Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
Where did the towers go - directed free energy
Comments
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »Just as a matter of interest, is there another way that a 40-story+ building can collapse?
This is a way
Or this .....0 -
-
-
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »The point I'm trying to make is....what is the most common failure mode for 50 story building?
Without demolition i dunno
This steel building was engulfed in flames for hours an hours and didn't collapse
Day after0 -
Advertisement
-
-
You are bringing in the video that looked exactly the way building 7 imploded .. you know the one that didn't had an airliner fly into it
Really, wouldn't that same logic support that WTC 7 was "dustified" too? - cause it looked like it e.g. I take your implausible theory and substitute it with my own using the same novice method0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »Ah, ok. To be fair, I imagine the scientists at NIST know more about this than I do.
Question is ... Do you believe that those fires alone could bring down building 7 the way it collapsed that day?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DublinWriter wrote: »Despite the numerous evidence from EMT workers on site as to the presence of rivulets of molten metal, NASA, yes that's right, NASA themselves overflew the site on 16th September and using thermal imagery recorded hot-spots in excess of 700º Celsius.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html
No seizmic evidence either? BS...http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html
Since DublinWriter brought up the subject of NASA...
Hurricane Erin is covered in Chapter 18 (pages 395-412) of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood.
This is the introduction to the chapter:
"It was a beautiful early-autumn morning in New York City. September 11, 2001, started out calm, with pleasant temperatures and crystalline blue skies. Some had taken time to do early morning errands. But very few of those people, in fact very few among the entire population of New York City, knew that a massive hurricane was located at that very same time just off the shore of Long Island. That storm was Hurricane Erin, as seen in Figure 411:"
Why was Hurricane Erin traveling straight for NYC from September 3rd-11th 2001, yet it was not reported on by any major media broadcast in that area? Most people are totally unaware that Hurricane Erin came closest to New York City and reached its largest size on 9/11. Hurricane Erin was slightly larger than Hurricane Katrina (i.e. Kinetic Energy as measured by Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index*), and hurricanes rarely head straight for NYC, so why wasn't it reported on by any major corporate media station? Furthermore, why was Hurricane Erin still not reported on when it reached its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, just before it diverted from its straight-line trajectory by suddenly turning and heading out to sea? How were meteorologists absolutely certain that this hurricane would make a sharp right-hand turn away from New York City? Not only is New York City near sea level, but so is most of Long Island. Evacuation from those areas would be a mammoth undertaking and could not be organized at a moment's notice and yet the public remained uninformed. The data shows that Erin slowed down as it approached New York City and then remained almost stationary during the morning of 9/11. Immediately after the World Trade Center complex was attacked, Erin began to move away from New York City. Coincidentally, Hurricane Erin was studied more than any other hurricane had been studied before, and more was learned from it than had been learned from any hurricane before it.
NASA Makes A Heated 3-D Look Into Hurricane Erin's Eye
Hurricane Erin raced across the North Atlantic and along the eastern seaboard in September 2001. She was used as an experiment for a study to improve hurricane tracking and intensity predictions, allowing meteorologists to provide more accurate and timely warnings to the public.
The mission originated from the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Fla. The mission united researchers from 10 universities, five NASA centers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CAMEX-4 is a series of field research investigations to study tropical cyclones — storms commonly known as hurricanes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051007090048.htm
Mission Summary - Hurricane Erin
http://web.archive.org/web/20040116023331/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/HFP2001/Mission_Sum_010910H.pdf
9/11 Morning Weather Reports | NYC Not Warned of Approaching Hurricane Erin
There is every reason to conclude Hurricane Erin was part of the weapon (id est a static field generator). Imagine "hiding" a hurricane right outside of NYC. You know how the TV stations thrive on hurricanes. They milk them for all the stories they can get. Now imagine the media being quiet about it...
The implications are mind boggling. Man has in his hands a method of disrupting matter, of destroying the planet in an instant, of "dustifying" whatever and whomever they want, and of psychologically controlling the population.
Dr. Judy Wood's book can be understood by anyone who reads it. And the conclusions are undeniable. This is what makes it so powerful. It is also why none of the various self-claimed "Truther Leaders" will admit to having read it. They claim to own a copy, but also claim they have not read much of it. (Plausible deniability?) Nothing in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? has been refuted nor can it be.
*The accumulated cyclone energy index (ACE) for Hurricane Erin was HIGHER than the ACE index for Hurricane Katrina. This subject is covered in Chapter 18, section E, page 405 of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?
Accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) is a measure used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to express the activity of individual tropical cyclones and entire tropical cyclone seasons, particularly the North Atlantic hurricane season. It uses an approximation of the energy used by a tropical system over its lifetime and is calculated every six-hour period. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity, and by adding together the energy per some interval of time, the accumulated energy is found. As the duration of a storm increases, more values are summed and the ACE also increases such that longer-duration storms may accumulate a larger ACE than more-powerful storms of lesser duration.If it's an unknown technology, then how do you know that 9/11 qualifies as evidence? How do you know exactly what the weapon does? How can you be sure of what the results should be like when you don't know anything about the weapon other than a belief that it exists?
Also, you seem to misunderstand what empirical means. There's no empirical evidence of any beam weaponry having been used. None whatsoever. There's the fact that the two towers collapsed. Other than that, there's just supposition and assumption on your part.
“There's no empirical evidence of any beam weaponry having been used.”
Humanji,
Your statement indicates a lack of integrity. Is your objective to determine what happened on 9/11 or to argue for the sake of arguing? If the latter, that is a pathetic excuse for participating in the destruction of this planet for the sake of entertainment. The empirical evidence is in Dr. Judy Wood's book. If you have not read the book, you are not qualified to know what is or is not in the book and have resorted to nothing more than speculation and guesswork. If you had read the book, stating the book contains no empirical evidence would be overt dishonesty (a fabrication with the ntent to deceive).
All the definitions and descriptions I found for the term, “empirical evidence,” required first-hand observation or experience... In other words, if someone has not seen the information in Dr. Wood’s book, they haven’t observed it. It’s like a child sticking a finger in each ear while saying “la, la, la, la, la...I can’t hear you.” :rolleyes:
So, until someone has read Dr. Wood’s book and carefully observed the information it contains, a claim that the book is not based on empirical evidence is fraudulent.
What is empirical evidence?
Answer
From the Miriam Webster online dictionary empirical means:
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_empirical_evidence
Empirical Evidence in Scientific Research
Scientific evidence is considered empirical when it can be observed by many people and all will agree as to what they observed. An example would be reading a thermometer. No matter who observes the thermometer, it still displays the same temperature. The counterexample to this is physically sensing warmth or coolness. Observer A might sense that a room is warm, while observer B senses that the same room is cool. These observations differ depending on the observer, and are therefore considered subjective. Evidence that is not dependent on the observer (i.e., is objective), that appears the same no matter who observes the evidence, is considered to be empirical evidence.
dcs (PhD in Nutrition, research neuroscientist)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_empirical_evidence#ixzz285UjJEDP
Empirical evidence is evidence that is found by a direct observation, experience, or situation. The evidence is real and believable because it is shown to you and you see it. There is no room for doubt when something is proven with empirical evidence because there is physical evidence. This is different from believing in something you cannot see. For example many people may not believe in religious beliefs or mystical ideas because it is a belief that cannot physically be seen but some feel. Although some may feel it is real, many won't believe unless they see it with their own eyes. Such cases of empirical evidence include that the earth is round, not flat.
http://www.reference.com/motif/science/what-is-empirical-evidence
tu capisci? 0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EMCYpD5UHw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B1OnhSucP8
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement