Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

Responses in red.

1.The R&D to create the holographic projectors needed to pull off the outdoor/daylight visuals of 9/11 - with sound would have cost billions. Yet it has not been used again.

Where'd you get your numbers? How do you know it hasn't been used again?

2. Technology isn't developed in a vacuum, each major technological step was mirrored in multiple labs around the world at the same time. So someone else also has this holographic technology too...yet not a peep.


There are such things as trade secrets and confidential information, right?

3. Think about how much money this technology would be worth in the entertainment industry. It would be a godsend. You could watch the Super Bowl in your local stadium via hologram. You could watch the Beatles play Shea Stadium. Movies would become an event again....and the porn industry would...well you get the idea.

Decent idea. Probably will happen.


4. 9/11 happened in front of hundreds of thousands of people in NYC. Nobody saw anything suspicious? No large generator trucks? Projectors on roof tops? None of those hundreds of thousands knew anything about lasers?


You're worried about how to power the machine, when it could have been located anywhere. You wouldn't necessarily see it next door to the WTC with a big sign on it "3D image projector).

The hologram theory doesn't pass the basic conspiracy theory motive test element: Greed. They could have made hundreds of billions above board by now, and they'd be free to spend it. To use holographic planes in a mass murder and flush all of that money down the toilet makes zero sense.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy. I have no idea why those people destroyed the WTC, but I suspect that profit could have been a motive.

So you have this huge money maker sitting in an warehouse somewhere that you can never use again because it made the crime of the century. Who signs onto a dumb idea like this?

 

[GlennB]

Okay, think the hologram thing out logically.
....
....

Hi and welcome. Great post. Accurate, perceptive, witty, but <I predict> strangely futile in the face of this here foe

 

[dafydd]

Responses in red.

Unconscious reflex responses.

 

[jammonius]

Grasp this: you have repeatedly brought up seismic evidence, and yet when I ask you to show how the comparison of the King Dome measurements to the WTC are valid, you called it a quibble. I asked you to show any evidence the DEW weapon exists, and you fail to provide it. There is no moral equivalence between you and I here. You are making accusations based on conjectures for which you refuse to establish validity, and I am questioning why you refuse to establish scientific and forensic validity for your accusations before you put them forth.

Show me a DEW weapon that can do the DEW you say it can do. Put up, or shut up.

If YOU have a claim you want to make about the Kingdome evidence I have brought up, either that you agree with it, disagree with it, challenge it, or whatever it, then make your claim LSBB. You are not the teacher, I am not the student and if I were, I'd take another class as I do not like your teaching style.

Meanwhile, is there something you'd like to claim about the seismic signal of the Kingdome demolition as it compares to the seismic (or lack thereof) of same concerning the annihilation of the Twin Towers and WTC 7? If so make your claim.

As to your quibble concerning where the seismic data originated from, I will make one other comment: The location of the observatories is the same as that used to measure other NYC area seismic events, including the January 2001 earthquake and the January 1983 Bayonne explosion, each of which were discussed in this thread; and the earthquake also having been discussed in WDTTG?

As the observatory serves the NYC area, it can reasonably be inferred that the data are reliable. NIST relied on them to make some of its findings. Generally, it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel. Your challenge to the data collection points is weak and really is more akin to the shopworn speeding ticket defense I mentioned; a defense that may have worked once or twice, but hardly ever anymore.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "moral equivalance?" Can you clarify.

As you may recall, were it not for the dedicated efforts of some 9/11 victims' family members, there might not have ever even been so much as a sham investigation. They had to work long and hard just to get a hamstrung, underfunded, politically neutered 9/11 Commission. An effort that is, on its face, a complete and utter failure of explanation of anything.

No, there is no equivalence. The work done by Dr. Wood is in many respects the single most important, most respectful of victims work ever done on the events of 9/11.

It is highly misguided to claim going along with the unproven, untenable common storyline has anything at all to do with victims, other than continuing to cover up what happened.

You keep asking about DEW here. This is not a DEW thread as I see it. I have posted up an abundance of DEW material in other threads, including some that I provided the OP for. Look them up.

 

[tsig]

Compus,

Your query post # 1206 does not merit detailed reply because you mischaracterize Dr. Wood's claim.

Rephrase and I will likely reply.

If the towers turned to dust why was there any seismic signals?

