[Merged] 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread - Page 25

phunk · 9th May 2012, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Nobody posted clear evidence of a wake, so I walk away from this conversation saying the same thing: There is no clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM.

Nor should there be, so what is the point of you continuing this thread?

SUSpilot · 9th May 2012, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by phunk

Nor should there be, so what is the point of you continuing this thread?

Pithy and accurate.

TSR · 9th May 2012, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

It just adds to the pile of no plane evidence.

No, it doesn't, since it has been explained to you why a wake or vortexes would not be expected.

It *does* add to the excuses you can use to run away from evidence you don't like, such as the radar tracks...

NoahFence · 9th May 2012, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

No amount of plane parts is going to change:

1. No evidence of impact of an airplane at the south face of WTC 2.

except the giant hole

Quote:

2. No evidence of a wake at 9:03AM.

Doesn't mean a damn thing.

Quote:

3. That plane crashes don't produce steel foam.

Good thing no steel foam was created then.

jammonius · 9th May 2012, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by phunk

The author's preface has transcripts of her classes?

ETA: adding previous quotes for clarity.

The author's preface has a clear statement that no claims that Bush or anyone else perpetrated the annihilation of the WTC complex on 9/11 are made. Thus, the author contradicts the anonymous student who posted on a website that doesn't require verification of student status or that the person so posting took a class taught by Dr. Wood or any other professor.

This is not intended to provide a way for you to say you believe an anonymous student or that you find such an entity more credible than Dr. Wood's written preface. As I've said many times, posters are free to believe whatever they choose to believe for as long as they can believe whatever it is they believe.

That includes you, Phunk

Regards

WTC Dust · 9th May 2012, 06:52 AM

It is disrespectful, and I request that you address me by my name.

Originally Posted by X

I learned this in primary school.

Miss: an unmarried female
Mrs: a married female
Ms: a female (marital status doesn't matter)

Thus, calling you Ms. Blevins is not an insult, or disrespectful.

EventHorizon · 9th May 2012, 06:57 AM

I can't even wrap my head around this thread. Your average five year old knows that air is invisible. The idea that you should see a wake left by an aircraft moving through the air is astonishing. Absolutely astonishing.

jammonius · 9th May 2012, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Gamolon

Hey jammonius. Have you read Judy's website? Have you read her list of 41 pieces of principle data that she thinks must be explained?

How about number 27 below.

She admits that she knows that 1400 motor vehicles were towed away yet thinks that the vehicles on FDR were toasted in place.

What a complete joke. What's even worse is that you defend her.

The above is sophistry, adding little or nothing to the quality of discussion of forensic evidence. Almost all toasted cars were ultimately towed. That is neither the issue nor the claim associated with the post to which this replies. Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed.

The issue was the claim that cars seen to have been toasted on FDR Drive were towed there. That is a debunker claim that has not been supported, other than by reference to one phony photo, crafted and constructed and/or posted for the first time in 2011, I think.

Before that phony photo, the best the debunkers could do was to make the assertion that Dr. Wood had not proven that the FDR Drive toasted cars were not towed there after having been toasted elsewhere, presumably closer to the WTC complex.

It is well understood that, generally speaking, for debunkers, any old claim is good enough and any source is suitable, so long as it may seem to support the common storyline. Case in point, some debunkers cite the NIST report and the 9/11 Commission Report for claims made about the destruction of the WTC complex, when, in fact, neither report sheds much of any light at all on what happened. The NIST report didn't investigate the actual phase of destruction. And, the 9/11 Commission Report simply copied out newspaper clips, for the most part. It certainly conducted nothing at all in the way of forensic examination.

The book WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? addressed the debunker burden of proof shifting tactic by providing independent evidence of explosions occurring on FDR Drive, thus supporting the claim the toasting happened there and not elsewhere, among other elements of proof set out in a full chapter on the subject.

Blessings

phiwum · 9th May 2012, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

It is disrespectful, and I request that you address me by my name.

So you have no objections to Ms. Postert?

The title "Dr." is not regarded as part of your name in the United States. (Neither is Ms., of course. Both are titles.) It may be different in other parts of the world (Germany, say?), but do stop pretending that Dr. is part of your name.

Others here have a PhD, you know. No one else I know insists on using the title Dr. in this forum. At best, your insistence is remarkably distasteful.

NoahFence · 9th May 2012, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

It is disrespectful, and I request that you address me by my name.

off-topic.

phiwum · 9th May 2012, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

The issue was the claim that cars seen to have been toasted on FDR Drive were towed there. That is a debunker claim that has not been supported, other than by reference to one phony photo, crafted and constructed and/or posted for the first time in 2011, I think.

Before that phony photo, the best the debunkers could do was to make the assertion that Dr. Wood had not proven that the FDR Drive toasted cars were not towed there after having been toasted elsewhere, presumably closer to the WTC complex.

What convinces you that the photo is a phony?

NoahFence · 9th May 2012, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

What convinces you that the photo is a phony?

"Debunkers" say it's real.

That's all these "people" need to know to say its phony.

jammonius · 9th May 2012, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Wow Jammonius you really got issues. You really see no problem with a teacher preaching a conspiracy theory to students when it has no relation to the class? I would be saying the same thing if she was teaching about ghosts to a class when she was supposed to be teaching about engineering.

Missing the point can either be intentional or happenstance. I make no claims about the element of motivation. I do observe, however, that the point that is of substance here has been completely missed in the above post.

The point was that the claim Dr. Wood "should have been fired" for referencing 9/11 in class was the subject of my post.

See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=479

The significance was described as an acknowledgment of the element of fear, repression and acquiescence in fascism. Most people in the USofA understand full well that they had better go along and get along with the official, common storyline of 9/11 out of fear of reprisal. That is what the Quad candidly admitted and that is what was responded to.

Blessings

jammonius · 9th May 2012, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

What convinces you that the photo is a phony?

The source of the photo and the lack of authentication. Not to mention the lack of curvature in the numbers on the trunk of the car.

NoahFence · 9th May 2012, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

The source of the photo and the lack of authentication. Not to mention the lack of curvature in the numbers on the trunk of the car.

You think a random picture of a random burned out car needs to be authenticated?

What if I told you I'm an expert on photograph analysis, and I personally authenticate it?

No. the reason you don't think it's authentic is so you can support the most loony of the loonies. No other reason. Don't even presume to insult our intelligence by suggesting otherwise. You people just aren't as clever as you think.

jammonius · 9th May 2012, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by A W Smith

here ya go dim bulb, selective "rustification"
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=of...iw=939&bih=457

The above is yet another example of any source being sufficient for debunkers. It really adds next to nothing of substance to merely post a google search result without anything further.

AW, can you consider being a bit more specific as to what, if any, point YOU are trying to make; what, if anything, your google search has to do with the forensic determination made by Dr. Wood?

NoahFence · 9th May 2012, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

The above is yet another example of any source being sufficient for debunkers. It really adds next to nothing of substance to merely post a google search result without anything further.

AW, can you consider being a bit more specific as to what, if any, point YOU are trying to make; what, if anything, your google search has to do with the forensic determination made by Dr. Wood?

That sound you just heard was the point flying over your head.

Metal rusts. That's what it does.
Judy is trying to make some sort of fantastic argument based on the fact that metal rusts.

It's like finding it suspect that bread turns green after a while.
No **** sherlock.

Resume · 9th May 2012, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

The above is yet another example of any source being sufficient for debunkers. It really adds next to nothing of substance to merely post a google search result without anything further.

AW, can you consider being a bit more specific as to what, if any, point YOU are trying to make; what, if anything, your google search has to do with the forensic determination made by Dr. Wood?

How much substance do you think is necessary given the nonsensical nature of the no plane/dew/dustify/foamify fevered fantasies?

16.5 · 9th May 2012, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

The above is sophistry, adding little or nothing to the quality of discussion of forensic evidence. Almost all toasted cars were ultimately towed. That is neither the issue nor the claim associated with the post to which this replies. Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed.

The issue was the claim that cars seen to have been toasted on FDR Drive were towed there. That is a debunker claim that has not been supported, other than by reference to one phony photo, crafted and constructed and/or posted for the first time in 2011, I think.

Before that phony photo, the best the debunkers could do was to make the assertion that Dr. Wood had not proven that the FDR Drive toasted cars were not towed there after having been toasted elsewhere, presumably closer to the WTC complex.

It is well understood that, generally speaking, for debunkers, any old claim is good enough and any source is suitable, so long as it may seem to support the common storyline. Case in point, some debunkers cite the NIST report and the 9/11 Commission Report for claims made about the destruction of the WTC complex, when, in fact, neither report sheds much of any light at all on what happened. The NIST report didn't investigate the actual phase of destruction. And, the 9/11 Commission Report simply copied out newspaper clips, for the most part. It certainly conducted nothing at all in the way of forensic examination.

The book WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? addressed the debunker burden of proof shifting tactic by providing independent evidence of explosions occurring on FDR Drive, thus supporting the claim the toasting happened there and not elsewhere, among other elements of proof set out in a full chapter on the subject.

Blessings

Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed.

Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed.

Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed.

Great post, jamm. Lulz.

jammonius · 9th May 2012, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by carlitos

Much as mentioning Judy Wood's name has a beetlejuice-like effect in making jammonius appear, please do take care not to show examples of the height of the debris pile.

You don't really want to go there.

The above might be a clever ploy to re-raise the important topic of lack of debris, or the flatness of GZ. Ground Zero was flat. That is, in fact, one of the meanings of the title to the book WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?

One extremely enlightening way in which the book addresses the flat GZ issue is in the treatment of STAIRWELL B, found at pgs 181-84 of the book. Stairwell B was famously the location of some survivors. It was acknowledged at the time and in the movie detailing that episode, that rescuers had to "go up" in order to locate the firefighters trapped in Stairwell B. But, how high up did they go?

That issue is addressed in the book. In this one instance, I think I'm willing to spare posters the need to either buy or borrow from the library WDTTG? precisely because it supports the thread the Carlitos has recalled:

So, the issue of how high "up" was is clearly illustrated. Up was ground level, or, 1-2 stories at most.

Thank you for recalling that issue, Carlitos

16.5 · 9th May 2012, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

The above might be a clever ploy to re-raise the important topic of lack of debris, or the flatness of GZ. Ground Zero was flat. That is, in fact, one of the meanings of the title to the book WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?

One extremely enlightening way in which the book addresses the flat GZ issue is in the treatment of STAIRWELL B, found at pgs 181-84 of the book. Stairwell B was famously the location of some survivors. It was acknowledged at the time and in the movie detailing that episode, that rescuers had to "go up" in order to locate the firefighters trapped in Stairwell B. But, how high up did they go?

That issue is addressed in the book. In this one instance, I think I'm willing to spare posters the need to either buy or borrow from the library WDTTG? precisely because it supports the thread the Carlitos has recalled:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/...stairwellB.jpg

So, the issue of how high "up" was is clearly illustrated. Up was ground level, or, 1-2 stories at most.

Thank you for recalling that issue, Carlitos

Christ, you may have stumbled onto something. Not only has jamms proved that Ground zero was flat, he proved the Earth is flat! I see absolutely no evidence in that photo of the curvature of the Earth! Well done jamms!

/Every time jamms or Dr. Dust posts, a truther loses its wings.

jammonius · 9th May 2012, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

My goodness. Either read the book or check out her website. The data is there. So many of you claim expertise on Judy Wood, and yet none of you except Jammonius act like you even know what her work is!

Dear WTC Dust,

I'm aware there are name issues in this thread. I, for instance, see nothing wrong in calling you "Dusty" or, if you prefer, Dr.Dusty, but that is because there is a singer by that name that I admire; hence, the reference is a pleasant one for me.

As to the specific point you are making in the above quote, I think there are many here who understand full well the import and the content of Dr. Wood. I detect forms of denial and/or need to go along with the common storyline of 9/11 in order to provide protection from having to deal with the implications that knowledge would otherwise mandate. Perhaps they'll recognize that ignorance is not bliss??

All the best, "Dusty"

phunk · 9th May 2012, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

The author's preface has a clear statement that no claims that Bush or anyone else perpetrated the annihilation of the WTC complex on 9/11 are made. Thus, the author contradicts the anonymous student who posted on a website that doesn't require verification of student status or that the person so posting took a class taught by Dr. Wood or any other professor.

This is not intended to provide a way for you to say you believe an anonymous student or that you find such an entity more credible than Dr. Wood's written preface. As I've said many times, posters are free to believe whatever they choose to believe for as long as they can believe whatever it is they believe.

That includes you, Phunk

Regards

The author's preface says there are no claims about government conspiracy in her class, or in the book?

You have the book don't you? Care to quote the relevant passage for us?

NoahFence · 9th May 2012, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Ground Zero was flat.

With all due respect,

WHAT?!?!

The **** you people invent to support your asinine theories get more bizarre by the day.

Stellafane · 9th May 2012, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

The source of the photo and the lack of authentication. Not to mention the lack of curvature in the numbers on the trunk of the car.

Hi Jammonius. Do you have any opinion concerning Dr. Wood's DEW theory, which (as has been shown in this thread) she not only presents no evidence that such a device exists; she doesn't even offer any indication that it can exist? Dr. Wood's promotion of this theory indicates she seriously misunderstands weather and the planetary magnetic field (among other things, she says there's a connection where none exists), optics and astronomy (a spaced-based DEW capable of bringing down the WTC would be easily visible from the surface of the Earth), and physics (an Earth-based DEW, no matter where it were located, would leave abundant and extremely obvious physical proof of its existence as it zapped the WTC, since it would also vaporize all matter between it and the target).

In short, Dr. Wood's DEW theory is wildly contrary to all known facts and science, and calls into question her very competence in this area. Thus I'm curious as to whether or not those who support and/or defend Dr. Wood still believe that her views concerning the DEW have merit. Do you have any thoughts regarding this?

Metullus · 9th May 2012, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by EventHorizon

I can't even wrap my head around this thread. Your average five year old knows that air is invisible. The idea that you should see a wake left by an aircraft moving through the air is astonishing. Absolutely astonishing.

To be fair, I am reasonably certain that Ms Blevins is not your "average" five year old.

Cl1mh4224rd · 9th May 2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

It is disrespectful [...]

Incorrect. Ms. is actually a title of respect. Your insistence to the contrary is further evidence of your detachment from reality.

You can argue that "Ms." isn't quite as respectful as "Dr.", but since your degree has no relation to the topic at hand, referring to you as "Dr." would be an appeal to false authority. I'm not interested in deceiving people. Why are you?

Gamolon · 9th May 2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

The reason I refuse to believe the official story is because I have a good understanding of how fire works and how hot things burn and because a very large fire did not destroy the WTC in the seventies.

Your initial premise is bogus.

Fire did not destroy the towers.

It was a combination of the plane impacts destroying/weakening parts of the structural support system and then fires further weakening it to where those specific areas of support failed.

LSSBB · 9th May 2012, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Incorrect. Ms. is actually a title of respect. Your insistence to the contrary is further evidence of your detachment from reality.

You can argue that "Ms." isn't quite as respectful as "Dr.", but since your degree has no relation to the topic at hand, referring to you as "Dr." would be an appeal to false authority. I'm not interested in deceiving people. Why are you?

I find the whole concept of someone demanding respect on the Internet rather quaint.

beachnut · 9th May 2012, 10:17 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N31eE...eature=related

OMG, all planes are fake, no wake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrcznLbqf1s

No wake, must be fake. Oops, one rooster tail with transonic vapor... REAL??? lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=jysQP8wyyL8
One of the biggest wake makers in the world, no WAKE visible! I knew it was fake!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aulyF...eature=related
Landings with no wake, some wake is seen in smoke...

Who has seen the wind?

If you are searching for wake, can you be a Bigfoot believer too? Chemtrails?

phiwum · 9th May 2012, 10:26 AM

A simple explanation why this thread is literally irrelevant.

Folks here have explained why one should not expect to see a wake. Hence, in the case that we do not see a wake, we can infer nothing. (Note that Mackey has shown a picture involving a wake, but not the sort that WTC Dust expects to see.)

Suppose, now, on the contrary, that some photos actually show a wake (of the sort that Dusty expects, say). What can we infer? Again, nothing, since surely anyone who can fake an image of a plane crashing into a building can also fake a wake.

So, there really is no point at all here. Even if we could show Dusty a wake and she agreed that it was a wake, it would alter her theory none at all. And if we can't show her such a wake, it means nothing given that there is no reason to expect to see a (vortex) wake.

Pardon me if I get any terminology wrong. I know nothing about aeronautics.

WTC Dust · 9th May 2012, 10:50 AM

DEW's isn't my gig, so I'll just point you to the website and book "Where Did The Towers Go?" by Judy Wood.

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

You can't possibly be a good scientist. A good scientist provides evidence of their claims. Where are the DEW's? Where are they?

Why aren't they everywhere? Why can't the US threaten foreign nations with them instead of conventional ground wars where hundreds, maybe thousands die?

Do you even understand why it's important to know where the DEW was? I'm serious, do you know why saying "I'm not sure where it was" makes your entire argument utterly worthless?

WTC Dust · 9th May 2012, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by SUSpilot

Nope. Just proves when a wake may may not be seen. *

Just because I don't see horse manure on a riding trail doesn't mean horses haven't been there.

*ETA: Or are you implying that Bowens wasn't in the back of a B-25 flying formation with the Citation and the picture was either photoshopped or some sort of three dimensional projection system was used?

Analogies are good. Here's a different one. If you saw a video of a car traveling 100 MPH that passed right by a girl with long hair not tied up or in braids, and her hair didn't fly around in the video, would you think that was strange?

WTC Dust · 9th May 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by EventHorizon

I can't even wrap my head around this thread. Your average five year old knows that air is invisible. The idea that you should see a wake left by an aircraft moving through the air is astonishing. Absolutely astonishing.

When there's loads of particles in the air, yes. Particles, like the particles of stuff that was coming off WTC 1 at 9:03AM.

NoahFence · 9th May 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

DEW's isn't my gig, so I'll just point you to the website and book "Where Did The Towers Go?" by Judy Wood.

You've shown no evidence of anything, and dismissed evidence of everything.

You know who else does that?

10 year olds.

WTC Dust · 9th May 2012, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Gamolon

Your initial premise is bogus.

Fire did not destroy the towers.

It was a combination of the plane impacts destroying/weakening parts of the structural support system and then fires further weakening it to where those specific areas of support failed.

This explanation doesn't satisfy me.

WTC Dust · 9th May 2012, 10:57 AM

He put up a picture of a wake at 9:03AM? I missed that one. Can you repost so I know which picture you're talking about? I want to disprove myself if it is possible.

Originally Posted by phiwum

A simple explanation why this thread is literally irrelevant.

Folks here have explained why one should not expect to see a wake. Hence, in the case that we do not see a wake, we can infer nothing. (Note that Mackey has shown a picture involving a wake, but not the sort that WTC Dust expects to see.)

Suppose, now, on the contrary, that some photos actually show a wake (of the sort that Dusty expects, say). What can we infer? Again, nothing, since surely anyone who can fake an image of a plane crashing into a building can also fake a wake.

So, there really is no point at all here. Even if we could show Dusty a wake and she agreed that it was a wake, it would alter her theory none at all. And if we can't show her such a wake, it means nothing given that there is no reason to expect to see a (vortex) wake.

Pardon me if I get any terminology wrong. I know nothing about aeronautics.

phunk · 9th May 2012, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Analogies are good. Here's a different one. If you saw a video of a car traveling 100 MPH that passed right by a girl with long hair not tied up or in braids, and her hair didn't fly around in the video, would you think that was strange?

Not if it never came within 400 feet of her.

Gamolon · 9th May 2012, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Analogies are good. Here's a different one. If you saw a video of a car traveling 100 MPH that passed right by a girl with long hair not tied up or in braids, and her hair didn't fly around in the video, would you think that was strange?

But you are making an analogy that isn't correct.

In your above analogy, you are using two visible objects. One object is the car which creates the disturbance. The other shows the effect of the disturbance.

In the case of the towers, you have the plane that creates the disturbance, but what visible object was there to show the effects? The was no debris or smoke in the area as has been shown with photos.

You are asking for proof of something that couldn't be seen.

If I have a photo taken of me waving my arms around while standing in an office, can I then tell you that since the you can't see the air disturbance that my arms would surely be making, that I don't exist or the photo was faked?

Gamolon · 9th May 2012, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

This explanation doesn't satisfy me.

Based on what reasoning?

9th May 2012, 05:29 AM	#961
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,915	Originally Posted by WTC Dust Nobody posted clear evidence of a wake, so I walk away from this conversation saying the same thing: There is no clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM. Nor should there be, so what is the point of you continuing this thread?
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,915

9th May 2012, 05:33 AM	#962
SUSpilot Muse Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 691	Originally Posted by phunk Nor should there be, so what is the point of you continuing this thread? Pithy and accurate.
SUSpilot Muse Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 691

9th May 2012, 05:57 AM	#963
TSR Do you know what this notorious criminal did? Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,788	Originally Posted by WTC Dust It just adds to the pile of no plane evidence. No, it doesn't, since it has been explained to you why a wake or vortexes would not be expected. It does add to the excuses you can use to run away from evidence you don't like, such as the radar tracks...
	__________________ My apologies once again for not being allowed to use the obvious shorthand term for a person who knowingly posts untruths. Apparently someone finds that term uncivil, demonstrated and deserved as it is. . "My family is not my weakness, Max. It's my strength." Vince Faraday aka The Cape

9th May 2012, 06:13 AM	#964
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,329	Originally Posted by WTC Dust No amount of plane parts is going to change: 1. No evidence of impact of an airplane at the south face of WTC 2. except the giant hole Quote: 2. No evidence of a wake at 9:03AM. Doesn't mean a damn thing. Quote: 3. That plane crashes don't produce steel foam. Good thing no steel foam was created then.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau Last edited by NoahFence; 9th May 2012 at 06:17 AM.

9th May 2012, 06:48 AM	#965
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Originally Posted by phunk The author's preface has transcripts of her classes? ETA: adding previous quotes for clarity. The author's preface has a clear statement that no claims that Bush or anyone else perpetrated the annihilation of the WTC complex on 9/11 are made. Thus, the author contradicts the anonymous student who posted on a website that doesn't require verification of student status or that the person so posting took a class taught by Dr. Wood or any other professor. This is not intended to provide a way for you to say you believe an anonymous student or that you find such an entity more credible than Dr. Wood's written preface. As I've said many times, posters are free to believe whatever they choose to believe for as long as they can believe whatever it is they believe. That includes you, Phunk Regards
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674

9th May 2012, 06:52 AM	#966
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,343	It is disrespectful, and I request that you address me by my name. Originally Posted by X I learned this in primary school. Miss: an unmarried female Mrs: a married female Ms: a female (marital status doesn't matter) Thus, calling you Ms. Blevins is not an insult, or disrespectful.
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

9th May 2012, 06:57 AM	#967
EventHorizon Atheist Tergiversator Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: New Jersey Posts: 2,849	I can't even wrap my head around this thread. Your average five year old knows that air is invisible. The idea that you should see a wake left by an aircraft moving through the air is astonishing. Absolutely astonishing.
	__________________ "One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so." -Phil Plait

9th May 2012, 07:00 AM	#968
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Originally Posted by Gamolon Hey jammonius. Have you read Judy's website? Have you read her list of 41 pieces of principle data that she thinks must be explained? How about number 27 below. She admits that she knows that 1400 motor vehicles were towed away yet thinks that the vehicles on FDR were toasted in place. What a complete joke. What's even worse is that you defend her. The above is sophistry, adding little or nothing to the quality of discussion of forensic evidence. Almost all toasted cars were ultimately towed. That is neither the issue nor the claim associated with the post to which this replies. Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed. The issue was the claim that cars seen to have been toasted on FDR Drive were towed there. That is a debunker claim that has not been supported, other than by reference to one phony photo, crafted and constructed and/or posted for the first time in 2011, I think. Before that phony photo, the best the debunkers could do was to make the assertion that Dr. Wood had not proven that the FDR Drive toasted cars were not towed there after having been toasted elsewhere, presumably closer to the WTC complex. It is well understood that, generally speaking, for debunkers, any old claim is good enough and any source is suitable, so long as it may seem to support the common storyline. Case in point, some debunkers cite the NIST report and the 9/11 Commission Report for claims made about the destruction of the WTC complex, when, in fact, neither report sheds much of any light at all on what happened. The NIST report didn't investigate the actual phase of destruction. And, the 9/11 Commission Report simply copied out newspaper clips, for the most part. It certainly conducted nothing at all in the way of forensic examination. The book WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? addressed the debunker burden of proof shifting tactic by providing independent evidence of explosions occurring on FDR Drive, thus supporting the claim the toasting happened there and not elsewhere, among other elements of proof set out in a full chapter on the subject. Blessings
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Last edited by jammonius; 9th May 2012 at 07:04 AM.

9th May 2012, 07:06 AM	#969
phiwum Muse Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Boston area Posts: 602	Originally Posted by WTC Dust It is disrespectful, and I request that you address me by my name. So you have no objections to Ms. Postert? The title "Dr." is not regarded as part of your name in the United States. (Neither is Ms., of course. Both are titles.) It may be different in other parts of the world (Germany, say?), but do stop pretending that Dr. is part of your name. Others here have a PhD, you know. No one else I know insists on using the title Dr. in this forum. At best, your insistence is remarkably distasteful.

9th May 2012, 07:06 AM	#970
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,329	Originally Posted by WTC Dust It is disrespectful, and I request that you address me by my name. off-topic.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

9th May 2012, 07:07 AM	#971
phiwum Muse Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Boston area Posts: 602	Originally Posted by jammonius The issue was the claim that cars seen to have been toasted on FDR Drive were towed there. That is a debunker claim that has not been supported, other than by reference to one phony photo, crafted and constructed and/or posted for the first time in 2011, I think. Before that phony photo, the best the debunkers could do was to make the assertion that Dr. Wood had not proven that the FDR Drive toasted cars were not towed there after having been toasted elsewhere, presumably closer to the WTC complex. What convinces you that the photo is a phony?

9th May 2012, 07:08 AM	#972
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,329	Originally Posted by phiwum What convinces you that the photo is a phony? "Debunkers" say it's real. That's all these "people" need to know to say its phony.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

9th May 2012, 07:14 AM	#973
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 Wow Jammonius you really got issues. You really see no problem with a teacher preaching a conspiracy theory to students when it has no relation to the class? I would be saying the same thing if she was teaching about ghosts to a class when she was supposed to be teaching about engineering. Missing the point can either be intentional or happenstance. I make no claims about the element of motivation. I do observe, however, that the point that is of substance here has been completely missed in the above post. The point was that the claim Dr. Wood "should have been fired" for referencing 9/11 in class was the subject of my post. See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=479 The significance was described as an acknowledgment of the element of fear, repression and acquiescence in fascism. Most people in the USofA understand full well that they had better go along and get along with the official, common storyline of 9/11 out of fear of reprisal. That is what the Quad candidly admitted and that is what was responded to. Blessings
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674

9th May 2012, 07:16 AM	#974
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Originally Posted by phiwum What convinces you that the photo is a phony? The source of the photo and the lack of authentication. Not to mention the lack of curvature in the numbers on the trunk of the car.
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674

9th May 2012, 07:20 AM	#975
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,329	Originally Posted by jammonius The source of the photo and the lack of authentication. Not to mention the lack of curvature in the numbers on the trunk of the car. You think a random picture of a random burned out car needs to be authenticated? What if I told you I'm an expert on photograph analysis, and I personally authenticate it? No. the reason you don't think it's authentic is so you can support the most loony of the loonies. No other reason. Don't even presume to insult our intelligence by suggesting otherwise. You people just aren't as clever as you think.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

9th May 2012, 07:22 AM	#976
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Originally Posted by A W Smith here ya go dim bulb, selective "rustification" http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=of...iw=939&bih=457 The above is yet another example of any source being sufficient for debunkers. It really adds next to nothing of substance to merely post a google search result without anything further. AW, can you consider being a bit more specific as to what, if any, point YOU are trying to make; what, if anything, your google search has to do with the forensic determination made by Dr. Wood?
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674

9th May 2012, 07:27 AM	#977
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,329	Originally Posted by jammonius The above is yet another example of any source being sufficient for debunkers. It really adds next to nothing of substance to merely post a google search result without anything further. AW, can you consider being a bit more specific as to what, if any, point YOU are trying to make; what, if anything, your google search has to do with the forensic determination made by Dr. Wood? That sound you just heard was the point flying over your head. Metal rusts. That's what it does. Judy is trying to make some sort of fantastic argument based on the fact that metal rusts. It's like finding it suspect that bread turns green after a while. No **** sherlock.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

9th May 2012, 07:27 AM	#978
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,038	Originally Posted by jammonius The above is yet another example of any source being sufficient for debunkers. It really adds next to nothing of substance to merely post a google search result without anything further. AW, can you consider being a bit more specific as to what, if any, point YOU are trying to make; what, if anything, your google search has to do with the forensic determination made by Dr. Wood? How much substance do you think is necessary given the nonsensical nature of the no plane/dew/dustify/foamify fevered fantasies?
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,038

9th May 2012, 07:31 AM	#979
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,800	Originally Posted by jammonius The above is sophistry, adding little or nothing to the quality of discussion of forensic evidence. Almost all toasted cars were ultimately towed. That is neither the issue nor the claim associated with the post to which this replies. Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed. The issue was the claim that cars seen to have been toasted on FDR Drive were towed there. That is a debunker claim that has not been supported, other than by reference to one phony photo, crafted and constructed and/or posted for the first time in 2011, I think. Before that phony photo, the best the debunkers could do was to make the assertion that Dr. Wood had not proven that the FDR Drive toasted cars were not towed there after having been toasted elsewhere, presumably closer to the WTC complex. It is well understood that, generally speaking, for debunkers, any old claim is good enough and any source is suitable, so long as it may seem to support the common storyline. Case in point, some debunkers cite the NIST report and the 9/11 Commission Report for claims made about the destruction of the WTC complex, when, in fact, neither report sheds much of any light at all on what happened. The NIST report didn't investigate the actual phase of destruction. And, the 9/11 Commission Report simply copied out newspaper clips, for the most part. It certainly conducted nothing at all in the way of forensic examination. The book WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? addressed the debunker burden of proof shifting tactic by providing independent evidence of explosions occurring on FDR Drive, thus supporting the claim the toasting happened there and not elsewhere, among other elements of proof set out in a full chapter on the subject. Blessings Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed. Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed. Dr. Wood's website shows examples of toasted cars being towed. Great post, jamm. Lulz.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,800

9th May 2012, 07:47 AM	#980
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Originally Posted by carlitos Much as mentioning Judy Wood's name has a beetlejuice-like effect in making jammonius appear, please do take care not to show examples of the height of the debris pile. You don't really want to go there. The above might be a clever ploy to re-raise the important topic of lack of debris, or the flatness of GZ. Ground Zero was flat. That is, in fact, one of the meanings of the title to the book WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? One extremely enlightening way in which the book addresses the flat GZ issue is in the treatment of STAIRWELL B, found at pgs 181-84 of the book. Stairwell B was famously the location of some survivors. It was acknowledged at the time and in the movie detailing that episode, that rescuers had to "go up" in order to locate the firefighters trapped in Stairwell B. But, how high up did they go? That issue is addressed in the book. In this one instance, I think I'm willing to spare posters the need to either buy or borrow from the library WDTTG? precisely because it supports the thread the Carlitos has recalled: So, the issue of how high "up" was is clearly illustrated. Up was ground level, or, 1-2 stories at most. Thank you for recalling that issue, Carlitos
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674

9th May 2012, 07:54 AM	#981
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,800	Originally Posted by jammonius The above might be a clever ploy to re-raise the important topic of lack of debris, or the flatness of GZ. Ground Zero was flat. That is, in fact, one of the meanings of the title to the book WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? One extremely enlightening way in which the book addresses the flat GZ issue is in the treatment of STAIRWELL B, found at pgs 181-84 of the book. Stairwell B was famously the location of some survivors. It was acknowledged at the time and in the movie detailing that episode, that rescuers had to "go up" in order to locate the firefighters trapped in Stairwell B. But, how high up did they go? That issue is addressed in the book. In this one instance, I think I'm willing to spare posters the need to either buy or borrow from the library WDTTG? precisely because it supports the thread the Carlitos has recalled: http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/...stairwellB.jpg So, the issue of how high "up" was is clearly illustrated. Up was ground level, or, 1-2 stories at most. Thank you for recalling that issue, Carlitos Christ, you may have stumbled onto something. Not only has jamms proved that Ground zero was flat, he proved the Earth is flat! I see absolutely no evidence in that photo of the curvature of the Earth! Well done jamms! /Every time jamms or Dr. Dust posts, a truther loses its wings.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,800

9th May 2012, 07:56 AM	#982
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Originally Posted by WTC Dust My goodness. Either read the book or check out her website. The data is there. So many of you claim expertise on Judy Wood, and yet none of you except Jammonius act like you even know what her work is! Dear WTC Dust, I'm aware there are name issues in this thread. I, for instance, see nothing wrong in calling you "Dusty" or, if you prefer, Dr.Dusty, but that is because there is a singer by that name that I admire; hence, the reference is a pleasant one for me. As to the specific point you are making in the above quote, I think there are many here who understand full well the import and the content of Dr. Wood. I detect forms of denial and/or need to go along with the common storyline of 9/11 in order to provide protection from having to deal with the implications that knowledge would otherwise mandate. Perhaps they'll recognize that ignorance is not bliss?? All the best, "Dusty"
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Last edited by jammonius; 9th May 2012 at 07:57 AM.

9th May 2012, 08:18 AM	#983
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,915	Originally Posted by jammonius The author's preface has a clear statement that no claims that Bush or anyone else perpetrated the annihilation of the WTC complex on 9/11 are made. Thus, the author contradicts the anonymous student who posted on a website that doesn't require verification of student status or that the person so posting took a class taught by Dr. Wood or any other professor. This is not intended to provide a way for you to say you believe an anonymous student or that you find such an entity more credible than Dr. Wood's written preface. As I've said many times, posters are free to believe whatever they choose to believe for as long as they can believe whatever it is they believe. That includes you, Phunk Regards The author's preface says there are no claims about government conspiracy in her class, or in the book? You have the book don't you? Care to quote the relevant passage for us?
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,915

9th May 2012, 08:24 AM	#984
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,329	Quote: Ground Zero was flat. With all due respect, WHAT?!?! The **** you people invent to support your asinine theories get more bizarre by the day.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

9th May 2012, 08:43 AM	#985
Stellafane Village Idiot. Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Green Mountains Posts: 6,284	Originally Posted by jammonius The source of the photo and the lack of authentication. Not to mention the lack of curvature in the numbers on the trunk of the car. Hi Jammonius. Do you have any opinion concerning Dr. Wood's DEW theory, which (as has been shown in this thread) she not only presents no evidence that such a device exists; she doesn't even offer any indication that it can exist? Dr. Wood's promotion of this theory indicates she seriously misunderstands weather and the planetary magnetic field (among other things, she says there's a connection where none exists), optics and astronomy (a spaced-based DEW capable of bringing down the WTC would be easily visible from the surface of the Earth), and physics (an Earth-based DEW, no matter where it were located, would leave abundant and extremely obvious physical proof of its existence as it zapped the WTC, since it would also vaporize all matter between it and the target). In short, Dr. Wood's DEW theory is wildly contrary to all known facts and science, and calls into question her very competence in this area. Thus I'm curious as to whether or not those who support and/or defend Dr. Wood still believe that her views concerning the DEW have merit. Do you have any thoughts regarding this?
	__________________ Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com

9th May 2012, 10:02 AM	#986
Metullus Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Waldo's Pond Posts: 3,968	Originally Posted by EventHorizon I can't even wrap my head around this thread. Your average five year old knows that air is invisible. The idea that you should see a wake left by an aircraft moving through the air is astonishing. Absolutely astonishing. To be fair, I am reasonably certain that Ms Blevins is not your "average" five year old.
	__________________ I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

9th May 2012, 10:06 AM	#987
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by WTC Dust It is disrespectful [...] Incorrect. Ms. is actually a title of respect. Your insistence to the contrary is further evidence of your detachment from reality. You can argue that "Ms." isn't quite as respectful as "Dr.", but since your degree has no relation to the topic at hand, referring to you as "Dr." would be an appeal to false authority. I'm not interested in deceiving people. Why are you?
	Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 9th May 2012 at 10:14 AM.

9th May 2012, 10:06 AM	#988
Gamolon Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,276	Originally Posted by WTC Dust The reason I refuse to believe the official story is because I have a good understanding of how fire works and how hot things burn and because a very large fire did not destroy the WTC in the seventies. Your initial premise is bogus. Fire did not destroy the towers. It was a combination of the plane impacts destroying/weakening parts of the structural support system and then fires further weakening it to where those specific areas of support failed.
Gamolon Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,276	Last edited by Gamolon; 9th May 2012 at 10:35 AM.

9th May 2012, 10:13 AM	#989
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,499	Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd Incorrect. Ms. is actually a title of respect. Your insistence to the contrary is further evidence of your detachment from reality. You can argue that "Ms." isn't quite as respectful as "Dr.", but since your degree has no relation to the topic at hand, referring to you as "Dr." would be an appeal to false authority. I'm not interested in deceiving people. Why are you? I find the whole concept of someone demanding respect on the Internet rather quaint.
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

9th May 2012, 10:17 AM	#990
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,901	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N31eE...eature=related OMG, all planes are fake, no wake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrcznLbqf1s No wake, must be fake. Oops, one rooster tail with transonic vapor... REAL??? lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=jysQP8wyyL8 One of the biggest wake makers in the world, no WAKE visible! I knew it was fake!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aulyF...eature=related Landings with no wake, some wake is seen in smoke... Who has seen the wind? If you are searching for wake, can you be a Bigfoot believer too? Chemtrails?

9th May 2012, 10:26 AM	#991
phiwum Muse Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Boston area Posts: 602	A simple explanation why this thread is literally irrelevant. Folks here have explained why one should not expect to see a wake. Hence, in the case that we do not see a wake, we can infer nothing. (Note that Mackey has shown a picture involving a wake, but not the sort that WTC Dust expects to see.) Suppose, now, on the contrary, that some photos actually show a wake (of the sort that Dusty expects, say). What can we infer? Again, nothing, since surely anyone who can fake an image of a plane crashing into a building can also fake a wake. So, there really is no point at all here. Even if we could show Dusty a wake and she agreed that it was a wake, it would alter her theory none at all. And if we can't show her such a wake, it means nothing given that there is no reason to expect to see a (vortex) wake. Pardon me if I get any terminology wrong. I know nothing about aeronautics.

9th May 2012, 10:50 AM	#992
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,343	DEW's isn't my gig, so I'll just point you to the website and book "Where Did The Towers Go?" by Judy Wood. Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan You can't possibly be a good scientist. A good scientist provides evidence of their claims. Where are the DEW's? Where are they? Why aren't they everywhere? Why can't the US threaten foreign nations with them instead of conventional ground wars where hundreds, maybe thousands die? Do you even understand why it's important to know where the DEW was? I'm serious, do you know why saying "I'm not sure where it was" makes your entire argument utterly worthless?
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

9th May 2012, 10:52 AM	#993
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,343	Originally Posted by SUSpilot Nope. Just proves when a wake may may not be seen. * Just because I don't see horse manure on a riding trail doesn't mean horses haven't been there. *ETA: Or are you implying that Bowens wasn't in the back of a B-25 flying formation with the Citation and the picture was either photoshopped or some sort of three dimensional projection system was used? Analogies are good. Here's a different one. If you saw a video of a car traveling 100 MPH that passed right by a girl with long hair not tied up or in braids, and her hair didn't fly around in the video, would you think that was strange?
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

9th May 2012, 10:55 AM	#994
WTC Dust Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Battery Park City Posts: 3,343	Originally Posted by EventHorizon I can't even wrap my head around this thread. Your average five year old knows that air is invisible. The idea that you should see a wake left by an aircraft moving through the air is astonishing. Absolutely astonishing. When there's loads of particles in the air, yes. Particles, like the particles of stuff that was coming off WTC 1 at 9:03AM.
	__________________ The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

9th May 2012, 10:55 AM	#995
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,329	Originally Posted by WTC Dust DEW's isn't my gig, so I'll just point you to the website and book "Where Did The Towers Go?" by Judy Wood. You've shown no evidence of anything, and dismissed evidence of everything. You know who else does that? 10 year olds.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau