Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[MIKILLINI]

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.

You do know there were fires burning in the Twin Towers before they collapsed, right? Contents in an office fire can burn as hot or even hotter than carbon fuel. Those burning contents ended up in the rubble pile mixed with unburned contents creating a smoldering mess....Fumes come from a smoldering fire. Don't you know anything about a smoldering fire?

 

[Justin39640]

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?

Tasers use wires. They are not an energy weapon. It shoots basically a harpoon on a tether at you. High voltage (very low current) then flows through the tether from the base unit.

 

[Papermache]

<crazy>Ah. It was a giant space tazer that destroyed the towers. The holographic technology that produced the images of planes erased the wires from view.</crazy>

 

[MIKILLINI]

[/COLOR] Nobody knew that the strange fire would last that long.

You don't educate yourself with pertinent information before making judgement calls, do you?

More reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoldering

 

[twinstead]

How can one 'focus too much on the planes', any way? It's an incontrovertible fact planes hit the buildings. Evidence they weren't responsible for what happened afterwards is sorely lacking

 

[MIKILLINI]

Did you personally participate in this DNA study, or are you believing reports? And if so, why?

I've seen the list of local city, county, state, private and federal reports with the names of all qualified individuals..A great many people were involved with this process and not one has ever come forward and criticized the method/ process used for identifying the remains. I trust those reports.

Why? Where would the passengers be, Tracy, if Flight 175 and Flight 11 didn't crash into those buildings?

 

[DGM]

How can one 'focus too much on the planes', any way? It's an incontrovertible fact planes hit the buildings. Evidence they weren't responsible for what happened afterwards is sorely lacking

I think what she means is, "stop looking at the evidence and pay attention to me".

 

[twinstead]

So now anything that one doesn't personally participate in is suspect?

 

[nomuse]

Do you count yourself as one of the "six regular posters who aren't on my ignore list" who admits that they cannot provide clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM at Ground Zero on 9/11? Just say, "Yes, I admit that I cannot provide clear evidence of a wake." and I will count you in towards the goal of closing this thread.

It's the new form of peer review; "My work will be reviewed only by those who I don't already know disagree with me."

 

[tsig]

The forensic evidence doesn't point to a plane crash mechanism for destruction of the WTC. Additionally, and separately, there is evidence that a plane crash did not take place.

People died on 9/11, but people are suffering TODAY from the effects of 9/11. As sad as these deaths were, I can't do anything about it. But I might be able to help the survivors get a better diagnosis and treatment.

Today, they are still being treated for asbestosis, when what they are suffering from is siderosis (inhalation of iron oxide). It matters.

Other than rattle cages here at JREF what are you doing to expose this ongoing public health problem?

Don't you have a responsibility to the ones suffering to do what you can to alleviate the suffering?

 

[TSR]

Did you personally participate in this DNA study, or are you believing reports? And if so, why?

Speaking of DNA studies, how did you get access to the equipment to do the the UV study of your worthless samples?

 

[Harpo]

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.

Just going to throw an idea out there - see what you think:

Would it not be plausible that the people smelling that smell might've, deep down, realised that they were smelling hundreds of decomposing bodies (plus everything else)? The thought of which, in my opinion, is enough to affect even the most hardened heart. Their "dunno" responses are probably symptomatic of their revulsion at the notion that particles of the deceased are being inhaled by them on a daily basis.

 

[SUSpilot]

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.

Well, you have a Ph.D. As for being a critical thinker, I'm not so sure.

It wasn't an office fire, any more than the Yellowstone Park fire of 1987 (smoke visible in Chicago, no less) was a camp fire. As has been pointed out, this was the ruins of several buildings with hot spots that were essentially a coked over witch's brew of organic material, metal, minerals and solvents. Being extremely hot and coked over, they smoldered for weeks.

 

[tsig]

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.

Most people use their eyes to observe.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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?

Do you appreciate that tasers do not project "wavelengths of energy"? They are either pressed against you or fire little barbs at you trailing electrical wires, and then give you an electric shock. You knew that, right?

What Dr Wood is hypothesising is a weapon which somehow projected an undetected beam of energy sufficiently large to destroy huge buildings.

If the WTC was tasered to destruction, it would have to be hit with an electric shock many orders of magnitude larger than any lightning bolt that ever hit it. That would have been noticed. It would have been more spectacular than the collapse itself.

I think there is a 0% chance that happened.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

<crazy>Ah. It was a giant space tazer that destroyed the towers. The holographic technology that produced the images of planes erased the wires from view.</crazy>

Obviously the planes were towing the wires.

Oh, wait, there were no planes.

Nevermind.

 

[plague311]

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.

If you're a scientist how come all of your posts are void of any science?

 

[The Platypus]

So was this energy weapon from the romulans or klingons?

 

[minnemouse]

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.

Ever been to Auschwitz or Birkenau, Dust? Even after almost 70 years, the smell there is VERY noticeable, and believe me, its not a pleasant smell. It smells like death (and I`ve attended a couple of autopsies, so I recognize the smell). In these camps it has rained and snowed on and off for many decades, but still the smell is very much present. And you find it mysterious that it smelled for 100 days from GZ? Even though the rubble worked almost as a huge crematorium for all the poor people that died that day? Jeeze. How mysterious..... not.

 

[Oz1976]

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.

He's more of a scientist in this area than you will ever be. You're claims are delusional nonsense and you don't deserve the honorific of Doctor. Your attention seeking nonsense is nothing but that...nonsense. I know you have me on ignore, so someone quote me for MISS BLEVINS.

Noticing a pattern with these twooftards...if they get called on their idiocy it's too ignore you go...like Marokkan used to do.

These two threads have grown beyond ridiculous. I suggest burying them.

1. She will NEVER produce any data
2. She will NEVER produce even a white paper
3. She will NEVER admit to her faults and clear misrepresentation of facts.
4. SHE'S A FREAKING NO PLANER, 'nuff said!