Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[SUSpilot]

As I've told you many times, plane crashes can't do THAT to a steel framed building.

As simple as hijacking airplanes would have been, it wouldn't have resulted in the damage that was seen.

Since the evidence is that they did, then your musings are incorrect. Not too terribly difficult to understand, is it?

 

[A W Smith]

Video of wake,

DGM asked if you see the funnel shaped smoke feature that runs down the left side of the tower...So you do see it, yes?

You can see the smoke and debris funnel rotating on the east side of the south tower @ 4 min 4 sec in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=814rcm4KC5w&t=4m4s

and at 6 min 16 seconds, even better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=814rcm4KC5w&t=6m16s

and at 7 min 53 seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=814rcm4KC5w&t=7m53s


/end thread
debunked

 

[Bell]

See what you did, WTC Dust? You channeled Gravy!

 

[Bell]

Yes, I did, in other threads.

Link please?

 

[Dash80]

I see a column of fumes that is lighter in color than the rest on the left side of the image.

A column of fumes? Since when was smoke, dust and debris "fumes?" You make this mistake a lot. Me thinks you're heavily influenced by fumes of a specific kind...

 

[Dash80]

Could be, but I still see a curl as a unique sort of damage, and there are curled regions all over the statue. The top part is curling upwards! This can't be because something fell on it.

Shouldn't it be foamy? Just sayin'

 

[alienentity]

WTC Dust: I think this has been pointed out several times now, but even if only two people pushed buttons to directly control the events on 9/11, you still need an absurdly gigantic group of people with insider knowledge for your theory to work. ... And as far as I can tell, one porous rock that you found long after the event is not sufficient evidence.

Welcome to the forums and excellent post!

 

[Alareth]

Oops, had I known about WTC Dust's behavior on this forum, I wouldn't have chimed in. Hope she gets help.

Holy ****** It's a wild Gravy!

I hear they are rarer and an Ivory Billed Woodpecker.

 

[DGM]

I see a column of fumes that is lighter in color than the rest on the left side of the image.

Now you know what a wake should look like. See, you thought you weren't going to learn something here.


You're Welcome.

 

[Travis]

Could you provide a reference for this? How did you learn about it?

Thanks.

Well the info can be found in the following threads:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=512569&highlight=deutsche+bank
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=598918&highlight=deutsche+bank
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=221894&highlight=deutsche+bank


Needless to say lots of people have been talking about this building for a long time.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That's not my point at all. A fragile aluminum airboat could never break through steel columns.

In what way was that not your point at all? That was exactly to the point. You insist the plane was too fragile to break steel columns. I say you are wrong and I say you have no relevant knowledge to allow you to assess whether you are right or wrong.

Please note that a 200 ton aircraft can be picked up by its wings. They are designed to be that strong. The WTC towers could not survive your fanciful example of being picked up and held like a baseball bat, let alone swung like one, without instantly disintegrating.

The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a stray 707. The towers did indeed survive the impact of similarly heavy aircraft even though they were travelling much faster than the designer envisaged. What they did not withstand was the eventual weakening of the steel structure due to the raging fuel fires on top of the accumulated damage and stripping of fire protection.

 

[WTC Dust]

DGM asked if you see the funnel shaped smoke feature that runs down the left side of the tower...So you do see it, yes?

I see something, but I'm not agreeing to the descriptive language used.

 

[WTC Dust]

Now you know what a wake should look like. See, you thought you weren't going to learn something here.


You're Welcome.

It's not clear evidence of a wake, yet, but I'm listening. Go on.

 

[Dash80]

It's not clear evidence of a wake, yet, but I'm listening. Go on.

Oh but it is, a clear sign of a vortex. Look at the pictures again, look at pictures of tornadoes. Different circumstances but same basic principle. A vortex. Do tell us what else it could be, because obviously you know better.

 

[WTC Dust]

Well the info can be found in the following threads:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=512569&highlight=deutsche+bank
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=598918&highlight=deutsche+bank
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=221894&highlight=deutsche+bank


Needless to say lots of people have been talking about this building for a long time.

Nobody is talking about the Deutsche Bank as evidence of advanced weaponry, except me. Nothing in the images provided changes my opinion. I still smelled the WTC stench as last as 2009, coincident with the published article about "smoke" accumulation.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Shouldn't it be foamy? Just sayin'

It received an "accidental zap" from the space weapon, not quite long enough to cause the foamy effect.

 

[Dash80]

Nobody is talking about the Deutsche Bank as evidence of advanced weaponry, except me. Nothing in the images provided changes my opinion. I still smelled the WTC stench as last as 2009, coincident with the published article about "smoke" accumulation.

*looks up from filing her nails to see if you have said anything remotely interesting, like providing any evidence*

Nope, just repeating yourself, nothing new.

*goes back to filing nails*

 

[MIKILLINI]

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.

The things you talk about resemble a deluded thought process as you refuse to use the application of physics to test against these wild theories. That is a fundamental step you will not take to make your arguments compelling. You'll never get conclusive answers proceeding in this manner. But hey, that's you.

 

[Dash80]

It received an "accidental zap" from the space weapon, not quite long enough to cause the foamy effect.

Of course, this makes perfect sense.

 

[hurdygurdy]

Nobody is talking about the Deutsche Bank as evidence of advanced weaponry, except me.

Congratulations for your fifteen minutes of still not being famous.