|
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 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 2:32:52 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 2, 2008 4:55:06 GMT -4
Man are you WAY beyond help, and I mean psychiatric help. Let's just take one sentence because the rest of what you have posted is beyond loony. Do you know what scientific is? I'm guessing not. See I can claim that the data shows that miniature space monkeys with ray guns destroyed the towers, which means that miniature space monkeys must exist, right? That's what you are telling us. Read this very carefully. Nearly 1,500,000 tons of debris was removed from the WTC site and sorted through for evidence and human remains by over 1,000 FBI agents and other first responders and police. Now answer this question, WHERE DID THOSE DEBRIS COME FROM IF THE TOWERS WERE DUSTIFIED? Judy Wood is mentally not all there, her theories are laughed at by most truthers, and that is saying something. Really, you are so far out on the branch that if you go any further you're going to fall off. Please come back to reality. BTW, go and learn about contrails and what sort of conditions creates them. Strangely enough the conditions that result in stable contrails are the exact same conditions that result in high level cirrus clouds, imagine that. Your childish namecalling just demonstrates your predetermination (aka "Pathological Science") to find this "alternate" theory unrealistic. Your quote: " Do you know what scientific is? I'm guessing not. See I can claim that the data shows that miniature space monkeys with ray guns destroyed the towers, which means that miniature space monkeys must exist, right? That's what you are telling us." proves you are brainwashed and can't think straight. If the data is authentic, then - DUH! - obviously that is what it would prove. 1.5 million tons was removed from Ground Zero, you say? Where's the proof of that? You need not bother searching for it, because I know you are dreaming. Perhaps you could explain where the debris went before it was removed?
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 2, 2008 4:41:55 GMT -4
The Erin paper contains data from other storms as well for comparison. What is your take on it? It would appear that other hurricanes change direction. Felix did something, that on the outset to me, that looks similar to erin (apart from doubling back). So did many others. So I assume you are more ahead of me on this and understand it better. Is it the norm for storms above certain latitudes to follow this path? The ones that make landfall also appear to do that but obviously eventually a reduces status once over land. The comparison I made was not on that web site. I did look at other web sites. What set erin out from the rest that follow the same or similar path? I claim no expertise in this field, but do find it odd that the wind speed on 9/11 was 105MPH, and the wind speed of Katrina when it hit land was 105MPH. Both were controlled. This data in itself doesn't prove it was controlled, but when put together with all the other data on Dr Wood's site, will lead towards it.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 2, 2008 1:59:53 GMT -4
That's funny... others' analysis of the same data indicates pre-planted demolition charges destroyed the towers. The one promoting explosives is Steven Jones and his "followers". Jones is notorious for destroying free energy research funding back in the 80s. He worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched. He was planted in the "truth movement" to steer its gullible members down a wrong path. Jones does not analyze the same data as Dr Wood. The "truth movement" was first conned into explosives on 9/11 itself by a Van Romero, a controlled demolitions expert from Mexico Tech who said the towers could have been taken down with a "relatively small amount of explosives". Romero participated in events at the Directed Energy Professional Society before and after 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 2, 2008 1:49:57 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.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 2, 2008 0:39:08 GMT -4
Again, wrong. Here are all the METARs for JFK on September 11th 2001. There was no lightning. english.wunderground.com/history/airport/KJFK/2001/9/11/DailyHistory.html?theprefset=SHOWMETAR&theprefvalue=1all day long for 11 September 2001 and no mention of thunder and lightning. Also of note is each METAR is an hour after the previous one. If something significant happens, like say lightning, they issue a special one. There are none of those. Judy Wood is wrong and likely a liar. Why does she have to lie about the weather that day? What does that say about her credibility? now I know you're beyond help. There is absolutely no evidence that HAARP, a non classified program that even offers tours, does anything to the weather. There is also absolutely no evidence that "chemtrails" even exist. You must be one of the many desperately trying to hold on to your denial state. METAR is not the only source of weather info. When Dr Wood updates her already-highly-sourced paper, she will provide the source info to prove thunder and rain were reported at JFK on 9/11. The weather data in the link you provided shows there were thunderstorms a little over 12 hours before the 9/11 events. This is when Erin was at its strongest speeds, as a CAT 3. I know for a fact that chemtrails exist since I see them with my own eyes in my own neighborhood. And it turns cloudy or hazy the next day, like clockwork. Want to talk about credibility? How about the NIST Report??? The report states its mandate being to find out why the towers "collapsed", then later in the same report it says they didn't analyze the collapses! Real credible, huh?