 

[jammonius]

In what way does my question "mischaracterize" Dr. Judy Woods' claim?

Are you implying that she hasn't used the terms "dustified" and "wafted to the heavens"?


Compus

Your best bet would be to quote something Dr. Wood has published either in her book or website. Really, Compus, do you actually need me to tell you how to be accurate and correct in the posing of queries?

R e a a l l y y?

Yup, you've earned this one:


Do Better

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's not my field, so can anyone tell me how many seismologists agree with Dr Wood's interpretation?

 

[carlitos]

Your best bet would be to quote something Dr. Wood has published either in her book or website. Really, Compus, do you actually need me to tell you how to be accurate and correct in the posing of queries?

R e a a l l y y?

Yup, you've earned this one:


Do Better

Just a point of order - words in quotation marks are quotations. So the "quotes" you seek are hiding in plain sight, so to speak.

 

[dafydd]

If the towers turned to dust why was there any seismic signals?

Ms. WTCdust Blevins, Phd and Jammonious are studiously avoiding that question.

 

[dafydd]

It's not my field, so can anyone tell me how many seismologists agree with Dr Wood's interpretation?

None.

 

[Resume]

Why are you asking him for this? Dr. Wood doesn't specifically support a projected image theory. If she does, it's a recent development.

With all the crazy being bantered about, it's sometimes difficult to attribute it to the correct source.

However, there's more than enough to go around.

ETA: See below.

 

[Justin39640]

Jam,
Why would the National Transportation SAFETY Board have an investigation into something that clearly wasn't an accident. This is a law enforcement matter.

 

[jammonius]

Additionally Jammalamma, I'd like to see the hologram dohicky thingee that projected them there planes impacting the towers.

I'll wait.

We are limited to deduction as the actual technology is only being acknowledged piecemeal. Its use on 9/11 remains cloaked in secrecy.

I'll not only wait, I'll watch, look and search. I'm on it.

 

[CompusMentus]

I agree. I've been taken to task in this thread for initially referring to the DEW as a space beam, since Dr. Wood apparently hasn't positively defined where the DEW might be located (or if she did, it was only once, or she wasn't given time to think about it, or...something). But such objections seem misplaced when one considers that space is by far the most logical place for such a device

It's a bit more complicated than that. I've heard and read JW postulating/claiming more than a few times that the DEW was situated in space. I can dig out the sources if anyone needs confirmation.

It was only after she was widely ridiculed (by all of a rational mind and nearly all truthers) summarily kicked/laughed out of Scholars for 9-11 Truth and into the arms of Jim Fetzer that she seems to have backed away from that particular idiotic claim.

Just my 2c

Compus

 

[LSSBB]

If YOU have a claim you want to make about the Kingdome evidence I have brought up, either that you agree with it, disagree with it, challenge it, or whatever it, then make your claim LSBB. You are not the teacher, I am not the student and if I were, I'd take another class as I do not like your teaching style.

Meanwhile, is there something you'd like to claim about the seismic signal of the Kingdome demolition as it compares to the seismic (or lack thereof) of same concerning the annihilation of the Twin Towers and WTC 7? If so make your claim.

As to your quibble concerning where the seismic data originated from, I will make one other comment: The location of the observatories is the same as that used to measure other NYC area seismic events, including the January 2001 earthquake and the January 1983 Bayonne explosion, each of which were discussed in this thread; and the earthquake also having been discussed in WDTTG?

As the observatory serves the NYC area, it can reasonably be inferred that the data are reliable. NIST relied on them to make some of its findings. Generally, it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel. Your challenge to the data collection points is weak and really is more akin to the shopworn speeding ticket defense I mentioned; a defense that may have worked once or twice, but hardly ever anymore.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "moral equivalance?" Can you clarify.

As you may recall, were it not for the dedicated efforts of some 9/11 victims' family members, there might not have ever even been so much as a sham investigation. They had to work long and hard just to get a hamstrung, underfunded, politically neutered 9/11 Commission. An effort that is, on its face, a complete and utter failure of explanation of anything.

No, there is no equivalence. The work done by Dr. Wood is in many respects the single most important, most respectful of victims work ever done on the events of 9/11.

It is highly misguided to claim going along with the unproven, untenable common storyline has anything at all to do with victims, other than continuing to cover up what happened.

You keep asking about DEW here. This is not a DEW thread as I see it. I have posted up an abundance of DEW material in other threads, including some that I provided the OP for. Look them up.

Man, you sure can say a lot. Judy Wood says there was a DEW and her supporters demand respect. I say she merits no respect because neither she nor any of her supporters have evidence of a DEW.

All hat and no cattle. You have no proof for your case. No proof of seismic relevance, no proof of holographic projectors, no proof of media manipulation. And no proof of the existence of DEW weapons capable of Doostifyin' buildings.

You can talk all you want, but you got nuthin' to show. Understood, story over, welcome to ignore. Begone, yon troll.

 

[fess]

You and I agreed that some air is dragged along with the craft.

There are several pilots on this forum, none of which will agree with you. Where in hell did you get this ridiculous idea from? Getting high is not necessarily flying.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Are you saying nobody can know anything without being in a degree program for the thing? Does not make sense.

Why should I do this? I am not a social sciences researcher, and I'm not trained to conduct those types of interviews.

You debunk yourself, foolish girl.

 

[SUSpilot]

You and I agreed that some air is dragged along with the craft.

I'd like a specific post, please, or an immediate retraction.

I have never agreed with that. I did suggest that there might be some wake turbulence caused by form and parasite drag, but that they'd be trivial in comparison with the wake turbulence caused by the lift generated by the wings. Further, I don't recall my saying that either would be dragged alnog with the aircraft. In fact, my description of wake turbulence is that it would be "laid down, something like paint off of a roller."

 

[MIKILLINI]

Are you saying nobody can know anything without being in a degree program for the thing? Does not make sense.

Why? It's no different than me saying you don't know much about pharmaceuticals even though I have no pharmaceutical degree.

What you are doing is telling an expert they are wrong! Beachnut is an experienced pilot who has tremendous knowledge of airplane wakes and how they react. He is way more qualified in this field than you are.

 

[Axxman300]

Where'd you get your numbers? How do you know it hasn't been used again?

The Tupac holgram is state of the art. It ran about $400,000 to pull off. It was done at night under controled conditions. A hologram which can be visible from all angles in bright sunlight would require a bunch of laser tech which doesn't exist yet, plus a reliable power source. Then there would be the years of testing, the remote facility large enough to simulate the scale of lower Manhattan, and the large technical crew required to make this happen.

There are such things as trade secrets and confidential information, right?

Trade secrets yes. Game changing scientific/technology developments - no.

The Theory of Evolution, the aeroplane, the combustion engine, the light bulb, AC & DC current generation, the PC, the Atomic Bomb, and even the Stealth Fighter were all things which were being developed independently in labs around the world. Often without the knowledge of each other.

The technology required to pull off the jetliner strikes on 9/11/2001 would have required multiple breakthroughs in technology. We have not seen those breakthroughs occur independently anywhere since 9/11/2001. So it's safe to say it never existed.

You're worried about how to power the machine, when it could have been located anywhere. You wouldn't necessarily see it next door to the WTC with a big sign on it "3D image projector).

It would have been close. It would have been large. It would have required multiple mirror repeaters on roof-tops surrounding the WTC AND the approach to the island (requiring a could of cargo-type ships). In the thousands of pictures taken on 9/11 there is nothing to suggest the presence of a holographic projection system of any kind let alone a system large enough for your theory.

There were no reports of flash-blindness on 9/11 (to my knowledge) which would suggest accidental laser exposure either. Remember there were witnesses in the neighboring buildings and inside each tower. A hologram visible from the ground should have blinded a few people in higher elevations just from the sheer number of people.

Finally, when you talk about a holographic projection on the scale of 9/11 you can't ignore the power required. You can't depend on the NY power grid, and a drain of the wattage required would have been noticed by too many people who monitor the grid system. This means your evil cabal would have had their own generators, big ones, flat-bed-truck big. They would have require long, massive cables extending to the projection systems. Someone would have seen them or they would be obvious in photographs.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy.

Yes you are.

I have no idea why those people destroyed the WTC, but I suspect that profit could have been a motive.

Profit which would forever be at risk because someone would eventually discover the plot.

Meanwhile, as I said before, they used a fantastic technology which they could have used in the open to make themselves wealthy(er), with money they wouldn't have to hide, and the prestige of every scientific award up to and including the Nobel Prize.