Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

"Drs. Wood and Reynolds complete their thesis in public view. They note that the Kingdome demolition created a 2.3 richter earthquake, and point out that WTC had many times the PE, and should have caused a much larger earthquake than the 2.3, and 2.1 quakes that were actually measured."

This actually makes sense, and goes against the controlled demolition theory. In controlled demolition, the bottom support would have been taken out, and the entire building would have dropped, hitting the ground with it's full weight in a very short amount of time (I'm just guessing here, but I'd say roughly the time for the building to drop one story). This would have created a much larger impact to register. As was mentioned earlier, the Ricter scale is a measure of peak vibration. The measurements you've presented here would appear to be reasonably consistent with the buildings collapsing from the top down, where the destruction was spread over a relatively long period of time, with no real "impacts" other than when the top floors first collapsed.

An analogy: Drop 20 gallons of water on your head and you'll be knocked flat on your back, pour 20 gallons of water on your head over ~5 seconds, you're just going to get wet.

If I get the time, I'll work out the physics of it and post it so you can work it out for yourself. After all, you shouldn't just take my word for it!




Long live the DNRC!
 
Welcome to the forums, Crazycowbob. I'm crazy about your user name. You make an excellent point!
 
Crazycowbob said:
An analogy: Drop 20 gallons of water on your head and you'll be knocked flat on your back, pour 20 gallons of water on your head over ~5 seconds, you're just going to get wet.
Click to expand...

Excellent first post but sadly, to the extent that it moves us farther away from having a working Constitution-class starship, I'm against it.
 
I guess the hundreds of trucks hauling thousands of tons of debris to a landfill in New Jersey was all trickery? The videos and photos were all faked? Somehow there were 3,000 people, each with dozens of relatives and friends, whose dissapearence could easily be explained? Our goverment, which proved it's ability after Katrina and in Afganistan was able to do all this without Bob Woodward's knowledge?
Are people who believe this crap from the same planet as myself?
This whole thread is an insult to human inteligence, and worse an insult to the families of the victims!
 
chipmunk stew said:
Don't worry, Princess Leia. Someone still loves you:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/JudyWould.html

"What if you were sick with deluded fantasy?
What if you thought Edna was an elf up in a tree?
Would you desecrate the graves of those who died where the towers stood?
Well, Judy, Judy, Judy, Judy would."
Click to expand...

That's an OK song you posted there Chimpmuck Stew. Ace Baker. I'm not crazy about his voice, but I sure like what he's trying to say.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Yes. No rubble, yet toasted cars. Cars half toasted, half pristine. Spontaneoulsy exploding car engines (not gas tanks). Firetruck burned out and windows broken but otherwise undamaged.
Click to expand...
{sigh} You don't supply a link so I don't know what is correct or not in your claim but it really doesn't matter. Assuming all of these things are true they are not better answered by controlled explosions or any other CT.

Complex events, especially ones with so much energy produce lots of anomalies. It would be very unusual to find nothing unusual in an event like this regardless of the cause.
 
So, some of you may have seen my calculations about the amount of dust obsevered at the WTC site. Page 3 of their paper has a similar calculation about "How much surface area could account for the building, if it were all turned to dust?"
Dust calculations:

Volume of one WTC tower = (207 ft)x(207 ft)x(1368 ft)

Dust Volume (from one WTC tower) = (1/10)xVolumetower (approx.)

One square mile = (5280 ft)x(5280 ft)

Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.) = (1/10)x(207/5280)2x(1368x12 inches) = 2.52 inches deep over 1 square mile

Or

Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.) = (1/10)x(207/5280)2x(1368x12 inches) 1-inch deep over 2.52 square miles.

Note, this area includes over the water. An area of 2.52 square miles would be a radius of 0.896 miles.

For comparison, we can assume the solid-to-air ratio of the building is 1:20, then the

Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.) = (1/20)x(207/5280)2x(1368x12 inches) = 1-inch deep over 1.26 square miles, or a radius of 0.634 miles.
Click to expand...

Clearly, they have come to significantly different conclusions than I did. But, guess what? They seem to have made a few mistakes, and made some unfounded assumptions. I know, you're shocked.

1) Dust Volume (from one WTC tower) = (1/10)xVolumetower (approx.)

They've assumed the volume of dust would be 1/10 the volume of a whole tower, with no justification for this value. Could be adjusted up or down to give you any number you want. Without an explanation of their methodology, we can't really evaluate this, but it could be a major source of error.

