Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Stellafane]

As if the "space-based" part of her fantasy was the only thing wrong with it...

Wrong? If anything, it's probably the single most sensible part of the whole charade (which should provide some indication of just how far into Fantasyland Dr. Wood has wandered).

 

[plague311]

I just don't understand how people can support a theory when 90% of their replies are forced to be, "that isn't credible to me", "There is no verification for that" (Nevermind the fact there has never been any verification to anything about a DEW), the list is endless.

I can only assume it gets old defending a theory that is SO off the wall that people laugh at you. Sometimes it just makes me pause, and thank my brain...you know, for being there for me.

 

[Stellafane]

I just don't understand how people can support a theory when 90% of their replies are forced to be, "that isn't credible to me", "There is no verification for that" (Nevermind the fact there has never been any verification to anything about a DEW), the list is endless.

I can only assume it gets old defending a theory that is SO off the wall that people laugh at you. Sometimes it just makes me pause, and thank my brain...you know, for being there for me.

Years ago, when I was still but a relative newbie to these forums, I took a crack at trying to explain this type of mindset. The best I could come up with was doink, doink, doink.

 

[twinstead]

This thread should probably be closed due to the question having been answered.

To sum up: Not a single person has posted clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM.

Last chance, people.

Your request is bogus. There can NEVER be clear evidence of a wake at 9:03 because a wake is NOT EXPECTED--per those who know more than you about the subject--regardless of your carefully-crafted debate tactic.

You might as well be demanding clear evidence of unicorns at 9:03.

 

[A W Smith]

This thread should probably be closed due to the question having been answered.

To sum up: Not a single person has posted clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM.

Last chance, people.

Let us put a spotlight on your profound ignorance

1. You ask for evidence of an invisible phenomena that you obviously do not understand
2. You incorrectly compare such a phenomena to a tide, which of course is a visible fluid
3. You ignore the fact that during an earthquake, Storm force winds are not created like tidal waves from the epicenter.
4. You ignore video showing an aircraft flying by a smoke tower which fails to "drag" along such smoke.
5. You deliberately misrepresent parasitic drag with air being dragged along the aircraft when you have been shown that it is not
6. You insist that the conversion of a solid to a "foam" on such a massive scale would not generate heat,
7. You have yet to show a connection from your "samples" to the structural steel in the towers. You simply assert through your ignorance such a connection.

All I see from you is attention seeking ignorance.

 

[Craig4]

I prefer to focus on the survivors.

No, that's not true.

 

[Craig4]

This thread should probably be closed due to the question having been answered.

To sum up: Not a single person has posted clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM.

Last chance, people.

It was flying, in the air. What more evidence could you need? It would have to produce a wake seeing as it was flying and under power.

 

[NoahFence]

High.

deleted because...well duh

 

[LSSBB]

Question for any experts: wouldn't the wake be visible in infrared, and were there any FLIR-type devices recording the planes?

 

[plague311]

It is a lot easier to say, "I won" when the requirements are so specific that they are impossible. Let's not mention the fact that there are multiple threads going right now where Dusty has been asked for anything supporting her "theories"(I am being very nice there). She then comes up with nothing and says the burder is on you. When the evidence is presented it's the typical twoofer "not good enough", "not was I was looking for", "that can't be validated" type of response.

What is the point? No matter what you say, no matter what pictures you produce she will handwaive it away and declare victory. It's the typical finger-in-ears "la la la" attitude she's displayed for ALL of the requests she has.

You could provide, in stunning detail, EXACTLY what she is requesting and it wouldn't be good enough. She's created her mental fantasy about what happened and ONLY accepts evidence that furthers that story. This is just another childish game, I am sure there is a psychiatric name for it.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You know, the OP was answered back in April in post #14. I'm at a loss as to how that's not exactly what the OP requested. The thread really should've ended there. Evidence provided, next claim up.

 

[SUSpilot]

Why are you mentioning such specific weather information?

Because, Doc, if the temperature/dew point spread were close together, say within one or two degrees Celsius, the wake turbulence behind a heavy aircraft will likely condense the water vapor in the air. My point is that I'd like to see, from you, an unaltered photograph of a transport category aircraft showing visible evidence of a wake with a temperature/dew point spread of 10 degrees or greater. Even the heaviest glider ever built, a/k/a the Space Shuttle, one with a very high wing loading, doesn't show a visible disturbance in its wake below subsonic speeds when the air is reasonably dry, even at high angles of attack.

The fact that you want to close this thread tells me that you're basically cornered here.

 

[MIKILLINI]

delete

 

[SUSpilot]

In other words, don't let this person waste your life too. Let her sink to the bottom by herself.

That is why I am not replying to her neurotic baiting tactics anymore. It's just not worth the time, PhD or not.

Cave Troll, PhD...

