Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

Stop it, now.

We do not care about your post-bong musings. Please find something better to do with your time.

If you don't care, then don't read.

 

[Dash80]

Another good shot of The Sphere, taken some time after the attacks, that shows exactly what I say I saw 72 hours later.

Not many tall pieces of the WTC sticking up. Certainly not a tall pile in the footprint of the WTC buildings. Still, fumes coming up off the pile.

I see a lot of steel there, and some smoke.

 

[WTC Dust]

I see a lot of steel there, and some smoke.

But what I say is true. The piles of steel aren't very tall. What you call smoke is something else.

 

[Dash80]

If you don't care, then don't read.

I absolutely do care, what I care about is being respectful to victims... Something you fail at as much as you fail at everything else.

 

[WTC Dust]

How surprised will you be if it turns out I'm right? Anyway, if you think I'm wrong, fine. Debunk away.

It's not unheard of to have to repair or reinforce part of a building prior to a demolition. Even traditional forms of demolition are more technical then "just knock the building down" and often require preparation work.

The largest controlled demolition in history, the J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit, took several months of rehab before it could safely be demolished.

Or maybe they were trying to refurb the building at first and discovered too much interior damage while doing so, so scrapped the project before the sunk cost got too high.

Or maybe they were trying to salvage some parts of the building, interior wiring, fixtures, and so forth, from the building before demolishing it.

There's dozen of possible answers that don't require mythical comic book weaponry farcical foolishness.

 

[Dash80]

But what I say is true. The piles of steel aren't very tall. What you call smoke is something else.

No it's not true, just because you say so doesn't make it true.

 

[Dash80]

How surprised will you be if it turns out I'm right? Anyway, if you think I'm wrong, fine. Debunk away.

He did, thoroughly.

It's a perfectly reasonable explaination.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

How surprised will you be if it turns out I'm right?

How surprised would you be if Elvis walked in and offered you a unicorn sandwich?

About that much.

 

[WTC Dust]

I'm no scientician, nor factologist. For a time the 'truther' view seemed appealing. But what clinches it for me is more of a common sense approach. This isn't me being arrogant, it's just a personal thing. No truther can adequately explain to me why, if you are going to wire up the WTC/Building 7 (itself a nonsense theory) and then blow it up as some 'false flag' event, why bother with securing a bunch of planes and directing them into the buildings? You wouldn't need that, just saying the building was destroyed by bombs placed by terrorists would be enough. So it makes no sense.

You got that right. I call it the "planes plus bombs" theory. The thermite theorists get crazy mad if you point out that they are supporting a "no planes" theory. What they are saying is that airplanes did not destroy the WTC, which is really, really old news anyway.

Here's the thing: almost all of the people heavily supporting the thermite theory started out anti-American before 9/11. They need to keep the airplanes in the theory, because it proves to them that the US was involved in the attacks of 9/11 via a NORAD standdown, etc.

That the US didn't intercept any planes on 9/11 is strange, indeed. The thermite theorists conclude that the government was in on the attacks. The no planer position is that it is impossible to intercept airplane flights that don't exist.

The official hijack conspiracy theory has many things wrong with it in terms of the forensic evidence. The thermite theorists stupidly accept all these inconsistencies and add many more to the story, resulting in a gargantuan theory that includes thousands of individuals and a multitude of inconsistencies.

Compare this to a theory of a few individuals controlling advanced weaponry from an office somewhere. Much, much less of a conspiracy needed with my theory. The only inconsistency is that the technology isn't public knowledge, yet.

 

[Resume]

Not in terms of being evidence of advanced weaponry used on 9/11, they haven't.

Well of course not, because that didn't happen.

 

[Foolmewunz]

deleted

Never mind. Just saw the thread on the damaged globe. No more tossing kippers to the troll.


Dr. B, go back to your MMB role. It was worthwhile, if a little dingy.

 

[phiwum]

\
Here's the thing: almost all of the people heavily supporting the thermite theory started out anti-American before 9/11. They need to keep the airplanes in the theory, because it proves to them that the US was involved in the attacks of 9/11 via a NORAD standdown, etc.

That the US didn't intercept any planes on 9/11 is strange, indeed. The thermite theorists conclude that the government was in on the attacks. The no planer position is that it is impossible to intercept airplane flights that don't exist.

But surely you realize that you have to explain how it is that ATC staff reported radar signals of non-existent airplanes, what it is that happened near Shanksville and the Pentagon, how so many people believed they saw airplanes impacting the building at the exact same time that there was a large event at the building consistent with an airplane impact and so on.

And all of this prior to explaining what sort of weapon turns most (?) of a building to iron-based foam. Which is, to be sure, a wee bit unusual.

But never mind. Surely your task is much simpler than the thermite crowd and much, much simpler than the folks who claim it had something to do with planes and gravity.

 

[Dash80]

You should tell your cartoon perps to sit properly with their chairs on all legs, they might injure themselves. Safety in the workplace!

 

[WTC Dust]

But surely you realize that you have to explain how it is that ATC staff reported radar signals of non-existent airplanes,


I cannot account for everything everyone ever said about 9/11. That's too much effort, and people lie or are confused. I spend my time thinking about temperatures and the properties of materials. That sort of stuff is independently verifiable.


what it is that happened near Shanksville and the Pentagon, how so many people believed they saw airplanes impacting the building at the exact same time that there was a large event at the building consistent with an airplane impact and so on.

I say a projected image was seen above NYC.

And all of this prior to explaining what sort of weapon turns most (?) of a building to iron-based foam. Which is, to be sure, a wee bit unusual.

Damn skippy, it's unusual.

But never mind. Surely your task is much simpler than the thermite crowd and much, much simpler than the folks who claim it had something to do with planes and gravity.

If planes and gravity can't do it, then planes and gravity can't do it. It doesn't matter if the official hijack conspiracy is a simpler story. Plane crashes just don't do what was done. We have many examples of plane crashes and even a few plane-crashes-into-buildings examples to compare to 9/11. They don't match up.

 

[Dash80]

If planes and gravity can't do it, then planes and gravity can't do it. It doesn't matter if the official hijack conspiracy is a simpler story. Plane crashes just don't do what was done. We have many examples of plane crashes and even a few plane-crashes-into-buildings examples to compare to 9/11. They don't match up.

No, they're not even close to being similar circumstances. Don't even try this one again.

 

[WTC Dust]

deleted

Never mind. Just saw the thread on the damaged globe. No more tossing kippers to the troll.


Dr. B, go back to your MMB role. It was worthwhile, if a little dingy.

I am an independent 9/11 researcher. This should be clear to you by now if it wasn't before.

I'm talking about things that almost nobody else is talking about.

 

[phiwum]

If planes and gravity can't do it, then planes and gravity can't do it. It doesn't matter if the official hijack conspiracy is a simpler story. Plane crashes just don't do what was done. We have many examples of plane crashes and even a few plane-crashes-into-buildings examples to compare to 9/11. They don't match up.

As usual, your in-line reply makes responses difficult.

First, let me note that your claim about magical holograms of airplanes doesn't complete the story. What about the apparent damage from the make-believe impacts?

Second, you claim to spend your time thinking about properties of materials, all the while pretending that magical weapons can turn steel to "foam". You should think hard enough to explain how that works.

 

[WTC Dust]

I absolutely do care, what I care about is being respectful to victims... Something you fail at as much as you fail at everything else.

I care much more about being respectful of the living survivors of iron oxide exposure who worked the pits at Ground Zero.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Where was the weapon?

You can't postulate such a weapon without first showing it can at least theoretically exist and function in some way, and that includes finding at least one possible site from where it was fired.

 

[triforcharity]

Again, the key point of the cartoon was that the attack was perpetrated from an office, not an airport. The office could have been a mobile office, true.

A cockpit would certainly be a mobile office. Most likely the most mobile office in known existence.