data of the <10 second annihilation of the Twin Towers shows there was no pancaking. The towers were seen to do otherwise; that is, they were seen to disintegrate in midair and to leave next to nothing on the ground.

Science depends on observation, AW. Not on obfuscation.

There is one (partially) positive element of your post; namely: Your partial acknowledgment the subbasements were intact. In point of fact, as proven by Dr. Wood, the subbasements and the bathtub were by and large intact, not partially so. That factor is consistent with a dearth of material from two 500,000 ton buildings hitting the ground.

By the way, AW, it is misleading to say that the towers were "95 percent air" as you imply they were lightweight. Contrast that dodge with your attempt to make the Kingdom roof "massive" by comparison. That is not the proper way to post up meaningfully, let alone scientifically.

The Twin Towers, the tallest buildings in the world, when built, are the structures to which the word "massive" properly applies. That there are some who claim they were "95 percent air" tells us nothing at all about the towers; and, instead, only tells us that those who use phrases like that are seeking to make excuses for the falsification of the common storyline of collapse.


Blessings

 

[WTC Dust]

Jammy you like so many other truthers still fail to understand that just because because someone posts something on the internet does not mean its fact. Forgive me, but if you haven;t figured out how reputable academics go about validating their claims then it solely falls on you for remaining ignorant as such. Just because you think her data & analysis is good doesn't mean anyone else has to take it seriously.

If you come from the perspective of wanting to find out what destroyed the WTC, really, Dr. Wood is the best.

(Unless you believe the official hijack conspiracy theory, which I don't.)

 

[SUSpilot]

If you come from the perspective of wanting to find out what destroyed the WTC, really, Dr. Wood is the best.

(Unless you believe the official hijack conspiracy theory, which I don't.)

To paraphrase Mythbusters: There's your problem!

 

[WTC Dust]

Additionally Jammalamma, I'd like to see the hologram dohicky thingee that projected them there planes impacting the towers.

I'll wait.

Why are you asking him for this? Dr. Wood doesn't specifically support a projected image theory. If she does, it's a recent development.

 

[WTC Dust]

Tried to teach you about an aircraft's wake, and you won't learn. That's silly.

You and I agreed that some air is dragged along with the craft.

 

[WTC Dust]

Are you saying nobody can know anything without being in a degree program for the thing? Does not make sense.

So you make assumptions..because...well, because you think what you think; right or wrong. Got it.

How you going to know anything about aircraft wake patterns without some aerospace based training research?