Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

jammonius said:
Instead, I will simply leave the matter at this:
66_Roadrunner.jpg
Click to expand...
OMFG!1!1!!!1 A pic of the burning towers with a Roadrunner silhouette photoshopped in!!!1!!!11

This can only mean... 9/11 was an inside job!11!!11!1!!!!11!!1

/jammonius target audience
 
I just though of something. No planers are idiots. Good thing jammonius isn't one of those.
 
jay howard said:
Show me a testable claim and I'll show you a scientific theory. It may be an incorrect scientific theory, but a scientific one nonetheless.

Do you understand the difference? If you know a damned thing about what science is, you'd better.
Click to expand...

Nice words, but conspiracy theories are untestable by definition. That's because if the results of the test don't agree with what the CT wants to believe, it gets thrown out.

That's NOT science.

ETA: I have to give you credit for at least giving lip service to the scientific method. Now, if only you could go that extra step and critically examine the results of scientific endeavors and determine what is valid and what is bogus. Just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean that everything he does is golden.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Hey beachnut,

Well, it certainly doesn't sound like you're willing to engage in discussion based on your tone. But, let me just doublecheck: Will you consider having a reasoned discussion on crash physics, using the known 9/11 video information to illustrate various points?

By "reasoned discussion" I mean one where you're willing to exchange ideas, debate back and forth, in a respectful tone, without a lot of presumptuous name calling.

On the other hand, if there's no information you're willing to consider that calls into question how on earth jetliners could glide through the Twin Towers, from nose to tail, wing tip to wing tip without slowing and without degrading, then fine, we can forego discussion.

Instead, I will simply leave the matter at this:
66_Roadrunner.jpg
Click to expand...

You have no understanding of aircraft accidents, I was trained to investigate aircraft crashes, but the majority of JREF posters (except you and other believers in delusions about 911) don't need to be trained to see you posts are based on lies by lairs in 911 truth.

The large heavy jets on 911 did not glide through the WTC, they delivered a 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impact which fatally wounded the WTC.

You may not understand, Robertson the chief engineer of the WTC structure designed the WTC to withstand an impact of a jet liner at 180 mph! Studies done after 911 reveal a jet impact of 200 mph would be stopped with minor damage. What you fail to do is the math and physics; WHY? The original design would stop impacts in the range of 187 pounds of TNT kinetic energy! The impacts on 911 were 7 to 11 times higher; being about an order of magnitude larger (look it up google man) these 911 impacts fatally wounded the WTC, knocking out fire fighting systems and setting fires with the heat energy of 315 tons of TNT in the form of jet fuel ignited by hot jet engines falling apart as they bounced through the WTC, cutting columns! Do you even try to understand physics?

Water can cut steel, a 590 mph aircraft can enter the WTC breaking column connections; next time use your 8 years to gain an education instead of repeating junk you found on the Internet, idiotic junk.

There are few things stronger than the two jet engines and the landing gear on flight 11 and 175 which easily entered the WTC because of energy which was possible due to SPEED/VELOCITY; and speed kills!

Your lack of education is showing as you plummet at speeds much greater than free-fall into the pit of ignorance more commonly known as 911 truth!
What other failed ideas do you have to expose your ignorance in science like Jerry did!?

You have cartoons, I have physics; you win the delusion contest; good job
 
Last edited:
jay howard said:
The claims I'm defending are testable, verifiable claims.

DEW's and "no-planers" have no testable theories. They are therefore, outside the realm of the scientific.

Show me a testable claim and I'll show you a scientific theory. It may be an incorrect scientific theory, but a scientific one nonetheless.

Do you understand the difference? If you know a damned thing about what science is, you'd better.
Click to expand...

The DEW stuff is as rataional as your junk.
 
BigAl said:
The physics of "dustifying" steel isn't rocket science. The math is high school level physics. Pay attention to beachnut and Mackey. They know what they are talking about.

There are no eyewitnesses that describe anything like a beam device at WTC. A couple million people were watching the collapse.

Nobody was made blind.

Nobody got a suntan.
Click to expand...

Dear Big Al,

How many times am I going to have to remind you NOT to engage in abosolutist declarations?

There are a lot of witnesses who have made statements consistent with directed energy weaponry destruction. One just as to look and to be mindful of what people are actually saying. I'm going to give you an example.

If a steel building is falling down and if, as is claimed, all the steel is later recovered, then it follows the sound and the shaking of the ground would be incredible.

But, we all know that neither of those things happened, including Zachary Goldfarb, who was standing 'right there' and this is what he said:

"So the second tower comes down. Huge clouds, huge -- the same thing. It's like, hey, I've been here already, you know? Just horrible. The strangest thing is I don't remember noise associated with it. You would think that would be a very noisy kind of thing, and I just remember quiet. I don't know if like your ears disconnect or something? I don't know. I don't remember ground shaking, noise, any of that stuff, and I was right there. Much too close."
 
jammonius said:
Notice what has happened here. You offered up 1 post of attempted proof of the common myth, consisting, as you say, in YOUR web pages and notes for the reading you've done in this area for the last 20 years. (By the way, it doesn't add much to your credibility to say you knew OBL did it before it happened. In the official version of the myth, it took until about 10 seconds after the second explosion for the mainstream media to determine who did it; and, it took about 1 hour after the Twin Towers were destroyed for some bozo to figure out exactly why it happened -- structural failure -- a line that has not ever been deviated from since then.
Click to expand...

Let's forget about evidence for a moment and just look at one undeniable fact:

People who believe in the common "myth", as you call it, are able to state in clear, succinct terms what they believe happened on 9/11. They are able to articulate a plausible narrative describing what they believe without exposing themselves to ridicule.

Can you do the same? The answer is no. Not even the brightest stars of the truth movement have been able to do it after nine years of trying.

