Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[phunk]

Phunk,

For the last time: I am not here to do your homework for you. I will make this easy for you. If you'd like to claim that something I said is "incorrect" (howsoever you'd like to say that), then DO IT.

Here's the best I can do for you. If you don't have WDTTG? or don't want to get it from the library, then go and download the Author's Preface and quote whatever it is that YOU claim I have gotten wrong.

You are not sending me off on some sort of exercise where I have to prove to you that something I said is

A) Correct
B) Incorrect
C) Up to your standards
D) ______________

http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/excerpts/

How can I know if what you said is correct or not when what you said is ambiguous and you won't clarify?

 

[The Big Dog]

I'd guess about 15% of the original height of the building at a minimum. That would be, say, 16 stories tall.

This is easily tested. Pile some blocks up to the same height. Then knock the blocks down and push them all into a pile.

Wow, just wow.

This is got to be a clear favorite for this month's stundies

 

[WTC Dust]

Besides the people and airplanes?

I've smelled dead people before, and I smelled them in the first days after the attacks. Airplanes on fire isn't a decent explanation for the smell 100+ days later, so I don't think it was airplanes.

 

[phunk]

First line of the book:

"The book you hold in your hands is the most important book of the twenty-
first century."

LOL!

 

[aggle-rithm]

I've smelled dead people before, and I smelled them in the first days after the attacks. Airplanes on fire isn't a decent explanation for the smell 100+ days later, so I don't think it was airplanes.

No longer amusing. Starting to get sad.

 

[phunk]

How can I know if what you said is correct or not when what you said is ambiguous and you won't clarify?

OK, I've read the author's preface, and I see why you won't answer the question. It's because it has nothing to do with your claim and if you answered it you'd reveal yourself to be a liar.

 

[Mudcat]

You don't think a fire under a rubble pile can burn through some rain?

I think it can continue burning in the rain, even without protection provided by rubble depending on both the severity of the fire and the intensity of the rain.

 

[aggle-rithm]

First line of the book:

"The book you hold in your hands is the most important book of the twenty-
first century."

LOL!

Well, if she's written the most important book of the twenty-first century, I guess she DOES deserve our respect!!

While she was at it, she may as well have added, "And I am QUEEN of the LIZARD PEOPLE!!!"

 

[jammonius]

How can I know if what you said is correct or not when what you said is ambiguous and you won't clarify?

If you claim I said something that is ambiguous, then say what it is, wherefore the ambiguity and such like. That you say something is ambiguous is not a self-actualizing declaration in my view.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think it can continue burning in the rain, even without protection provided by rubble depending on both the severity of the fire and the intensity of the rain.

On "Engineering Disasters" the other day, they talked about a sugar refinery fire that burned for eight days despite having copious amounts of water dumped on it from helicopters. The fire was so hot that the water vaporized before it got close.

 

[WTC Dust]

You don't think a fire under a rubble pile can burn through some rain?

Depends.

I'm mentioning 27 days of rain in NYC in the first 100 days post attack for a reason. Because I was there the entire time smelling the smell and asking people what they thought it was. Nobody had an answer.

I'd be standing in the middle of a room of people in my apt building, the smell would wash over us, and I'd ask people what they thought it was. Nobody ever had an answer. They would simply cringe (because it was stinky) and say they didn't know. That smell was awful, and the long lasting nature of it is probably why I'm studying 9/11 today.

On the day of 9/11, I knew something was fishy, but I didn't know that 100 days later I'd still be smelling the stench! Nobody knew that the strange fire would last that long.

 

[WTC Dust]

On "Engineering Disasters" the other day, they talked about a sugar refinery fire that burned for eight days despite having copious amounts of water dumped on it from helicopters. The fire was so hot that the water vaporized before it got close.

This sounds reasonable to me.

 

[aggle-rithm]

* facepalm *

 

[Stellafane]

...While it might again be fruitless to say this, I will do so anyway. Dr. Wood makes no claim that the annihilation of the WTC complex was done by weapons in space or by space beams. Rather, that claim is much like that of Beachnut raising Flight 93 and then claiming I'm off-topic for raising Flight 93 in a thread about Dr. Wood.

Thus, those who seek to debunk the space beam claim are really only debunking themselves and not Dr. Wood.

Do you copy, Stellafane? Is there anything in the foregoing sentence that you need clarification on? And, whatever you do, please do not claim your source for attributing the space beam claim to Dr. Wood is a webcast transcript where three people are talking at once and Dr. Wood gives a one word reply of "Yes" as your source for claiming Dr. Wood supports or advocates space beams. The only noteworthy thing about that claim is that it appears to be the most often relied on source for attributing that claim to her. That, in and of itself, is a clear indicator she makes no such claim.

It is not found either on her website or in her book, each of which are the true sources of her claims, her information and her proof...

I unfortunately don't have time at the moment to fully reply to your response, so I'll just address the above: the only reason I mention a space-based DEW is to point out that a DEW of the type Dr. Wood postulates is impossible anywhere, in space or on the ground. Whether or not Dr. Wood specifically said it is located in space is beside the point.

The fact that Dr. Wood believes in the existence of a DEW is not in question -- indeed, as others have already pointed out, it's on the cover of her book. If such a weapon exists and was used on 9/11, it would leave abundant and obvious evidence, no matter where it were located -- the sea, a mountain somewhere, or (yes) even space.

So I think your point would be more valid had I simply said "Dr. Wood says the WTC was brought down by a space beam." However, I think a careful reading of what I actually wrote will confirm that's not my claim. Instead, my position is that Dr. Wood says the WTC was brought down by a DEW, location undertermined. Thus my post is intended to debunk (if that's the right word) the DEW itself, irrespective of where it were placed. I only mentioned space as one possible location, to show how even there it doesn't make sense. And focusing specifically on my comments about the space beam -- which only comprise a narrow part of my post -- somewhat misrepresents what I actually said.

 

[phunk]

If you claim I said something that is ambiguous, then say what it is, wherefore the ambiguity and such like. That you say something is ambiguous is not a self-actualizing declaration in my view.

The multiple choice question clearly outlined the ambiguity. It was a exact quote of something you said, with a blank at the end, and two options that would clarify what you meant.

 

[Stellafane]

For the record, based on body of work I believe one of current supporters of Dr. Wood in this thread is quite serious and genuine, while the other might be having a joke or two at our expense (at least in part).

 

[WTC Dust]

Stella: What do you think of weapons that use wavelengths of energy? Certainly we have tasers. Do you think the only weapons we have of this nature are already 100% publicly known? Do you think there is 0% chance of the existence of a DEW?

I unfortunately don't have time at the moment to fully reply to your response, so I'll just address the above: the only reason I mention a space-based DEW is to point out that a DEW of the type Dr. Wood postulates is impossible anywhere, in space or on the ground. Whether or not Dr. Wood specifically said it is located in space is beside the point.

The fact that Dr. Wood believes in the existence of a DEW is not in question -- indeed, as others have already pointed out, it's on the cover of her book. If such a weapon exists and was used on 9/11, it would leave abundant and obvious evidence, no matter where it were located -- the sea, a mountain somewhere, or (yes) even space.

So I think your point would be more valid had I simply said "Dr. Wood says the WTC was brought down by a space beam." However, I think a careful reading of what I actually wrote will confirm that's not my claim. Instead, my position is that Dr. Wood says the WTC was brought down by a DEW, location undertermined. Thus my post is intended to debunk (if that's the right word) the DEW itself, irrespective of where it were placed. I only mentioned space as one possible location, to show how even there it doesn't make sense. And focusing specifically on my comments about the space beam -- which only comprise a narrow part of my post -- somewhat misrepresents what I actually said.

 

[beachnut]

You know what? Between us two, I'm the scientist. Therefore I am actually the one of us who is in a better position to determine what needs to be done in a scientific study.

It's the height of rationality to mention that in late December 2001, after 27 rain days in NYC between the 9/11 attacks and then, I could still smell the WTC fumes from a mile away. It's not rational to say that came from an office fire.

Remember: at 100 days I was still in observe and wait mode. I hadn't come to any conclusions about what destroyed the WTC. After 100 days of rainy, cold weather, I concluded that nobody would ever be able to convince me that what I was observing was an ordinary fire. 100 days of observation is a lot of days.

Steel turns to dust and you claim to be a scientist? I worked in a lab, I was a scientist, and engineer, and your claims are fictional claptrap.

thousand of humans smashed and burning for weeks with plastic, computer boards smashed, and burning, monitors, etc. Too much fuel burning under the debris of over 220 acres of office material confined to less than 19 acres. You are not rational, you think steel turned to dust on 911.

You smelled exactly what you get when hundreds of people are trapped and then smashed by large buildings on fire. If you can't figure that out, then it makes sense you say steel turned to dust. It all fits.

 

[Mudcat]

On "Engineering Disasters" the other day, they talked about a sugar refinery fire that burned for eight days despite having copious amounts of water dumped on it from helicopters. The fire was so hot that the water vaporized before it got close.

Thanks for sharing that, I'll be sure to look it up later. But still, I'm baffled by WTCDusty's surprise that the fire persisted even in the rain. I've camped a lot as a kid and, speaking from personal experience, even small fires can keep on burning without protection from rain if properly tended to.

 

[phunk]

Yeah, if the rain is not enough to put the fire out completely, all it does is slow it down and make it burn longer.