This occupies maybe 10 minutes of my life per day. If she finally admits that her premise is wrong, or if the mods step in and say "Enough!", then I'm happy. In the meantime, I enjoy closing the doors as I go along.

 

[George 152]

Wow. You say you're a pilot? First, can you show me evidence that any plane of that nature flew that fast that close to the ground? I don't think you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpWuFU5Qw0w

Now you can apologise to him...

 

[R.Mackey]

Question for any experts: wouldn't the wake be visible in infrared, and were there any FLIR-type devices recording the planes?

No on all counts.

The wake formation is inherently subsonic and virtually isenthalpic, and will not lead to much heating. Unless the aircraft just happened to be disturbing a fluid highly stratified with respect to temperature (e.g., riding a temperature inversion layer), there's no reason to expect the wake to vary in temperature. Any such variation would be dwarfed by the thermal contribution from the jet engines.

Secondly, there were no infrared cameras in action and pointed at those locations prior to impact. Nobody just turns one on and points it at the sky for no reason.

Thirdly, FLIR is not nearly sensitive enough to make calibrated readings of air temperature, as air is virtually transparent at its operating wavelengths, and air has an extremely low density and albedo. It would take a vastly more sensitive recorder, and you would need a way to compensate for the temperature signal from air between you and the aircraft, and from the background. This is not the correct approach to sense the wake.

The correct approach, if you were an experimenter studying the wake, would be to instrument the aircraft and the air with visible particles that follow the streaklines. For instance, smoke and "telltales" stuck on the wings in a grid pattern, or reflective particles in the air after ICV or DPIV. You'll note the actual photographs of wakes that we have use "particles," i.e., suspended water droplets or dust, provided by weather phenomena or debris thrown off at impact.

Technical questions like the above are fine, but for the rest, please leave the trolls alone. This subject is significantly more technical than any questioning Truther thus far can even comprehend, let alone dispute. You are trying to teach Shakespeare to someone who hasn't mastered the alphabet.

 

[MIKILLINI]

This thread should probably be closed due to the question having been answered.

To sum up: Not a single person has posted clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM.

Last chance, people.

Post #14, Check it out. But, to sum things up: Your ignorance is very visible.

 

[LSSBB]

No on all counts.

The wake formation is inherently subsonic and virtually isenthalpic, and will not lead to much heating. Unless the aircraft just happened to be disturbing a fluid highly stratified with respect to temperature (e.g., riding a temperature inversion layer), there's no reason to expect the wake to vary in temperature. Any such variation would be dwarfed by the thermal contribution from the jet engines.

Secondly, there were no infrared cameras in action and pointed at those locations prior to impact. Nobody just turns one on and points it at the sky for no reason.

Thirdly, FLIR is not nearly sensitive enough to make calibrated readings of air temperature, as air is virtually transparent at its operating wavelengths, and air has an extremely low density and albedo. It would take a vastly more sensitive recorder, and you would need a way to compensate for the temperature signal from air between you and the aircraft, and from the background. This is not the correct approach to sense the wake.

The correct approach, if you were an experimenter studying the wake, would be to instrument the aircraft and the air with visible particles that follow the streaklines. For instance, smoke and "telltales" stuck on the wings in a grid pattern, or reflective particles in the air after ICV or DPIV. You'll note the actual photographs of wakes that we have use "particles," i.e., suspended water droplets or dust, provided by weather phenomena or debris thrown off at impact.

Technical questions like the above are fine, but for the rest, please leave the trolls alone. This subject is significantly more technical than any questioning Truther thus far can even comprehend, let alone dispute. You are trying to teach Shakespeare to someone who hasn't mastered the alphabet.

Thanks so much Mr. Mackey.

 

[beachnut]

Wow. You say you're a pilot? First, can you show me evidence that any plane of that nature flew that fast that close to the ground? I don't think you can.

Oh? Why can't a plane go fast right next to the ground? Show your math, show the equations, etc.

There is nothing keeping the 757/767 from going fast at sea level. 757/767 have engines which are not limited, they can propel the plane past all limits. I am a pilot, you are not. I have flown faster than Vmo at 500 feet, have you? No. Flight 175 was in a dive. The dive angle the plane was at did not require engines to exceed limits, as 175 hit at 590 mph. What is the terminal velocity of a 767/757? I have flown Boeing Jets since 1976, and there is no reason they can't go fast at sea level. The only people who deny they can go fast are idiots who can't do math, physics, and aerodynamics.

 

[Craig4]

Dusty, explain under what circumstances a plane in flight would not produce a wake. Now, why would you even be concerned with this. It's perfectly clear that the aircraft were in flight immediately prior to impact (this being evidenced by the fact that the impacts in the WTC were well above the first floor). What you're asking is no different than saying "show evidence that airflow produced lift. We don't need any evidence other than the aircraft were in flight to show they produced a wake.