• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

BenjaminTR said:
I am very confused right now. The only evidence we have of an impact here is a video of a plane on a track. I was under the impression that video evidence counts for nothing, as no-planers tell us. Dr. Judy Wood could have faked this video, for all I know.

Adding to my confusion, this does not look that much different from videos of UA 175. The plane appears to stay intact as it plows into the wall. Given that the wall is completely different and the plane is different, yet there is still substantial similarity, why should this undermine the reality that a plane hit WTC 2?
Click to expand...

What? There was NOTHING like this explosion of debris at the south face of WTC 2. What similarities do you see between this video and the videos of 9:03AM?
 
R.A.F. said:
Seriously, dusty...you simply do not possess the tool "set" to allow you to make determinations such as "what does a plane crash look like".

...and given your "history" as a credulous believer, why would anyone care what you think about plane crashes?

I'm being serious...people consider the "source"...you, and it completely destroys any "argument" you might have to make.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I was a professional research scientist before 9/11, and I lived close enough to Ground Zero to be able to monitor it extensively and for years. There aren't very many people at all who can say this.

What other 9/11 truther is a professional scientist and a local resident?
 
Sunstealer said:
You haven't got the first clue what you are talking about. This post proves you've never done any chemistry at all. Try looking at the periodic table and you'll see that Lithium and Beryllium are far lighter and less dense than most other materials. Metals have a wide range of densities and strengths. The highlighted part is total horse-plop. Why are you using the word molecule when you are talking about atomic bonding? You do realise that bond strength is not the only factor that affects a metal's density? Of course not.

Atomic bond strength in descending order

covalent > ionic > metallic > h-bonds > dipole-dipole > dispersion

Crystal structure (FCC, BCC, HCP etc), atomic radius, nuclear charge and the number of bonding orbitals have an effect. Most metals have d-orbitals which are relatively small. If you consider Lithium which has an s-orbital which is quite big relative to d-orbital you can see how the bonding orbitals have such an effect. Larger bonding orbital = larger electron cloud.

Oh and graphite is metallic bonded by the way and DOES conduct electricity. It's considered a semi-metal. Look up "Carbon Arc Lamp" you ignoramus.

Funny how diamond does not conduct, but graphite and graphene will, yet they are made of Carbon only. How does that work dusty? Magic? You haven't the first clue about atomic bonding or structure in materials. This is the stuff a 14 year old chemistry student will know. You don't know this and yet you claim a PhD that requires an advanced level/degree level in chemistry.

I love the way she uses micrometer scale when the actual scale for atomic bonding is orders of magnitude smaller. Typically measured in Angstroms (Å), 1 x 10 -10m.

Again it shows she has no understanding of the scales involved when anyone who has studied this basic science will know.

I don't respond to your nonsense however, on this occasion it's important to correct you so the reader learns something.

Why do you continue to spout crap when anyone can look up your absurd claims in 10 minutes and see you are full of it?
Click to expand...

Ditto that. In my old line of work, we had huge, low-volt, high-ampere electrolytic cells with big carbon (graphite) anodes. Any smart high schooler can tell you that graphite is an excellent conductor along its planes.
 
notheist said:
So the REAL Truthers don't buy the no planes ****, or the Judy Woods woo.

I imagine if they now throw out the controlled demolition people and the one who say the US did the attacks, they may actually become the "Truth" movement.
Click to expand...

Another way to say this is that thermite sniffers and hijack conspiracists have a lot in common. Neither group denies any significant part of the 9/11 story.
 
Mycroft said:
If the government really had disinformation agents who went on internet forums to spread disinformation, don't you think at some point some ex-government disinformation agent would write a tell-all book about it?
Click to expand...

No, not necessarily. That's especially true if the disinformation agents agreed with both the means and the overall agenda.
 
Redwood said:
Ditto that. In my old line of work, we had huge, low-volt, high-ampere electrolytic cells with big carbon (graphite) anodes. Any smart high schooler can tell you that graphite is an excellent conductor along its planes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, graphite conducts decently. My bad. Poor example. What I said about the Casimir effect is still a possibility. It relates to non-ionic conducting solids, which are most often metals.
 
Scott Sommers said:
Get a grip on things, you no-educated traitor...you. That's the proof! Only a No-plane Truther expert can see what really happened. You and I can only guess. That's why we aren't qualified to say anything - even about something as obvious as whether 2 things look the same. I hope this has cleared up the confusion. You obviously need more drugs.
Click to expand...

My position is that the United States did not attack the WTC on 9/11. That makes me the opposite of a traitor.
 
WTC Dust said:
Yeah, graphite conducts decently. My bad. Poor example. What I said about the Casimir effect is still a possibility. It relates to non-ionic conducting solids, which are most often metals.
Click to expand...

A scientist would have known that without being corrected.
 
WTC Dust said:
On the contrary, I was a professional research scientist before 9/11, and I lived close enough to Ground Zero to be able to monitor it extensively and for years. There aren't very many people at all who can say this.

What other 9/11 truther is a professional scientist and a local resident?
Click to expand...

"Blah blah blah me me me" as usual.

My brother-in-law is a professional scientist and a local resident, he's no truther but why should it matter?
 
WTC Dust said:
My position is that the United States did not attack the WTC on 9/11. That makes me the opposite of a traitor.
Click to expand...

Wow you are RIGHT! The USA did not attack the WTC!

Islamic terrorists did!

Well done Dusty, you get a gold star!
 
WTC Dust said:
My position is that the United States did not attack the WTC on 9/11. That makes me the opposite of a traitor.
Click to expand...

The fact that you are covering up and trying to draw attention away from who really did attack the United States and It's allies is what makes you a traitor. That you are abusing your position and title as a person of science while doing so only compounds your crimes.

For what it's worth, prosecuting you and others like you would be a political hot potato, let alone actually getting a conviction and the death penalty. So there's little reason for it to keep you up at night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom