Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

She doesn't say it was from space, and she doesn't say it was powered by a hurricane. Her DETRACTORS say that about her.

Now, you should respect Judy Wood, right? You promised.

Well maybe when a scientist stops making claims about death rays from space powered by hurricanes I may be moved to respect them. There is a big difference between science and science fiction. Judy Woods seems to lack the finesse to distinguish between the two

 

[WTC Dust]

The data on Hurricane Erin presented in her book is solid and unassailable. Remember field effects, Dr. Wood's specialty? Hurricanes produce changes in field effects. You can continue to talk about weather fronts, but you'll be missing what she says is important about the hurricane. Back to the book! Have you read it?

WTC Dust:

Just to be fair. In Dr Judy's book she talks about how hurricane Erin suddenly steered away from NYC. She briefly mentions a cold front, she down plays this as no match for Erin. Why don't you impress us and show where a weather front has ever failed to steer a hurricane (the reason Erin was not even in the forecast)

Time to show us you're great research skills.

 

[WTC Dust]

Do you care about me as a victim? I had to breath those fumes on a daily and nightly basis for months.

What is this ****? "I care about the victims, too! I am one!" I'd tell you to go to hell, but I'm sure you think you're already there.

 

[WTC Dust]

Ah! Very interesting. So why are my WTC dust samples so full of iron fragments?

Sorry, but the use of Kzinti disintegrator weapons is also refuted by the fact that almost all of the steel was recovered "intact", ie., in macroscopic pieces (mangled girders and the like)*. This is the fundamental problem with the fantasy pushed by Wood (and her equally silly and mendacious fanboys and -girls) - its central premise (the steel was "turned to dust") flatly contradicts reality.


*Also refuted by the fact the human race hasn't been subjugated by 8-foot-tabbies for slave labor and snacks.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Asking about total energy consumption is a distraction. Maybe it doesn't require any energy. Maybe the process produces energy. !!! GET IT????

So many of you act like you're intellectually living in a very small box.

Yes. That box is commonly referred to as 'the laws of physics' more specifically, in this case, the law of thermodynamics.

Incidentally it is a quite large box, but there is no known way out of it.

Hans

 

[thedopefishlives]

She doesn't say it was from space, and she doesn't say it was powered by a hurricane. Her DETRACTORS say that about her.

Now, you should respect Judy Wood, right? You promised.

Fine, she didn't explicitly say it was from space and she didn't explicitly say it was powered by a hurricane. She's still batst crazy because the physical evidence completely excludes all possibility of this "dustification".

 

[WTC Dust]

Easily, perhaps, but not effectively blasted away. All you've got so far is Mackey, who insists (unlike Wood) that the weapon would have been located directly above Ground Zero.

How about a real debunking? Insults will disqualify your response.

I have nothing to add (what is there to add?) other than my personal observation that in the highly unlikely event that I'd choose to defend a prominent figure in the 9/11 Truther community, Dr. Woods is just about the last person I'd pick. Her ideas can be easily blasted away with trivial effort by anyone with so much as a 6th grade acquaintance with physics -- or reality for that matter.

I mean, really -- Judy Woods??

 

[WTC Dust]

No. I did not give Jones any samples, but I did get to examine some of his samples in 2011. They didn't contain thermite, remember? They contained iron oxide, remember? Just like my samples.

Iron oxide in this large amount needs explaining, only thermite doesn't do the job.

Wait, so is WTC Dust the person who gave the dust samples to Steven Jones for his ATM Bentham paper that he published in 2009?

 

[twinstead]

Easily, perhaps, but not effectively blasted away. All you've got so far is Mackey, who insists (unlike Wood) that the weapon would have been located directly above Ground Zero.

How about a real debunking? Insults will disqualify your response.

First, define what you mean by "real debunking". I found Mackey's critique pretty compelling.

 

[WTC Dust]

Judy Wood doesn't talk about foam. I do. Get it right.

How can anyone listen to Judy Woods and take anything she says seriously? DEW weapons, foam, etc.

 

[MRC_Hans]

She doesn't say it was from space, and she doesn't say it was powered by a hurricane. Her DETRACTORS say that about her.

http://www.coalitionoftheobvious.co...fessor-examines-hurricane-erin-on-9-11-01.pdf

Now, you should respect Judy Wood, right? You promised.

No.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Easily, perhaps, but not effectively blasted away. All you've got so far is Mackey, who insists (unlike Wood) that the weapon would have been located directly above Ground Zero.

Where else would you suggest it might be located?

I may be behind, but:

Isn't this whole discussion based on the claim that the buildings were mostly turned to dust?

If yes, isn't this rather contradicted by the huge amount of debris that had to be removed from the site?

Hans

 

[WTC Dust]

The video evidence and the eyewitness evidence is the best evidence we have of planes. You cannot deny that many people say they saw a plane overhead, and many of the videos and still images seem to corroborate this.

For years, I didn't question the planes because I was focusing on the buildings. The remains of the WTC buildings I could see and smell and collect. It was only after years of consideration that I came to the no planes conclusion, although you might say I was a no planer from the moment I heard about the attacks.

I was a no planer in the sense that no plane crash could do that to a steel building, and I suspect that Dr. Wood is a no planer in that sense, although she doesn't much talk about it. She focuses on the buildings.

Or atleast seen that 10's of 1000's of New Yorkers watched in horror as it happened, from ya know...the surrounding blocks. Or the Jersians across the river...the people that were right there in the thick of things...I guess we were all under some form of hallucinogenic....oh wait...that's Dusty's hobby though.

 

[WTC Dust]

If you, like me, were dedicated to discovering the truth about what destroyed the World Trade Center, then you would also respect Judy Wood. You are not like me. You never had the question in your mind. You saw a plane on TV. You saw the buildings go away. You didn't question a connection between those two events.

I did, and therefore I appreciate what Dr. Wood has done.

I have no idea what its like in your world Dust, but in MY world, respect is not something you just get for being able to ramble on about weird, impossible stuff. You EARN respect, and from what I`ve read from "Dr" Woods, she is no where close to earning any respect for what she has put out there. REAL scientist has shown that her theories of "dustifying" weapons are so out there, that it would only work in comic books. If she was a fiction author, I may have respected her for a fun, albeit completely crazy story, but as a "scientist" - no bloody way. Furthermore, Dust; You cant force people to respect her, it doesnt work that way, no matter how many post you make about her.

 

[WTC Dust]

You're stuck in the thermodynamics box when heat played almost no role in the destruction of the WTC.

I hope you can see this.

Yes. That box is commonly referred to as 'the laws of physics' more specifically, in this case, the law of thermodynamics.

Incidentally it is a quite large box, but there is no known way out of it.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The video evidence and the eyewitness evidence is the best evidence we have of planes. You cannot deny that many people say they saw a plane overhead, and many of the videos and still images seem to corroborate this.

The missing planes and passengers, and corresponding plane debris and passenger remains on the crash sites might also be considered pretty good evidence by some.

Hans

 

[WTC Dust]

Not really. There was a lot of dust produced. There was some parts of the building left over, and even those parts are interesting.

Where else would you suggest it might be located?

I may be behind, but:

Isn't this whole discussion based on the claim that the buildings were mostly turned to dust?

If yes, isn't this rather contradicted by the huge amount of debris that had to be removed from the site?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

You're stuck in the thermodynamics box when heat played almost no role in the destruction of the WTC.

I hope you can see this.

Despite the name, thermodynamics is about energy in general, not just heat.

I had hoped you knew this.

Also, I don't agree that heat played no role.

Hans

 

[WTC Dust]

Planes might or might not have been hijacked on 9/11. Either way, doesn't change the fact that airplane crashes don't turn steel buildings into dust.

The missing planes and passengers, and corresponding plane debris and passenger remains on the crash sites might also be considered pretty good evidence by some.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Planes might or might not have been hijacked on 9/11. Either way, doesn't change the fact that airplane crashes don't turn steel buildings into dust.

True, but then, no steel buildings were turned into dust, so this fact seems a bit irrelevant.

Hans