Now a little advice: Don't come to a skeptics' forum, a place that celebrates reason and critical thinking, and attempt to redefine the rules of logic with your slick fallacies. No one here is buying it.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
What is worse is making a Roadrunner cartoon joke out of the deaths of thousands of people.

Sick.
Click to expand...

hokulele,

You are engaging in the conduct of a classic scoundrel, you know the Ben Johnson quote, right? Shame on you for your mock indignation. You don't have any more or any less right to claim empathy for the victims of 9/11 than I do and I won't allow you to make that claim.

By dressing yourself in sympathy for the victims you are using them to try to dodge coming to grips with what happened to them. After all, what happened to them has never been properly explained, and that is the point that is being made here.

So, no, indeed. You don't represent victims and you are not more sympathetic to them than I am and calling attention to the false explanations about what was done to them is, in fact, the right and proper thing to do.

How dare you engage in mock sympathy. That is a cheap, nasty trick.
 
Ryan Mackey tested the Beam weapon theory (and found it wanting on several fronts) on that other thread, jay's epistemology not withstanding.

ETA - I think that the Beam Weapons from Space and "no planer" proponents are more honest. At least they don't wrap their crazy theories in a veneer of science. They just want to believe some crazy ****. That's pretty harmless, looking at the big picture.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Dear Big Al,

How many times am I going to have to remind you NOT to engage in abosolutist declarations?
Click to expand...
careful medical records were kept for all admissions to local hospitals on 9/11. No burns consistent with energy weapons and no blindness was counted.
There are a lot of witnesses who have made statements consistent with directed energy weaponry destruction. One just as to look and to be mindful of what people are actually saying. I'm going to give you an example.

If a steel building is falling down and if, as is claimed, all the steel is later recovered, then it follows the sound and the shaking of the ground would be incredible.

But, we all know that neither of those things happened, including Zachary Goldfarb, who was standing 'right there' and this is what he said:
Click to expand...

Goldfarb doesn't describe anything that identifies what happened to him as a beam weapon. Besides, it wouldn't be just one story. Thousands to a couple million people would decribe something that reads like a chapter in The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. I've read it. You haven't.

Here's a typical effect/ The picture is from the book. People that wore black burned, people that wore white, not so much.
Samuel Glasstone, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 1962, Revised 1964, U.S. Dept of Defense and U.S. Dept of Energy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
hokulele,

You are engaging in the conduct of a classic scoundrel, you know the Ben Johnson quote, right? Shame on you for your mock indignation. You don't have any more or any less right to claim empathy for the victims of 9/11 than I do and I won't allow you to make that claim.

By dressing yourself in sympathy for the victims you are using them to try to dodge coming to grips with what happened to them. After all, what happened to them has never been properly explained, and that is the point that is being made here.

So, no, indeed. You don't represent victims and you are not more sympathetic to them than I am and calling attention to the false explanations about what was done to them is, in fact, the right and proper thing to do.

How dare you engage in mock sympathy. That is a cheap, nasty trick.
Click to expand...


I wasn't dressing myself in sympathy, I was pointing out your lack thereof.
 
jammonius said:
hokulele,

You are engaging in the conduct of a classic scoundrel, you know the Ben Johnson quote, right? Shame on you for your mock indignation. You don't have any more or any less right to claim empathy for the victims of 9/11 than I do and I won't allow you to make that claim.

By dressing yourself in sympathy for the victims you are using them to try to dodge coming to grips with what happened to them. After all, what happened to them has never been properly explained, and that is the point that is being made here.

So, no, indeed. You don't represent victims and you are not more sympathetic to them than I am and calling attention to the false explanations about what was done to them is, in fact, the right and proper thing to do.

How dare you engage in mock sympathy. That is a cheap, nasty trick.
Click to expand...
This thread is about Jerry Leaphart who has idiotic ideas on 911 and the best you can do to support his moronic delusions is make a weak attack on a fellow JREF members at a skeptics forum! Is this your A-game, or are you incapable of understanding the OP topic person is an idiot (on 911 issues) who rants about pure stupid on 911 issues?

Wait, you supported his airplanes, which fly at 600 mph, are weak "hollow aluminum tubes"! You have no real skills at engineering as you compare aircraft, about the only objects strong enough to fly at 600 mph for over 10,000 hours, you say they are harmless objects. I almost forgot you and physics are not friends.

Your support of the cretin in the OP makes your credibility zero on 911 issues.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
You may not understand, Robertson the chief engineer of the WTC structure designed the WTC to withstand an impact of a jet liner at 180 mph!
Click to expand...


Even that was a calculation about the impact alone. They didn't have the tools to calculate anything about fuel or fires.

Also, they didn't know that the mafia was going to do such a half-assed job applying the fireproofing to the beams.
 
9/11ChewyDefense said:
When is Judy Wood & the Truthers going to get that the Death Star & the Death Star II were blown up in 1977 by Luke Skywalker & in 1983 by Lando Calrission?
Click to expand...


Luke may have all that Force stuff going for him, but Lando did it in style in a cool rockin' Millennium Falcon. And of course, Wedge is the secret to both of their successes.
 
jay howard said:
The claims I'm defending are testable, verifiable claims.

DEW's and "no-planers" have no testable theories. They are therefore, outside the realm of the scientific.

Show me a testable claim and I'll show you a scientific theory. It may be an incorrect scientific theory, but a scientific one nonetheless.

Do you understand the difference? If you know a damned thing about what science is, you'd better.
Click to expand...

Okay, well instead of rambling on and on here in the JREF forum, why don't you man up and show us these "testable, verifiable" claims??? I'm guessing you get on Youtube a lot (most Truthers do)?? Get on there and show us a scientific theory!! Man up, buddy!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom