• 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

WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

Post 445 in the wake thread explains it. Unless one is quite thick.
 
R.Mackey said:
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?
Click to expand...

Thanks for that explanation in post #14. I learned something new, even if someone else didn't/won't/can't. :)
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...
You share your delusions about 911, you mock murdered people by making up fantasy.
 
Craig4 said:
You mean like all the pictures of the planes in flight. Unless you're suggesting there's some way an aircraft could travel through the air and not produce a wake.
Click to expand...

Supposedly it has been shown in one of the photographs posted. I don't see it in any of them, so I need it pointed out to me directly.
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes. Because no matter how much you get, it's never enough.
 
You managed to miss the footage of the planes smashing into the buildings on TV?
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that such evidence would also match your hypothesis?

It's basically the dragon in your garage.
 
Horatius said:
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.
Click to expand...

<Sarcasm on> But they do this in Star Trek all the time! <Sarcasm off>
 
Folks, let's not enable her. Requesting that someone do their work for them is passive-aggresive behavior at its most obvious. Honest inquiry and honest debate doesn't involve trying to make the opposite party jump through hoops of minutiae, and anyone on the internet is capable of clicking on a link and scrolling to read a post, especially when they're told the specific one to read.

Let her go back and read Ryan's post herself. Passive-aggressive delaying and obstructionism should not be rewarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

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