Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[NoahFence]

Jammies:The problem I have with the simple conspiracy theory you outline at the beginning of your post is that it has not ever been proven to have occurred.

Yes it has. Just not to the satisfaction of either total, complete idiots - or mentally retarded people.

The NIST report did not investigate the destructive phase of the annihilation of the WTC complex.

What does that even mean? They investigated the collapse.

 

[grandmastershek]

I wonder if Dustie's reaction to peekaboo has similar implications.

 

[Gamolon]

Not flat, but also not a tall pile of broken steel beams, either. I went there soon after the attacks, and could only see a few pieces sticking up above a ten foot fence and also lots of fumes.

Can you further explain this train of thought please?

Are you saying that the quantity of debris after the collapse did not match the quantity of materials used when the structure still stood?

Or are you saying that the height and area of the debris wasn't what it should have been?

Maybe you are saying both?

 

[Gamolon]

You see the tall pieces sticking up? I saw those above the fence.

Why should there be more sticking up? You don't see many pieces of steel in this photo?

 

[WTC Dust]

Why should there be more sticking up? You don't see many pieces of steel in this photo?
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/groundzeroaerialmarked.jpg[/qimg]

I see lots of pieces of steel. But I also see heavy fuming. My theory is that the heavy fuming is coming from steel in the process of disintegration and that same process was what destroyed the WTC in the first place.

It's fine to show the pieces of steel left over, but don't forget what else is in your photograph, and every photograph of the time period: FUMES.

 

[WTC Dust]

Can you further explain this train of thought please?

Are you saying that the quantity of debris after the collapse did not match the quantity of materials used when the structure still stood?

Or are you saying that the height and area of the debris wasn't what it should have been?

Maybe you are saying both?

When I visited Ground Zero less than 72 hours after the attacks, I expected to see a very tall pile of steel and debris. Instead, I only saw a few tall pieces above a ten foot fence and lots of fumes. And, the pieces I saw were not located where WTC 1 or WTC 2 used to stand. They were nearby, but not in the footprint. I saw this with my own eyes. The photographs corroborate my independent observation.

 

[WTC Dust]

As is always, the photographic evidence demonstrates Dustie is lying or delusional. I can see why she so vehemently clings to her academic credentials.

100% wrong. I count every single photograph as genuine evidence.

 

[Pyrts]

You see the tall pieces sticking up? I saw those above the fence.

I am not the only one who is beginning to be skeptical about the quality of your education and the quality of research you've done in other areas. Your primary evidence (visit to the site) is not a visit to an original site (but after cleanup was done, and you don't know what was done to the area you viewed) -- at best, this is corrupted evidence that you are founding your belief on.

The rest of the evidence -- I'm frankly shocked that someone who calls themselves a scientist would accept any of it.

For those of you who aren't scientists, "evidence" falls into several categories -- direct confirmed evidence (someone who watched the whole event along with others who watched it), secondary evidence (which would include ALL the available UNEDITED AND UNENHANCED footage and photos of the event), tertiary evidence (news reports and news footage) and then it gets into the "not suitable for study" category.

Youtube videos of news footage, enhanced and edited and recopied (quaternary source or worse) is NOT suitable evidence of anything -- as I'm sure you here on JREF are well aware.

There are a lot of people who declare themselves to be scientists who have few papers published in any reliable source. When you get your Masters', they make you take courses on "how to do research" -- and you get it when you take your PhD courses as well. By the time they turn you loose, you should have a good understanding of how to do research.

Using cherry-picked quaternary sources with no chain of authority or provenance is lame, shameful, and borders on the deliberately fraudulent. It has no place in science.

It surprises me that someone who claims to be a scientist doesn't immediately recognize the flaws and ineptitude in evidentiary chains in this matter.

 

[Pyrts]

100% wrong. I count every single photograph as genuine evidence.

Oh really?

Without knowing the source or any enhancements or modifications or cropping?

REALLY???

Dear gods, woman -- that's not science! That's.... I don't know what it is but it's not science! You have to know the date/time/location/photographer AND have the original material in hand. You can't just scoop it off the internet and call it proof!

ANYONE who's gotten a Masters' or better got the lecture on evidence and documentation from their departmental library liaisons -- and they got it SEVERAL times! Were you ASLEEP during those sessions??? Did you fail to understand the discussions of provenance in your coursework? Did your committee fail to inculcate the standards of good research in you when you made your dissertation proposal???


(yes, I'm outraged.)

 

[phunk]

I see lots of pieces of steel. But I also see heavy fuming. My theory is that the heavy fuming is coming from steel in the process of disintegration and that same process was what destroyed the WTC in the first place.

It's fine to show the pieces of steel left over, but don't forget what else is in your photograph, and every photograph of the time period: FUMES.

I think you have a typo there, you said fumes when you meant smoke. You know, the stuff that tends to come from fires, like the ones inside that rubble pile.

 

[WTC Dust]

Almost none of the cleanup was accomplished at 72 hours, when I first visited the site after the attacks.

I am not the only one who is beginning to be skeptical about the quality of your education and the quality of research you've done in other areas. Your primary evidence (visit to the site) is not a visit to an original site (but after cleanup was done, and you don't know what was done to the area you viewed) -- at best, this is corrupted evidence that you are founding your belief on.

The rest of the evidence -- I'm frankly shocked that someone who calls themselves a scientist would accept any of it.

For those of you who aren't scientists, "evidence" falls into several categories -- direct confirmed evidence (someone who watched the whole event along with others who watched it), secondary evidence (which would include ALL the available UNEDITED AND UNENHANCED footage and photos of the event), tertiary evidence (news reports and news footage) and then it gets into the "not suitable for study" category.

Youtube videos of news footage, enhanced and edited and recopied (quaternary source or worse) is NOT suitable evidence of anything -- as I'm sure you here on JREF are well aware.

There are a lot of people who declare themselves to be scientists who have few papers published in any reliable source. When you get your Masters', they make you take courses on "how to do research" -- and you get it when you take your PhD courses as well. By the time they turn you loose, you should have a good understanding of how to do research.

Using cherry-picked quaternary sources with no chain of authority or provenance is lame, shameful, and borders on the deliberately fraudulent. It has no place in science.

It surprises me that someone who claims to be a scientist doesn't immediately recognize the flaws and ineptitude in evidentiary chains in this matter.

 

[WTC Dust]

I think you have a typo there, you said fumes when you meant smoke. You know, the stuff that tends to come from fires, like the ones inside that rubble pile.

I said fumes, and I meant fumes. What was going on in the WTC wasn't an ordinary fire, so I refuse to call that stuff smoke. Smoke from a regular fire is largely hydrocarbon, and the fumes didn't smell like that. They didn't smell like anything I had ever smelled before. <---This is independently verified by anyone who does a google search on "WTC stench" or "WTC smell". Many people were confused by the smell.

 

[WTC Dust]

Oh really?

Without knowing the source or any enhancements or modifications or cropping?

REALLY???

Dear gods, woman -- that's not science! That's.... I don't know what it is but it's not science! You have to know the date/time/location/photographer AND have the original material in hand. You can't just scoop it off the internet and call it proof!

ANYONE who's gotten a Masters' or better got the lecture on evidence and documentation from their departmental library liaisons -- and they got it SEVERAL times! Were you ASLEEP during those sessions??? Did you fail to understand the discussions of provenance in your coursework? Did your committee fail to inculcate the standards of good research in you when you made your dissertation proposal???


(yes, I'm outraged.)

Cropping might have been done on the photographs. Why are you outraged?

 

[WTC Dust]

So, you are being quite silly when you claim that you don't need to understand planes because planes weren't involved. Your whole reason for believing planes weren't involved is based on reasoning that requires understanding planes and their wakes.

This is where your understanding falters. No planes is proved by my dust samples. The video evidence doesn't disprove my dust sample results, but video evidence isn't what I base my no planes theory on.

 

[phunk]

This is where your understanding falters. No planes is proved by my dust samples. The video evidence doesn't disprove my dust sample results, but video evidence isn't what I base my no planes theory on.

More nonsense. Your dust samples don't prove no planes. Even if your dust is caused by something other than planes (like, the collapse more than an hour after the planes), that doesn't say anything about the planes.

For your dust sample to prove no planes, you would have to prove that planes would somehow completely prevent your dust from forming.

 

[Harpo]

They didn't smell like anything I had ever smelled before.

Do you get to smell a lot of collapsed sky-scrapers, crashed planes and dead bodies in your normal line of work?

 

[phunk]

I said fumes, and I meant fumes. What was going on in the WTC wasn't an ordinary fire, so I refuse to call that stuff smoke. Smoke from a regular fire is largely hydrocarbon, and the fumes didn't smell like that. They didn't smell like anything I had ever smelled before. <---This is independently verified by anyone who does a google search on "WTC stench" or "WTC smell". Many people were confused by the smell.

What's a "normal" fire smell like? Everything has it's own smell when burned, and most people are unfamiliar with the smell of a burning mix of plastic, wood, electronics, bodies, jet fuel, and whatever else ended up in that pile.

 

[GlennB]

When I visited Ground Zero less than 72 hours after the attacks, I expected to see a very tall pile of steel and debris. Instead, I only saw a few tall pieces above a ten foot fence and lots of fumes.

When I was in Nepal I also stood behind a fence. I couldn't see Mt. Everest.

Geometry yet another one of your weak subjects?

 

[tsig]

I said fumes, and I meant fumes. What was going on in the WTC wasn't an ordinary fire, so I refuse to call that stuff smoke. Smoke from a regular fire is largely hydrocarbon, and the fumes didn't smell like that. They didn't smell like anything I had ever smelled before. <---This is independently verified by anyone who does a google search on "WTC stench" or "WTC smell". Many people were confused by the smell.

You mean it didn't smell like any other 110 story collapsed office building you had ever smelt?

 

[tsig]

100% wrong. I count every single photograph as genuine evidence.

Cropping might have been done on the photographs. Why are you outraged?

Humm...