Oh, so by OMISSION. Prove a negative. "People LIKE ME." WOW!
What did I lie about Wood? What did I omit? I freely admit I don't know everything about her. I don't know what she has for breakfast. Or lunch. I omitted those gems. I certainly did not set out to write a complete dissertation or book on the subject of 911 in which I covered ever single subject TO YOUR SATISFACTION so that nothing was omitted, so you would think I had not lied by omission. Heaven forfend, no.
Where have I challenged "abduction events" or UAPs? WHO in hell is instructing me????
You've dropped over into tin-foil hattery, M. I work for no one. . . and to imply such is insane. You are really getting offensive and highly insulting to a fellow freeper.
"Pulled" Good grief. That old canard? I have friends who are firefighters. Everyone of them knew exactly what was being said. When they give up on trying to save a building the chief in charge often says, "Let's pull it." Meaning "pull the men out." "Give up. There is no further use in wasting effort." I understood it the moment it was SAID. "Pull the equipment back, pull the men and equipment out, and let the building burn." It does NOT mean "blow it up," for Pete's sake. That was the claim of one of the first TIN FOIL HAT CONSPIRACY BRIGADE IDIOTS!
If they are going to going to blow a building, and they do blow up buildings for safety purposes or for a fire break, the terminology is "OK, let's blow it." or just "Blow it!" A guy I know is the local specialist for that. He hasn't blown one up in years. . . he kinda wishes one would be necessary. They don't use ambiguous terminology. SHEESH!
Again with the color of the smoke. What do YOU think the color of smoke means?
Re: Directed Energy Weapons.
Do you know what the problem with directed energy weapons is, MHGinTN? The problem is that there must be MORE energy at the source of the weapon than will hit the target. . . That's the third LAW of thermodynamics. Equal and opposite reactions. The other problem with directed energy weapons is they are generally line of sight only from the weapon to the target.
So, MHG, what modality is it with Dr. Wood? Is it the Hutchison effect that caused the steel of the WTC to gellify and thus collapse the building, some other Hutchison effect that caused anti-gravity to destroy the towers, or was it directed energy Star Wars like weaponry?
Apparently it's anything BUT what millions of people saw, an airliner hitting at least the second tower. So which is it?
Right now it seems to me that people are merely throwing pseudo-science solutions at the WTC Towers to see what might stick. . . so long as it is NOT normal physics and the things we can prove using the tables of the softening of steel and the weight of too many floors piling one after another on floors that could only hold twice their expected loads. . . and failed due to the curtain wall support end being sheared away on at least one and possibly two sides putting too great a strain on the remaining exterior structural supports, causing a cascade failure of all the remaining floors, which in turn, caused a final cascade failure of the central core.
Could the Deep State been behind it. Certainly.
I couldn’t resist exposing you a little more. You spittled: “”Pulled” Good grief. That old canard?” It was Larry Silverstein who coined the Internet use of the phrase regarding building Seven. His ‘old cannard’ may still be available on Youtube. He wasn’t referring to removing firefighters from the building. But that was just another example of your deceitful efforts. Keep it up, you might win a prize!
BTW, I rank Wal Thornhill among the great science minds from the last century.
This is likely very off the wall as it came unbidden and I have no clue as to what might have triggered the thought. However, I had a strong inner sense when I read that paragraph that there is some sort of force, energy or agent that GAINS umph, power, potency as it gets closer to the target. I understand how, Swordmaker, the thermodynamics law would prevent such a reality. Nevertheless, I don't often have that strong an inner sense about something without it eventually proving to have been at least true to a significant degree. Mystifying. Curious. Don't know what it might mean.
Yes, it might have to do with some 'spiritual' force, for lack of a better description.
And, I don't know that my intuition had anything to do with 9/11. It was sort of an abstract, generalized knowing thing, sort of insight. Not necessarily referring to 9/11.
Curious. Very curious.