Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Just to play along a bit further with Dr Blevin's 'call to perfection' fallacy, that we should, even without bothering to calculate the actual resolution of various videos available of the WTC 2 plane impact, be able to see some amount of debris deflecting/ricocheting off the tower rather than just entering into it; I offer this video.
Yes, I know she'll go straight into denial mode, even though the video CLEARLY shows a noticeable amount of material doing just that even before the entire plane has impacted, and before the ignition of the huge fireball.
That's kind of the point, because she's cooked her own goose, so to speak, by making various irresponsible claims.
However, the real kicker is not this simple demonstration of the fallacious nature (it both sucks and blows) of the claims; no - it is that this entire discussion is a rather moronic distraction from all the forensic evidence of the planes which exists independent of any grainy videos which are available.
Yes, that's what I just wrote - something can exist as a fact even if it has not appeared on a grainy youtube video. I'm really going out on a limb, I know.
Forget about hypothetical scenarios of the Queen Mary. Forensics takes care of all that bafflegab. Look at the totality of the evidence, apply Occam's Razor, and voila, there's your answer.
Dr. Blevins, with all her impressive yet irrelevant qualifications, is simply not able to pull off this rather mundane intellectual feat. Or perhaps I should say she doesn't want to. It doesn't matter which is true (maybe both?). She's wrong, plain and simple.
But not just wrong - she, as a committed no-planer, is insisting on a staggeringly stupid idea. This really serves only to demonstrate the profound disfunction of a potentially fine mind, and is ultimately rather sad. As a pure fraud or a delusional nitwit she is wasting whatever potential she has on this nonsense. The notion that adding together a group of such nitwits, namely Judy Wood and FH Couannier, will result in brilliant insight is sadly mistaken. Quite the contrary - since these very people are drawn together by a shared incompetence and intellectual disfunction, the errors will be amplified. It's exactly like Lloyd Christmas getting 'help' from Harry Dunne.. (see 'Dumb and Dumber')
These clowns will run away from any mainstream, competent scientists. They are destined to be isolated and irrelevant.
Number 1 (response): Seems like you've already decided that a government agency must have been responsible if it was an advanced weapon. I say this doesn't have to be true. It could be a small group. Technology could be stolen or sold to unscrupulous people.
I know I said I wasn't getting involved anymore but maybe a part of me is hoping you could be capable of rational discussion.
I see these claims often amongst truthers, that few people would need to be involved. This is trash, especially when you are a no-planer.
I would like you to answer these points, without resorting to "you're wrong" or "planes can't do that" answers. Answer without dodging the issues and tell me your explainations for the things I mention.
1. As a no-planer you are implicating many people, not just a "small group" and this includes the government.
Lets begin with listing a few:
*NORAD (military response to hijackings).
*FAA
*Air Traffic Control (Not only those who were tracking the flights and heard the hijackers on the radio, controllers at Newark Tower saw United 175 hurtle towards the South Tower and impact it).
*United and American Airlines (who confirmed the loss of two planes each and their passengers).
Either the above organizations were directly involved in the inside job or were somehow fooled. Please explain HOW either of these possibilities were achieved.
The first report of a plane crash was seconds after 8:46am, when Battalion Chief Joseph Pfiefer radioed that a plane had smashed in to the North Tower and appeared to have aimed directly at it. Are you implicating the FDNY too? Explain their role in this "deception"
2. Exactly who do you THINK this group of people are? How did they set up this weapon? How did they utilize it?
Whether you like me or not is of no consequence. I am only here to understand what evidence you have for little or no no heat involved in the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 as this would negatively impact my own theory - which I am ready to drop in the face of the superior evidence which you claim to have.
I have to say that getting this information from you is like getting blood out of a stone. You say that you have explained it in your posts ? Very well.So please direct me to a post that will put me on the right track. You are a very prolific poster and sorting the wheat from the chaff would not be an easy matter without you pinpointing a few relevent posts.
Whether you like me or not is of no consequence. I am only here to understand what evidence you have for little or no no heat involved in the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 as this would negatively impact my own thoery. I am ready to drop my own theory in the face of superior evidence which you claim to have.
I have to say that getting this information from you is like getting blood out of a stone. You say that you have explained it in your posts ? Very well.So please direct me to a post that will put me on the right track. You are a very prolific poster and sorting the wheat from the chaff would not be an easy matter without you pinpointing a few inrelevent posts.
In post #4372, I mistakenly wrote the bulet fragments mostly scattered parallel to the direction of travel of a bullet, when I meant perpendicular. I am not getting the sleep I should when I should these days.
Whether you like me or not is of no consequence. I am only here to understand what evidence you have for little or no no heat involved in the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 as this would negatively impact my own thoery. I am ready to drop my own theory in the face of superior evidence which you claim to have.
The fact that fire fighters survived in the core of one of the towers and that there were no indications of fiendishly bright white light around any of the exterior columns rules out any great deal of heat outside of that generated by the Class A fires on the office floors. Your willy-willy is just a perturbation of the flow of the wind through the canyon.
It takes much less technical training and knowledge to recognize the correct answer if someone else has made the discovery than it takes to make the discovery on your own.
except for possibly Bill, but even he didn't have the intellectual attitude that recognizes the correct answer. He hasn't cottoned on to the fact that it was a low heat process, despite me saying so and despite pointers to Judy's website. Therefore, in my opinion, he's not really searching for the correct answer. He's just diddling around, I guess.
Most of the rest of you thought you heard the right answer on the day of 9/11 itself, without a moment of effort or independent thought on your own part. Airplane crashes can't do that to buildings, people. No amount of calculation and mathematical modeling is going to make it so. So you all basically get on my nerves in a big way, but I'm still mostly polite.
Why you all believe the story you heard 10 years ago is a very long subject. What happens when stuff happens and the government doesn't explain it correctly? You just go, "OK. Whatever they say, it's true." Bollocks.
Why don't you leave me alone? You're no friend to me. You failed to recognize the correct answer when it was given to you, even though you appear to recognize that the official story isn't correct.
Go do your learning on your own. I won't help you.
It doesn't matter that the different "inside job" hypotheses are clearly contradictory or nonsensical. As long as they work their way backwards from the same conclusion, they are all valid!
The really professional truthers can claim, in the same breath, that NORAD ordered its fighters to stand down AND they had them shoot down Flight 93. Now THAT's trutherism!
Are you making the claim that air doesn't follow along in the direction of the path of the plane, when it is flying through the air? That an airplane doesn't drag a wake behind it?
So either I'm right (and very ahead of the curve), or I'm wrong, and a bad scientist.
Delusional, crazy, in need of meds, none of that is going to work for you as a debunking because I'm not one of those folks. Pitiable people, the mentally ill.
It might not be energy weapons. It wasn't airplane crashes. It wasn't explosive devices. But energy weapons have not been disproved.
I didn't come up with the energy weapon connection, so it's not my theory. It's the only undebunked theory of WTC destruction, so it remains the front runner.
Whatever weapon destroyed the WTC, they have to produce the kinds of metallic foam that I discovered. I didn't discover metallic foam in the WTC dust. I discovered that the dust is more precisely called a foam, and that the foam is metallic.
"Energy weapons" is Woods' hobby interest. Its not like she is a rocket scientist.
The point is you are not addressing the logical issues of your claims, if you did and went through it logically and honestly point by point you'd soon realise your theory of energy wepons used to destroy the WTC is absurd. You cant even show that such weapons can theoretically exist and next actually have been created but even if you could do that you still haven't addressed the logical questions raised by people like Sabrina as to whether its rational to think they were used. You haven't even begin to make a case and you seem to refuse to look at your position with a truly critical mind or you wouldn't need to ignore such critical issues.
Added: My work is the dust. Energy weapons is someone else's work. I haven't taken the time to excruciatingly present the work of a different person, but why should I do that? She has her website. She has her book. If you wanted to know about the energy weapon theory, you have information available at your fingertips. I'll continue to talk about my work, which is a proper analysis of the WTC dust.
