Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[R.Mackey]

I looked at every 9:03AM image posted, and didn't see clear evidence of a wake in any of them.

I've highlighted the problem for you.

The image I posted was taken at 9:03:09 AM on the day in question, and shows unmistakable evidence of an aircraft wake. Indeed, as I explained, there is no other reasonable explanation for this phenomenon.

The reason you don't see it is because (a) you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and (b) you arbitrarily reject the commentary of knowledgeable people. I am an expert in fluid phenomena. You seem to know nothing about the subject whatsoever.

The responsible thing to do, seeing as you asked the question in the first place, would be to listen to the answers, and to try to corroborate them with others. As is typical for cranks, you have done none of this.

Since the problem is limited to you, why should anyone care what you think?

 

[beachnut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2hY0QleiHY

 

[The Almond]

However, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a technology. To amend the question to make it a proper and answerable question, you'd have to put the word "known" before the word "in".

By your logic I could claim that unicorns destroyed the WTC towers. Is the onus on you to prove that unicorns don't exist? Again, by your logic, you first have to prove me wrong about unicorns in order to prove yourself right. And, I've been talking to Sunstealer, and he's got a really great theory about space goblins destroying the WTC. You'd better disprove the idea of space goblins first.

How do I think the holographic technology works? By differentially heating and cooling the air in a very precise manner so that it very precisely refracts light to produce the 3D moving image in the daytime sky.

Snell's law. Consider yourself debunked. Also, you managed to violate all of the laws of thermodynamics, half of the solvable ones in statistical mechanics, and at least two from aerodynamics.

We can already project images into the nighttime sky, but what we are doing there is adding light to a dim sky.

False.

In the daytime sky, there's already a superabundance of light, so you'd have to subtract light in order to produce an image.

Extremely false. Not even wrong.

Precise heating of air? Just a guess. Subtracting light from a bright daytime sky? Just a guess.

It's a a bad guess that shows you know nothing about basic optics, which, in turn, hurts your credibility. These silly concepts can be debunked by 2nd year physics and engineering students. Most of what you've gotten wrong is explained in sufficient detail on Wikipedia. Wolfram alpha can calculate indices of refraction for air and produce the appropriate angle of refraction.

This is not a fawning audience of first year art history majors. You're going to have to provide real explanations here. Real, by the way, means, "not debunkable by Wikipedia."

Where is the energy for all this going to come from? From the material itself. The energy contained within the molecules that made up the WTC is what was used to destroy the WTC.

This statement is silly. I can't take a pound of animal dung to my electric company and claim that the power to heat my house is contained in the dung. You need energy to move energy. I cannot put a pot of room temperature water on the ground and expect the ground (which is at 20 C) to decrease its temperature so as to heat my water. Concepts such as these are covered in 1st year physics classes.

This entire line of reasoning is silly. Abandon it.

 

[Orphia Nay]

New Yorkers on that sunny day in September:

 

[Wolrab]

Now if the hologram was just a projection, they could have projected the image of the plane on a plane. Win Win except for the horrible deaths of the passengers and the people in the towers. Keep neglecting them dr dust.

 

[pgimeno]

I'm going to regret posting here as I did in the other thread, but...

If I knew exactly how a 3D hologram violated the laws of physics, then I'd stop talking about it and consider it debunked.

It violates at least one law of common sense. There are so, SO many uses for such a technology, that if the perpetrators had it, they would be richer by patenting and exploiting it than by controlling petrol.

Of course, there's no reason it wouldn't have been published after that day to further enrich them.

Except, of course, if they are Really Really Evil (tm). Because the Really Really Evil (tm) people don't care about money, just about how much Evil can be done, and the more Evil the better. In that case, yes, they could hold the technology in order to use it only for future Really Really Evil (tm) purposes.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Do you realize you just admitted that you will believe anything you desire IRREGARDLESS OF EVIDENCE???

You really ARE as clueless as you appear to be...

It's truly what she does on a regular basis.

 

[fess]

That I am correct that there is no clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM is established.

The only thing that has been established so far is; you have no idea what a wake is. How can you ask for evidence of something that you clearly do not understand?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Images of downtown Manhattan. One technician controls the 3D projection technology. One guy controls the energy weapon.

And how many guys planted the plane parts scattered all over the area?

And how do they do it without being seen?

And how many guys planted the passenger's body parts all over the area?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200829.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/region...N;jsessionid=A256450D5E18EC6C2F1E7A1D9B938FDC
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/01/n...ify-remains-of-two-hijackers-through-dna.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/nyregion/02cnd-dna.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

And how did they do it without being seen?

And when will you stop pissing on the plane victims' graves?

 

[sylvan8798]

So glad I went cold turkey on this subforum awhile back. What a braindrain!

 

[Mudcat]

The only thing that has been established so far is; you have no idea what a wake is. How can you ask for evidence of something that you clearly do not understand?

I think the only thing you can do is ask for clarification. That she doesn't only illuminates her willful ignorance.

 

[Drs_Res]

Hey Tracy...you want to see the state of the art when it comes to holograms? Check this **** out...those crazy Japanese have live concerts with anime characters singing.



This is only accomplished because it's done in a dark auditorium...and if you look carefully you can see the opaque screen that the holograms are be back-projected on. It's still pretty damn cool!

That's okay, but it's just a rear projection and you can see the source of the projection through the screen, not great.

Better:

http://youtu.be/6_gnMOom7kE

 

[minnemouse]

Hm.... I worked in a air traffic control tower for a quite a few years. I have no idea how many landings & takeoffs I witnessed, or how many low passes by fighter planes I saw, but it was quite a few. Its almost ALWAYS impossible to see the wake. Thats why pilots calls it the invisible hazard. It takes very special weather conditions to see the wake, and if you ever see it, its only for a very short time. So then you can add two more things to the list of your "I have no freaking clue about...", Dusty. Aerodynamics and aviation meteorology.

 

[Wolrab]

From now on, we should all use the good doctor's full name so it will come up to these threads in employer searches.

 

[BStrong]

I loved your recapping of my theory. I really loved the transition. Questions? hahaha REally good stuff, there, and I'm a bit flattered you paid such close attention to my cartoon enough to satirize it.

Getting to the questions. Responses in red.

How do we project holographs of planes when there's no technology in the world that can do that? This question is one of those "When did you stop beating your wife?" type questions that presumes something within the question that makes it unanswerable. To attempt to answer it generally, it is indeed impossible to do anything when technology doesn't exist for it. However, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a technology. To amend the question to make it a proper and answerable question, you'd have to put the word "known" before the word "in".

How do I think the holographic technology works? By differentially heating and cooling the air in a very precise manner so that it very precisely refracts light to produce the 3D moving image in the daytime sky. We can already project images into the nighttime sky, but what we are doing there is adding light to a dim sky. In the daytime sky, there's already a superabundance of light, so you'd have to subtract light in order to produce an image. Precise heating of air? Just a guess. Subtracting light from a bright daytime sky? Just a guess.


How do you "dustify" two giant skyscrapers? I don't know, and I'm trying to find out.

What does "dustify" even mean, anyway? Dr. Wood invented a term in order to describe the process in a neutral way. Now that I've discovered that the WTC was largely turned into foam, we don't have to use this artificial word. At the time, it referred to an unknown process that destroyed the WTC and produced a large amount of dust at the same time. You started with some giant skyscrapers, and you ended up with a large amount of dust.

Where is the energy for all this going to come from? From the material itself. The energy contained within the molecules that made up the WTC is what was used to destroy the WTC.

A fountain of Stundie!

 

[Horatius]

In the patent world, holograms are filed under the International Patent Classification G03H.

There's a publicly available patent search engine that lets you search many different national patent databases at:

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP

Approximately 1,636 results found in the Worldwide database for:

2010:2011 as the publication date AND G03H as the IPC classification

That's over 1 600 patents or patent applications published just in the date range of 2010-2011. Of the ones that list the names of the inventors, most have more than one inventor (just on the first few pages of results, there are several with 5-6 inventors listed). While some research teams have more than one document listed, we can safely say there are several thousand people working on holographic technologies.

Who pays those people? Well, the companies who are commercializing their patents do, obviously. Not every patent makes money, but the ones that do make enough to support all those people.

And the technology that WTC Dust blithely supposes was used on 9/11 would blow every single one of those patents out of the water. This alleged technology would be as far in advance of this work as we are in advance of Sir Issac Newton and his first prism.

And yet, this technology has never been commercialized. No one has made a dime off it. So how exactly are the thousands of researchers it would take to invent this technology being paid? Do we suppose the NWO is just so vastly wealthy that they can drop millions, billions, maybe trillions of dollars on advanced research, that they use once, and never again? That they expect no return on their investment?

Does that make even the slightest bit of sense?

 

[twinstead]

Does that make even the slightest bit of sense?

That's what They WANT you to think...

 

[Dcdrac]

Two very large aeroplanes were flown into two very large buildings

 

[WTC Dust]

Horatius: And you wonder why we're not convinced?

Heck, I'm not even convinced that it was a hologram, so I'm not surprised that you remain unconvinced. But, since everyone asks me how I think it went down, I made a cartoon about it.

I think it was a small group of people who controlled exotic weapons using computers. I don't think it was a large group of people who hijacked airplanes.

I think it was a hologram for several reasons: 1. There isn't an impact at the south face of WTC 2 when the object appears to connect with the building. 2. There isn't clear evidence of a wake in either the fume cloud that was coming from WTC 1 at 9:03AM or the explosion that came out of WTC 2 soon after the "hit" on the second building. 3. The nose-out FOX news videos showed that became so famous as the prime reason everyone used to proclaim video fakery. (I don't choose this theory.) and 4. So many videos, still images, and eyewitness accounts depict a plane flying through the sky.

Taking 1-4 as a given, the hologram theory comes out on top. A real plane doesn't fit all four. A faked video doesn't fit all four. Genuine, unaltered video of a faked plane does fit all four conditions. No one on this forum or anywhere else has been able to show clear evidence of an impact or the wake of an airplane (1 and 2), and 3 certainly exists. Since I count the eyewitness testimony as genuine as well as all the video as genuine, the fake plane theory wins out.

I might be wrong. If anyone had evidence of 1 or 2, I'd change my mind, but I'm not willing to ignore 3 or 4.

 

[WTC Dust]

I would think trying to be brighter than the Sun would be the first issue. Holograms like dark places.

That's why I say a daytime hologram would have to subtract light, not add it.