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 1, 2008 20:53:24 GMT -4
Then present the info where it was controlled and an explanation. I have already said this is not my bag, hurricanes that is, but willing to learn. I like explanations on things occasionally rather than links to pages loaded with info. So far I have seen tracks and maps and images but am I missing the info on control and any mechanism to back it up? Also the reasons why it is not the natural course? How do you propose that we can circumvent huge forces that are in those monster storms and control them and then let Katrina batter the coast? Good questions. Weather control has existed for many decades. Look up HAARP and chemtrails. See here too: Space age plan to tame might of hurricanesMicrowave radiation and controlled oil slicks could change the path and sap the power of tropical stormsRobin McKie, science editor October 10 2004 www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/oct/10/weather.theobserverOwning the Weather - 45 min (Discovery Science Channel) Documentary that looks at the history of weather modification and its use by the military. Among the topics covered are: cloud seeding, HAARP and declassified experiments video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8262483364410309502
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 1, 2008 20:45:43 GMT -4
Ccbrooklyn, could you please stop posting such large images? The rule is not to post images larger than 400x400 pixels. Sorry 'bout that. It's corrected.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 1, 2008 20:44:21 GMT -4
Just been nosing around the net. Felix in 1995 did something similar and many appear to veer NE above a certain latitude? The Erin paper contains data from other storms as well for comparison.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 1, 2008 20:42:14 GMT -4
Really? You were wrong about the hurricane being stronger than Katrina; wrong about it threatening the East Coast (meteorologists projected it would not approach); wrong about the weather at the airport.Erin was projected to be stronger. My mistake, which at least I admit. Erin already approached the east coast. Look at the pictures and use some common sense. JFK Airport data indicated rain and thunder. Go to the "Airport Weather Reports in the NYC Area on 9/11/01, (9/11/01)" section on this page: drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin9.htmlThe correctness of certain random facts is not the primary issue, but rather the wild claims which are alleged to be "based" on these data, but in fact are logically and scientifically disconnected from them. "Look, there's a hurricane! Clearly it was used as a power source for a death ray!
She claims that a death ray was used to vaporize hundreds of thousands of tons of skyscrapers, and that a hurricane somehow powered the whole thing, but can provide no evidence or theoretical support for the whole fantastic claim. She can't even say what kind of death ray she believes was used! It's nothing more than an appeal to magic - and that's before we look at the numerous embarrassing errors of fact in her claims.Wrong. Dr Wood does not use the term "death ray", she uses the term "directed energy weapon". "Death ray" is a term used these days by people who want to consider the idea of directed energy weapons laughable and unrealistic. These people usually fear the idea of this technology being real. Wrong. Dr Wood never said the towers were "vaporized". Vaporization requires enormous amounts of energy to turn a solid to a liquid and then to a gas. Wood coined the term "dustification" to describe the yet undefined process. One can plainly see from these video clips the structural steel turning to dust and trickling down: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQwww.youtube.com/watch?v=vaysznxCBzAWrong. Dr Wood never said the hurricane "powered" the whole thing. She does indicate the hurricane was part of the mechanism that turned the towers to dust. The only embarrassing claim is the idea of a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspiring with 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims to outwit our entire multitrillion dollar defense system. Random facts with neither logical, nor theoretical, nor empirical connection to her claims. Such as they are.These "random facts" as you call them fit a pattern. Incorrect; there is not a hint of engineering analysis in her wild handwaving. And that is based on my analytical ability as a practicing aerospace engineer, and I have already provided a link to my analysis of her vague and sillyIf you're really a "practicing aerospace engineer" then you should know that ad hominems have no place in science. Words like "laughable", "silly", and "wild handwaving" show you have a predetermined conclusion to believe what you want to believe, aka Pathological Science. And that link from JFEF is another example. They ask where the proof is that the weapon exists?? How unscientific is that? The data shows DEW destroyed the towers. Therefore DEW must exist. I'm sure you will agree that you must go with the data, and not a silly predetermined conclusion. Also, Dr Wood didn't even know DEW existed until the data on 9/11 told her that it must. I have thought for myself. Her claims are laughable.That's because you're not looking at the data, but instead have a predetermined conclusion. Begging the question. Warnings were not needed because the hurricane was expected not to approach the U.S. East Coast, due to normal, natural factors. I thought you're a "practicing aerospace engineer". Are you a meteorologist too?? Complex question. Do you have any evidence that a "sharp 270 degree right hand turn" was predicted? Or was it merely that the path was predicted to not approach the NYC area?
By the way, that was more like a 110 degree turn. A 270-degree right-hand turn would have had the hurricane heading toward the coast. What was that about verifying data again?That was my mistake. Should have been over 90 deg.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 1, 2008 8:54:32 GMT -4
I have been following Dr Wood's 9/11 research for some time now and trust her implicitly. However, I do verify data. This is easy to do since the info on her site is sourced. You'll find the source information below each image and table. The sources includes NASA and NOAA. If anyone on this board can find any errors in her data collection, you should email them to her and she will correct it. Note that Dr Wood does not draw any conclusions from the Erin data regarding the events of 9/11. She merely presents the data, offers her analytical ability as a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and encourages everyone to think for themselves. If Erin were not controlled, wouldn't we have been warned about this??? How did they know the CAT2 hurricane would suddenly make a sharp 270 deg right hand turn and head back out to sea?? i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/TM-FES-GEA/010911_wtc_terra1_cbc.jpg
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 1, 2008 4:41:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Jul 30, 2008 23:57:26 GMT -4
The wind speeds were stronger than Katrina. Try looking at the data.
Why did the earth's magnetic field shift with every 9/11 event?
|
|