"Energy weapons" is Woods' hobby interest. Its not like she is a rocket scientist.
The point is you are not addressing the logical issues of your claims, if you did and went through it logically and honestly point by point you'd soon realise your theory of energy wepons used to destroy the WTC is absurd. You cant even show that such weapons can theoretically exist and next actually have been created but even if you could do that you still haven't addressed the logical questions raised by people like Sabrina as to whether its rational to think they were used. You haven't even begin to make a case and you seem to refuse to look at your position with a truly critical mind or you wouldn't need to ignore such critical issues.
You could say the same thing about any person making any claim on the internet, so why bother?
I'm talking about my own work on my own WTC dust samples that I collected myself.
Do you have anything to say about what I've done? Other than to deny it and call me the same kook, liar, BS that most of the rest of the JREFers have done?
Even Sabrina, she's talking about my dust, but she isn't talking about my results. She has determined that contamination of a vague sort can turn steel buildings into metallic foam. Not a real discussion of my findings, but at least in the general area.
There you go again, proclaim yourself sole decider of what is or isn't "the truth", for everyone. This is a pathetic habit of those selling snake oil and lies to others...
I'm not surprised at all that people regularly call you liar... You aren't very good at it. It doesn't take much to see that you are just peddling BS...
No, no, no. I'm still talking about the video. I haven't given up. I want to be proved wrong if possible. That's why I'm asking for a jpeg. I haven't moved the goalposts one bit. If anything, I've focused the goal on what exactly is needed to prove me wrong. Let's see a jpeg that includes some circled debris, so that we can determine if it was
1. reasonably parts of a plane
2. moving in the opposite direction of the flight path
3. at the site of supposed impact
and
4. beginning at the moment of impact.
If you can do this, you'll have proved me wrong. But since I've seen that very video and examined it closely for evidence of bounceback and not found any, I'm asking for a screen shot and a circled place on a jpeg.
It proves my point directly. The WTC was made of steel. Yeah, there were windows, but no airplane could possibly slip inside the windows and avoid the steel.
So we should see some bounce-back at least in the areas where this "plane" hit the steel.
Remarkably good footage, but it does not totally support your position.
Note that the majority of those bullet strikes presenting back splatter are into substances such as steel or glass or high-impact plastics. A great deal of heat is generated on impact, partially melting both bullet and target. Much of the back splatter is the result of the vaporization of either object. Note that the only identifiable metal objects in the back splatter are bits of the bulet jacket and a bit of the stil-solid lead. This spreads mostly parallel to the direction of travel of the bullet. That which rebounds in the opposite direction is largely dust or vapor or atomized liquid. There is some delay in the passage of the bullet through the target, and all of that liquid material has to go somewhere.
In this case, it can only go back up-range. Once the bullet has totally penetrated, most of the material folows it down-range through the hole. Not all of the bullet continues through because it is ablated in passing through the target, and, as a result, the hole is of a smaller diameter than the rear-most portion of the bullet. Thus you see the little medallions of bronze falling off the target.
For most practical purposes, the towers, being just bolted together where the planes hit, more resembled the paper targets than the steel ones.
Note, too, that there is no considerable back splatter from the bullet hitting either paper or ballistic gelatin.
Back splatter in the towers would, if you follow what I am saying here, require that the bolted joints of the perimeter columns and the aluminum cladding would offer sufficient resistance to either cause the formation of a small pool of vaporized metal or to cause the aircraft or parts of it to stop or bounce off.
Such appears not to have been the case. The kinetic energy of the impact of the aircraft was sufficient to shear the bolts on impact. Thus, there was no delay in the passage of our multi-ton bullet and no considerable vaporization of metal.
The Pentagon was quite another issue. That wall offered considerably more resistance and actually stopped the outward, lighter parts of the wings. It also overpressurized the cabin, thus causing parts of the fueselage to blow off just like the bronze jackets of the bullets. Most of the material, however, still had sufficient forward momentum to continue down-range.
I do not recall seeing any of the sequences in the referenced video that showed lead pellets striking light guage sheet metal. Sorry, but this fails to support your point.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
