• 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

Do you realize you just admitted that you will believe anything you desire IRREGARDLESS OF EVIDENCE???

You really ARE as clueless as you appear to be...

Actually, you are wrong about this. My theory matches the evidence. I just don't have all the answers, and I never will. More data could debunk my theory. Like, say, evidence of an impact or a wake at 9:03AM.
 
So you're saying it would be difficult to do using known technology? I'm fine with that.

What I'm not fine with is ignoring the lack of an impact or evidence of a wake. You can't just keep with the real plane theory without accounting for the video evidence.

See, the problem isn't that any one idea you have for holograms "violates the laws of physics", it just that you have no idea exactly how difficult it would be to pull them off as you suggest they were.

For instance, here you've now introduced "peaks and troughs", and suggest that we could "subtract the light by beams that exactly cancel the natural peaks and troughs". What you're talking about here is destructive interference of light, which as you can see from that link, is a real phenomenon. It even has practical uses is devices that utilize thin film coatings to either increase or decrease reflections of light from surfaces, like in solar control films for windows, or optical coatings in telescope, microscopes and the like.

The problem is, designing an interference filter to reflect certain wavelengths of light, and to pass others, is a really complicated bit of math, and then implementing that design in a practical apparatus is a tricky bit of materials science and engineering. It requires precise control of all sorts of variables, so as to lay down exactly the right films of exactly the right thicknesses, in the right order. And even then, they're never perfect - there are issues such as, they have severe angular effects; a beam that passes through at an angle sees a different effective layer spacing than one that passes perpendicularly, and so the wavelengths affected are different.

And that's for solid state devices made in a lab or factory, on fairly small scales, with a great deal of control over the conditions.

And that's just for uniform coatings. If you want to produce an image, you add in the complexity of spatial control of the layers (to produce pixels in the image).

What you're proposing is to produce a much larger image, in a medium (air) over which you have very little, if any control, from a distance far exceeding (by orders of magnitude!) the distances used in factories, to produce an image indistinguishable from reality (at any angle of observation!). Every single step of that process you suggest is orders of magnitude harder than those used in known devices. Multiplied together, the difficulty becomes unimaginably harder than what is known to be possible.

For the NWO (or whoever) to be that far in advance of the science and technology used by optical manufacturers all over the world would require them to have a research team either far larger than the number of researchers employed by all other manufacturers, or composed of people who would make Einstein look like an idiot.

Do you want to know what the known state-of-the art optical interference images look like? Take a look at the security holograms they have on banks cards and the like. Now compare that image to reality, and ask how much more effort it would take to match reality.


And then animate it.



As I said above, it's not a question of "violating a law of physics" that makes this virtually impossible, it's simply requiring a level of control over the natural world that is simply astoundingly out of reach for humanity.
 
I'm not talking about traditionally understood energy, the energy that comes from breaking chemical bonds. I'm talking about the energy of the interaction of molecules in a solid.

Solids are solid for a reason, and that reason is that the molecules of a solid have an affinity for one another. They reside so closely next to each other in a solid because of this reason, and most very dense solid objects are made of metallic elements.

What governs the interaction of molecules of metals in a solid? Why are metals so dense? The Casimir effect. Look it up. It's the force that makes metals denser than non-metals.

The Casimir effect is very sensitive to changes in the electromagnetic field. An attractive force at one of the "peaks" becomes a repellent force at a "trough". Remember how Dr. Wood has shown alterations in the electromagnetic field in the northern hemisphere? Remember how Dr. Wood is suggesting that a weapon that uses electromagnetic energy is the mechanism that destroyed the WTC (even calling it the Tesla-Hutchison effect)?

Also, the destruction must have taken place at normal temperatures, because the survivors of the dust cloud were not burned.

What we are left with here is an electromagnetic process that vibrated apart the molecules that made up the WTC. The WTC didn't collapse. It was turned into dust while standing, and the dust fell to the ground.

I found all these iron fragments in my dust samples, but I also found DNA in some of the dust samples. It all fits with a low heat vibrational destruction.

By your logic I could claim that unicorns destroyed the WTC towers. Is the onus on you to prove that unicorns don't exist? Again, by your logic, you first have to prove me wrong about unicorns in order to prove yourself right. And, I've been talking to Sunstealer, and he's got a really great theory about space goblins destroying the WTC. You'd better disprove the idea of space goblins first.

Snell's law. Consider yourself debunked. Also, you managed to violate all of the laws of thermodynamics, half of the solvable ones in statistical mechanics, and at least two from aerodynamics.

False.

Extremely false. Not even wrong.

It's a a bad guess that shows you know nothing about basic optics, which, in turn, hurts your credibility. These silly concepts can be debunked by 2nd year physics and engineering students. Most of what you've gotten wrong is explained in sufficient detail on Wikipedia. Wolfram alpha can calculate indices of refraction for air and produce the appropriate angle of refraction.

This is not a fawning audience of first year art history majors. You're going to have to provide real explanations here. Real, by the way, means, "not debunkable by Wikipedia."


This statement is silly. I can't take a pound of animal dung to my electric company and claim that the power to heat my house is contained in the dung. You need energy to move energy. I cannot put a pot of room temperature water on the ground and expect the ground (which is at 20 C) to decrease its temperature so as to heat my water. Concepts such as these are covered in 1st year physics classes.

This entire line of reasoning is silly. Abandon it.
 
Last edited:
That's why I say a daytime hologram would have to subtract light, not add it.

How would they do that?

How could they project a beam of "darkness" through the clear Manhattan skies without leaving a trace?

Do you have any evidence of this happening?

Could we see this evidence please?
 
How would they do that?

How could they project a beam of "darkness" through the clear Manhattan skies without leaving a trace?

Do you have any evidence of this happening?

Could we see this evidence please?

I don't know how the technology might work. I do know that no evidence of an impact at the south face of WTC 2 exists.

My theory fits the available evidence much better than a real plane, because a real plane would have crashed into the south face of WTC 2, and videos would have depicted this impact. Faked videos have never been proved to me, and they would require the complicity of many dozens if not hundreds of people in the video production biz, all of whom allowed their videos to be altered. And you can't forget all the people who said they saw a plane!
 
Can you just repost one single image, please, so I can know what you're talking about?


I've highlighted the problem for you.

The image I posted was taken at 9:03:09 AM on the day in question, and shows unmistakable evidence of an aircraft wake. Indeed, as I explained, there is no other reasonable explanation for this phenomenon.

The reason you don't see it is because (a) you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and (b) you arbitrarily reject the commentary of knowledgeable people. I am an expert in fluid phenomena. You seem to know nothing about the subject whatsoever.

The responsible thing to do, seeing as you asked the question in the first place, would be to listen to the answers, and to try to corroborate them with others. As is typical for cranks, you have done none of this.

Since the problem is limited to you, why should anyone care what you think?
 
...
There isn't an impact at the south face of WTC 2 when the object appears to connect with the building.
...

Why do you keep posting this? What the hell does that mean?

If anyone can explain what she's trying to say I'd appreciate it.
 
Why do you keep posting this? What the hell does that mean?

If anyone can explain what she's trying to say I'd appreciate it.

Videos of 9:03AM do not depict an impact between any object and the south face of WTC 2. Things appear to explode out of the building, true, but that's not an impact!
 
In one very limited venue: the one inside your head.

You don't have any answers and never will.


This has been provided. That you don't understand is your problem.

I keep asking for this photograph that apparently shows evidence of a wake. Can you provide it? My theory is based in part on the lack of clear evidence of a wake. I'd have to rethink everything if I saw clear evidence of a wake.
 
"Look at me!"

All her posts say that.

This week I was featured in the New York Post and an invited guest on Neil Cavuto and Fox & Friends. Do you sincerely think I'm posting to a subforum on JREF because I'm seeking extra personal attention?

My ego isn't that large. I'm fine with the amount of attention I already get.
 
I keep asking for this photograph that apparently shows evidence of a wake. Can you provide it? My theory is based in part on the lack of clear evidence of a wake. I'd have to rethink everything if I saw clear evidence of a wake.

Asked and answered multiple times. You don't get it. You don't want to get it.
 
This week I was featured in the New York Post and an invited guest on Neil Cavuto and Fox & Friends. Do you sincerely think I'm posting to a subforum on JREF because I'm seeking extra personal attention?

Yes.
 
Holgram how laugahable we do not have the technoligcial ability to do anything like that on that scale imagine the pwoer it would need for the lasers and the multiple emitters needed, someone might have ntoiced all the lgihts going out all over NYC and people installing all the devices needed to project the holograms.

And it does not expalin all the REAL dead people.......
 
Asked and answered multiple times. You don't get it. You don't want to get it.

I never got it. Please repost it to the wake thread, and I will view it. Please do not repost it with other photographs, because I want to know exactly which photograph you're talking about.
 
Holgram how laugahable we do not have the technoligcial ability to do anything like that on that scale imagine the pwoer it would need for the lasers and the multiple emitters needed, someone might have ntoiced all the lgihts going out all over NYC and people installing all the devices needed to project the holograms.

And it does not expalin all the REAL dead people.......

You're right about something. My theory does not account for the people who were said to have died inside planes.
 
I'm waiting for the big face off between Tracy and Jammy. I think it would go something like this:


Not on-topic, but I really enjoyed that. Seriously, I get chills when I listen to that banjo playing. Been a long time since I saw this movie.

A strange moment around 2:10, when Suburb Man goes to the dominant, the V (5) chord, and our banjo friend pauses, as if he doesn't get it for a second. Not sure what that was about -- because banjo guy wouldn't have trouble with that in any scenario -- absolute pitch or autism or not.

If anyone can recommend any pure bluegrass -- heavy on that fast picking, light on the entertainment -- I'd be much obliged. Earl Scruggs?

Whoever was playing that banjo, damn.

I don't know much about bluegrass and related. If anyone has other suggestions for stuff that has the same kick as that, I'd like some moar. moar.

If anyone has suggestions for listening, maybe start a thread in the appropriate section.

eta: P.S. I also like those high nasal vocal harmonies you hear, sometimes -- that prairie ****.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom