|
Post by frenat on Aug 2, 2008 8:42:51 GMT -4
How can you tell that an airplane vapor trail contains weather-controlling chemicals just by looking at it? When the entire sky, except for one small portion, is cloudy, and you then see a chemtrail in that one area, and then that area gets cloudy, common sense says there's something other than vapor coming from those planes. Contrails disappear in about 10 seconds. They don't linger around in the sky for hours. Contrails don't sometimes sputter out. Contrails don't sometimes have squiggly lines in it. Those long steaks are being sprayed for a reason: weather modification. Wrong. since planes could fly high enough it has been known that contrails could dissipate quickly or persist depending on the conditions. Contrails can show any or all of the characteristics you mentioned depending on conditions and that has been known for longer than you have been alive. Contrails are essentially the same as clouds (water vapor and ice particles). Using your logic, "Contrails disappear in about 10 seconds. They don't linger around in the sky for hours." then clouds would never exist. So do you believe that clouds don't exist? As mentioned before, there is no evidence that "chemtrails" even exist. No samples have ever been taken in situ and likely never will. Contrails on the other hand have been known about, studied, and predicted for more than 70 years.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 2, 2008 11:36:01 GMT -4
cbbrooklyn, the problem everyone is having here is that you aren't connecting any dots. I could just as easily say that the WTC collapses were caused by a controlled mini-earthquake powered by a thermal energy generation station in Canada. I could claim that clearly the buildings collapsed due to earthquake-like stresses. I could point out that there were three recorded quakes in Canada in August of 2001 -- but only TWO in September. earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/recent_eq/2001/index_e.phpWhy only TWO in September? Where did that extra energy go? My theory points DIRECTLY to the nefarious use of seismic activity to destroy the WTC buildings. But it is actually just a bunch of random ideas stuck together. That is what Dr. Wood is doing. There was a hurricane in the Atlantic -- but NOBODY was predicting that it would get anywhere near land -- so nobody cared. Contrails are well-understood, as has been pointed out. It is just that you don't really understand them. You are very imaginative about contrails, but your imagination has gotten the better of you. The whole world saw the second plane hit WTC 2. Video shows the first plane hitting WTC 1. That is very strong evidence that planes impacting the towers and starting fires had something to do with the towers falling.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 2, 2008 11:48:08 GMT -4
Now you're talking about evil weather-controlling contrails? When is bigfoot going to make an appearance?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 2, 2008 13:56:10 GMT -4
"Dustify"? Really? How about the actual word you want, "pulverize." Not that the WTC was pulverized, either, as thousands of pictures can show. (Are you seriously saying you never saw a picture of big chunks of debris?) I'm afraid that you have no clue what you're talking about. Also note that it is not an ad hominem attack to criticize the quality of the evidence as laughable; that's arguing about the evidence, which is the exact opposite of an ad hominem.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 2, 2008 14:43:23 GMT -4
Now you're talking about evil weather-controlling contrails? When is bigfoot going to make an appearance? Don't put words in anyone mouth, Jason. Who said that the contrails were evil?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 2, 2008 14:46:07 GMT -4
cbbrooklyn, the problem everyone is having here is that you aren't connecting any dots. I could just as easily say that the WTC collapses were caused by a controlled mini-earthquake powered by a thermal energy generation station in Canada. I could claim that clearly the buildings collapsed due to earthquake-like stresses. I could point out that there were three recorded quakes in Canada in August of 2001 -- but only TWO in September. earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/recent_eq/2001/index_e.phpWhy only TWO in September? Where did that extra energy go? My theory points DIRECTLY to the nefarious use of seismic activity to destroy the WTC buildings. But it is actually just a bunch of random ideas stuck together. That is what Dr. Wood is doing. There was a hurricane in the Atlantic -- but NOBODY was predicting that it would get anywhere near land -- so nobody cared. Contrails are well-understood, as has been pointed out. It is just that you don't really understand them. You are very imaginative about contrails, but your imagination has gotten the better of you. The whole world saw the second plane hit WTC 2. Video shows the first plane hitting WTC 1. That is very strong evidence that planes impacting the towers and starting fires had something to do with the towers falling. I think you phrased that very well, wdmundt. 'Connecting the dots'
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 2, 2008 15:15:37 GMT -4
Your childish namecalling just demonstrates your predetermination (aka "Pathological Science") to find this "alternate" theory unrealistic. No it demonstrates my frustration with the mentally incompetent waving about psychobabble and pretending they understand physics more that anyone else on the planet all while having no idea what science is and what is possible and what is highly improbable. There is no need to predetermine that your theory is unrealistic, simply because it IS unrealistic, in fact it's so far unrealistic it rates right up there with "Aliens did it." Try going to Loose Change and telling them the crap you have been spewing here. They'll laugh you off the board faster that a thermite controlled demolition. Wrong, and your reply shows you have ZERO understanding of science. At least Judy Wood can use the excuse that she's insane, what's yours? Data cannot point to a specific conclusion until the properties of that conclusion have been defined. That means that you have to a) know that a DEW exists, and b) be able to define the properties of that DEW BEFORE comparing the data to it, otherwise you are merely cherry picking data to fit a speculative proposition. Pointing to data and saying that it fits your speculated DEW and therefore it must exist is exactly the same bunk we get from UFO Enthusiasts who claim that since what they saw had properties A, B, and C, that it must have been an Alien Spacecraft all without proving that Alien Spacecraft actually have properties A, B, and C. Until you can show that the thing you claim actually will produce the data you claim it can, then pointing at the data and saying, it must exist is as much nonsense as me pointing to craters on the moon and saying that since they are hoof marks that proves that giant pink unicorns live on the far side of the moon. First I need to ask you if you believe that the 43,600 people (39,795 of who were law enforcement officers) who worked on the debris of the towers at the Freshkills landfill were all lying about what they did? How big is your conspiracy? Is the FBI lying when it puts out the stats?. Where did NIST get this metal from if it was "dustified"? Why do most truthers complain about the steel being recycled so fast is it never existed? Are there guys lying?Second, perhaps you need to take a closer look. See any steel in there photos? What about Concrete? How high are the piles? And those photos were taken -after- 3 months of clean up! Let's hear from one of the fire-fighters on the piles: "I think the greatest tribute paid to these guys is when they were carried from that eight-story pile. We had to bring them down this eighty-foot valley of bent steel and then up another, maybe, four-story mountain. Then we went down again, four stories, then across the wide expanse of West Street, still deep with steel and debris, through the big entrance of the World Financial Center, and then out to Vesey Street to where the temporary morgue is. And through that whole distance, our guys carried the chief and the men of Ladder 5 on Stokes baskets!" Is he lying? What's your answer? Are all these tens thousands of people liars who were in on it, or is the liar Judy Woods? Thirdly... From your images, are you seriously expecting us to believe that the WTC was destroyed by a volcano or Nuclear Bomb? If so you're more insane than I thought. Really, come back to reality. I know that living in a fantasy world where the big evil government is out to get you is really exciting, but it's fiction and no good for you to be there. I'm being totally serious here, if you can't see your way out of this forest of delusion you have built, you really need professional help.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 2, 2008 15:48:33 GMT -4
Just a little more of the "Dustification" of the towers. The following is from a prominent Turther. Along with others, I examined the sample obtained by Janette MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower. The windows of her apartment were blown in during the collapse of this tower on 9/11/2001, and her apartment was filled with dust and debris. She collected a sample of this material in her own apartment in a plastic bag – which is good procedure – and the chain of custody went directly from her to me. (In the presence of other researchers, I collected more samples from her large plastic bag, while visiting in her home.)
As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.
A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: “The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-ìmdiam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-ìm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-ìmdiam) particles that are typically measured.”
pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/e....ature_lioy.html
It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.Note that this disproves the "Dustification" theory by itself, But..... check out the dust analysis itself. Tell me what is startlingly obviously in its absence. I see Gypsum (from the sheetrock), quartz (from windows and roofing tiles), portlandite (CaOH) from the concrete, muscovite from the fireproofing, and trace amounts of oxidised iron (rust), but wow, you know what, no large amounts of iron and steel, just trace amounts that would likely have come from the rust in the building. IF THE STEEL WAS DUSTIFIED BUT ISN'T IN THE DUST ANALYSIS, WHERE DID IT GO? I'd also like to take a moment to introduce Captain Jay Jonas and his men from Ladder Six, who, along with 10 other people, survived the collapses and escaped the towers. If a DEW was being used on the towers and causing people to disintegrate, then how did these 16 people survive it? More importantly, they weren't the only survivors of the collapse, they were just the lucky ones that got out. Read their stories. They could hear other survivors, people who lived through the collapses, but died of their injuries before they could be rescued. Read the testimony of the fire fighters who speak of hearing calls for help on the radios but being unable to get to them before the calls stopped. If an energy weapon was being directed onto the towers that was capable of turning steel to dust, HOW DID ALL THESE PEOPLE SURVIVE THE COLLAPSES? Get your head out of Judy "Insane as a rabid badger" Woods' website and find out the truth for yourself. You want to talk about pre-determining the answer. Go and read up the real weather reports and debris collection reports and survivor's tales and then instead of dismissing them because they disagree with Woods' version, start asking her why she isn't telling the truth, why she has changed graphics on her site from the originals and quite frankly, why she is lying about things that are publicly available to anyone that actually bothers to look.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Aug 2, 2008 21:08:29 GMT -4
Cbbrooklyn, I hope you're seeing a pattern here.
The pattern is that the ideas you parrot for Judy Woods and make up yourself are being shown to have no basis in reality. Just conjecture and false data, given to you by conspiracy theorists.
You are not using science, nor are you appearently familar with the scientific method.
Perhaps you have heard the phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Thus is the case with the claims made by you and Judy Wood.
And before you play that card on us, let me remind you that there is proof that the WTCs were NOT pulverized (as pointed out by our resisdent spell checker, there is no such word as "dustify"). Also noted was that the "After" picture was taken months after clean up began.
This isn't the first time conspiracy theorists have tried to manipulate the evidence to gain support for their ideas; Jack White and Bart Sibrel do it more often than not.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 3, 2008 1:21:29 GMT -4
Now you're talking about evil weather-controlling contrails? When is bigfoot going to make an appearance? Don't put words in anyone mouth, Jason. Who said that the contrails were evil? If they're not evil then why is he worried about them?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 3, 2008 2:15:09 GMT -4
Psst--you mean "resident," Grand Lunar!
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 3, 2008 2:32:52 GMT -4
If the data is authentic, then - DUH! - obviously that is what it would prove. You have completely missed the point. He was talking about merely claiming that the data leads to a particular conclusion, without actually demonstrating that the data leads thusly by any rational scientific process. I look at video footage of WTC1 collapsing (data). I subsequently conclude that the Tooth Fairy sprinkled magical pixie dust on it, turning it's structural steel into delicious raspberry jam, thus weakening it's structural integrity, causing the collapse. The data is authentic. Is my conclusion sound? Have I just proven the existence of the Tooth Fairy? (There is exactly as much evidence in support of the above hypothesis as that of Dr. Wood) What sort of proof will you accept? Translation: I have a predetermined conclusion to cling to, hence I will disregard any data you present which might indicate differently. Excellent description of the event. All of the kinetic energy expended over a matter of years to lift all that steel, concrete, glass, office furnishings and equipment, etc. against the pull of gravity was stored as potential energy. When the structure failed, all that energy was released in a matter of seconds. And the vast majority of their volume consisted of air. Catastrophic structural collapses such as this tend to squeeze out the bubbles. Yes, it does matter how the data is interpreted. Any rationally thinking person who looks at the three pictures I posted can see the towers did not "collapse". It's just plain common sense. Anyone not seeing this is in serious denial, which is further demonstrated by their of ad hominems. Your claim about the "air" in the towers is silly. A mere look at the pictures proves that. You think a collapse is going to remove all the air pockets? Even if you did, it would not matter, because thinking all the debris was still there is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 3, 2008 2:43:01 GMT -4
And before you play that card on us, let me remind you that there is proof that the WTCs were NOT pulverized (as pointed out by our resisdent spell checker, there is no such word as "dustify"). Also noted was that the "After" picture was taken months after clean up began. Again, more proof that you (and obviously others) don't understand the information I post. I specifically said that Dr Wood coined the term dustify"? Do you not remember me saying that? She coined that term to describe a process that has been observed on video, but has not yet been scientifically defined. That is what scientists do. "Pulverize" would be an inappropriate term at it implies something specific. Also, the last of the three photos were taken ON 9/11, not months after the cleanup began. But that does not matter. There were no debris piles higher than WTC 6. Can you imagine that?? An 8 story building towering over the "collapse" of two 110 story buildings?
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 3, 2008 2:45:40 GMT -4
The whole world saw the second plane hit WTC 2. Video shows the first plane hitting WTC 1. That is very strong evidence that planes impacting the towers and starting fires had something to do with the towers falling. I'm gonna start a new thread for this one.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 3, 2008 3:19:02 GMT -4
It's just plain common sense. If common sense were enough, the entire field of engineering would be unnecessary. Again with the pot and kettle routine. The vast majority of them, yes. Why, what do you think would contain them? Careful with the ad hominems there, Mr. Pot. If you will kindly show us your rational evidence supporting this non-pre-determined conclusion of yours by calculating the volume of the twin towers, sans air, and then that of the debris piles.
|
|