• 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:
Thunder at each of the NYC airports indicates that the field extended at least that far from the eye of Hurricane Erin.
Click to expand...

This "thunder" was proven to be a direct result of the hurricane?

Do you have a citation or evidence for this?
 
jammonius said:
A better authenticated photo of conditions reliably known to have existed at the 9:03+/- timeframe is the David Handschuh photo, together with his published acknowledgment that he did not see an aircraft (and no evidence of any aircraft is seen in the photo either).

Here is that photo:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/handschuh.jpg[/qimg]

The photo shows neither evidence of an aircraft of any size, nor a wake vortex associated with a presumed Boeing 767 at a speed of <542mph (the speed deduced by NIST,and only deduced, as no reliable data of that claim has ever been presented, see Ncstar 1-5A pg 195/392).

In seeking to address the question asked by the OP, it is appropriate to separate out what can be claimed by reference to fact, versus what is only the subject of an exercise in deduction, at best.

Perhaps the best sort of reflection here would be that of examination of each poster's confirmation bias.

I, for example, am a "no-planer" bread and buttered. In support of that positioning, I can confidently say, as a matter of fact, that there exists no NTSB report on any 9/11 aircraft claim, and the NIST Ncstar report provides no valid, reliable claim.

In fact, the NIST report purports to deal only with conditions occurring AFTER the alleged crashes and BEFORE the Twin Towers were annihilated. The preceding sentence is not a result of deduction. It is a fact.
Click to expand...

Excellent photograph that proves my point perfectly. No disturbance of the cloud of stuff being emitted from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Nothing that clearly says, "A plane just flew near here."
 
WTC Dust said:
OMG I really laughed out loud at this one. I actually cackled. Whew! The wake stops at impact. Heeeheheee!
Click to expand...
The wake turbulence due to lift stops when the plane crashes, no more lift created by the wings, no more wake turbulence. The wake turbulence goes down. You laughed because you don't do science, you do fantasy and you have no idea what wake turbulence is, and you don't care to understand. You are pausing fantasy out of ignorance.

You laugh at science, this in not news with your anti-science claptrap of steel turning to dust and foam. I understand you don't do science, and laugh when you read reality. You have no clue what wake I am talking about, but I have studied wake turbulence since 1973, and been in wake turbulence at 50 feet, behind three to four heavy jets in MITOs. You are full of nonsense.

Denying aircraft crashed into to the WTC is nuts, anyone who does so has mental problems or likes to spread nonsensical lies.

You laughed out loud? What do you think people do when they read your sig, steel turned to dust, and now steel turned to foam? It would be a bucket list completion if what it implied were not so disrespectful to thousands.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
The big difference is that supposedly an aircraft flew very near WTC 1 as it was emitting a huge amount of ... stuff ... into the air. That stuff wasn't disturbed or whipped around like you'd expect if a huge column of air came by.
Click to expand...

Define "very near".
 
jammonius said:
What class in particular; and, why do you ask at this point? You do not appear to have had that query in mind when you posted, what I think is, by far, one of the most glaring admissions against the interests of debunkers I have evah seen:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8253261&postcount=475

Thank you for that post. It is a keeper for sure :eye-poppi

What I do know is that Dr. Wood is a materials engineering scientist.

Blessings
Click to expand...

Why is that a keeper? 9/11 WOO has no business in the classroom whatsoever.
 
SUSpilot said:
@jammonius: Under what conditions can an aircraft's wake/wingtip vortices be seen?
Click to expand...

He is apparently away, so I'll answer: any time an airplane vortex passes through air that contains enough particles to be visible. Water condensation is normally what you see a plane flying throughm (ie clouds), but in this case, the dust cloud coming from WTC 1 serves the purpose.

You can see that the dust cloud wasn't disturbed. You have to make the claim that it wouldn't have been disturbed had an airplane flown within a couple hundred feet of it, and I find that to be unsupportable.

The wake of an airplane doesn't stop instantly if the plane crashes.
 
jammonius said:
This is a post that undermines the integrity of 9/11 DEBUNKING to a faretheewell:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/post475.jpg

It is found a few pages back and has generated no comment, other than my having posted that it is an admission of fascism and of the utter futility of the concept of 9/11 debunking.

It is more than that, really, it is proof that debunking is based on disengenuity.

At the very least, debunkers, if there are those of you who wish to explain (away), distance, qualify, endorse, or otherwise cop some sort of plea concerning the undermining of debunking that has been admitted, please do so now, even though, in reality, it is already too little too late.

For those who might like to plead ignorance, the post merely confirms the unwritten rule that thou shalt not question the common storyline of 9/11 out of fear or reprisal. The US military is up front about it; military personnel CANNOT question 9/11. The same is true, less openly stated, in corporate America, including corporate Media, Big Academia, government at all levels and in the the work place here, there and everywhere.

People are mandated, by fascism, to shut up, go along and be "good Americans" lest they be fired from their jobs that they are already afraid of losing in the depression we are in, anyway. In fact, it is a wonder there is as much professional analysis confirming the common storyline of 9/11 is false, as there is, in the police state condition we have allowed ourselves to live in.

:jaw-dropp

Take your time. I've got other fish to fry for a few days. I'll check again in a week.

Meanwhile,

Blessings
Click to expand...

Wow Jammonius you really got issues. You really see no problem with a teacher preaching a conspiracy theory to students when it has no relation to the class? I would be saying the same thing if she was teaching about ghosts to a class when she was supposed to be teaching about engineering.
 
Huttosaurus said:
Does it matter that when the location, angle, and timing of the photo are taken into account, one could not reasonably expect either the wake or the aircraft (other than as debris exiting the building) to be visible anyway?
Click to expand...

This is just a reason you might use to explain away the fact that an obvious wake isn't visible. I call it a "bandaid", something that fixes up the official hijack conspiracy to make it work.
 
dropzone said:
Um, I'm not technical like Mackey, but doesn't the wake trail the aircraft? And that photo is of the side the flaming fuel and bits of aircraft and murdered people came out of milliseconds before, not the side that had a 767, and its wake, collide with the building? And that you can't see the wake because there is not only WTC2 but other buildings blocking the view? And that makes any claim that the photo proves there wasn't an aircraft pretty stupid?
Click to expand...

Any video footage from any angle would be good enough to prove me wrong, as long as it showed clear evidence of a wake.
 
DGM said:
And they hit the towers. You're catching on. Yes the wake would stop a the tower face, it has to, the plane is no longer there to create it(no, it won't be "dragged along").



(O/T How the new job going?)
Click to expand...

Why do you keep asking about my "new job"? Keep to the posted topic.
 
WTC Dust said:
He is apparently away, so I'll answer: any time an airplane vortex passes through air that contains enough particles to be visible. Water condensation is normally what you see a plane flying throughm (ie clouds), but in this case, the dust cloud coming from WTC 1 serves the purpose.
Click to expand...

The plane never flew through that cloud. Are you claiming the wake extends for hundreds of feet above the plane?
 
WTC Dust said:
You can do estimates yourself. Each floor was twelve feet tall. I'd say, within a couple hundred feet. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...

Yes, I can do the estimates myself, I was wondering if you could. I come up with the plane hitting WTC2 over 400 feet from the nearest burning part of WTC1.
 
phunk said:
The plane never flew through that cloud. Are you claiming the wake extends for hundreds of feet above the plane?
Click to expand...

I'm not making that specific claim, no. What I am claiming is that there is no clear video or photographic evidence of a wake at 9:03AM. Unless you can provide some, in which case, I will take back my claim and apologize to the JREF community for wasting their time.
 
phunk said:
The plane never flew through that cloud. Are you claiming the wake extends for hundreds of feet above the plane?
Click to expand...

I'm going to rearrange your statement.

The plane never flew through that cloud. into ---->
A plane never flew through that cloud.

Just one word changed. "The plane" presumes the existence of said plane. "A plane" doesn't.
 
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