2) One square mile = (5280 ft)x(5280 ft)

Sounds innocuous, but this gives a radius of coverage of about 910 meters, as compared to the value of 800m I used, based on the EPA dust report. 100m doesn't sound like much, but when you do the math, this increases the area of the circle by about 25%, with no justification for this value.

3)Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.) = (1/10)x(207/5280)2x(1368x12 inches) = 2.52 inches deep over 1 square mile

This assumes that the average density of the dust is the same as the density of the material the towers were made of, which we know isn't likely.

rustytunes said:
From my experience in civil engineering labs, I think if you worked on an average density of 1.600t/m3 for the loose concrete dust, you should be close enough. ... The density of concrete say 25mPa is around 2.350t/m3, depending on the ingredients - aggregates, cement etc. Cement has an s/g of about 3.200.
Click to expand...

From this, the density should be between about 2/3 and 1/2 of the original density.


But of course, all this pales in comparison to the most obvious error, which I'm sure TS1234 hasn't seen yet, but other may have.

3)Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.) = (1/10)x(207/5280)2x(1368x12 inches) = 2.52 inches deep over 1 square mile
Click to expand...

So, even if everything else was exactly correct, they'd still be off by a factor of 2! Did anyone on 9-11 report a layer of dust averaging 5 inches deep? I haven't seen anything, most reports I've seen refer to "a couple" of inches.

So there, one more thing to slap them with. Not as good as as dead fish, but it's what I've got.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

Drs. Wood and Reynolds complete their thesis in public view. They note that the Kingdome demolition created a 2.3 richter earthquake, and point out that WTC had many times the PE, and should have caused a much larger earthquake than the 2.3, and 2.1 quakes that were actually measured.

The foundation of the WTC (the "bathtub") was not damaged.

This is strong evidence for the near total disintegration of the towers before they hit the ground. They caclulate how much dust should be produced, and present lots of photographic evidence of disintegration.

Also shown are many difficult-to-explain phenomena, such as the toasted cars, and blown out windows.

I eagerly await any "debunking".
Click to expand...

So now you're on board with the death rays crowd (both of them!).

OMGLAZERGUNSPEWPEW!

Congratulations, you've officially become self-debunking. Your name is now the intellectual equivelant of a WMD (useful for poisoning wells) ready for use by intellectually lazy debunkers.

"Sounds like something TS1234 would say" is all we need and presto, we win the argument.
 
I posted a link to this over at Democratic Underground and the first reply was from Spooked911 (famed for his rabbit fencing and kerosene experiment), commenting:

Yes, it makes A LOT of sense.

I can't wait for the final version.

Thanks for posting!
Click to expand...

And no, he's not kidding.

BTW, did anybody see any discussion of the Star Wars Beam Weapon? I kept waiting for that to make an appearance. I love the idea that if the slurry wall had been broken that downtown Manhattan would have been flooded. I'm also amused at the picture showing "no damage to bathtub". Why didn't they mention that stairwell being completely untouched? :rolleyes:
 
oops.... double post, sorry, so I've deleted the content to avoid duplication.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
I posted a link to this over at Democratic Underground and the first reply was from Spooked911 (famed for his rabbit fencing and kerosene experiment), commenting:



And no, he's not kidding.

BTW, did anybody see any discussion of the Star Wars Beam Weapon? I kept waiting for that to make an appearance. I love the idea that if the slurry wall had been broken that downtown Manhattan would have been flooded. I'm also amused at the picture showing "no damage to bathtub". Why didn't they mention that stairwell being completely untouched? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hahahahahaha. Priceless.

I was so tempted to post "Oh, I'm getting such a raging clue" on that thread.

But I resisted.

Once upon a time, I would have responded there but I've found that the forum can't sustain itself without skeptics and can't even function without skeptics. Without us, it is withering on the vine. They're down to, on some days, fewer than a dozen posts, despite their claims to tens of thousands of members (well, yeah, that's a joke too, but that's another story).

Most days recently, the dungeon has a dozen posters at best, a few dozen posts at best, and over the course of a week, it's all just the same 10 crazies posting to each other the same crap they've been posting to each other for months.

Thus, it's better to ignore the remaining few tinhatters instead of giving them something to get excited about again. It seems like the dungeon is self imploding.... I wonder if they'll record it and add sound effects, and upload it to YouTube once it is officially dead, and declare it an "inside job" :)


....


All of that aside, your post was perfect, Brainster, because it illustrates so clearly that the tinhatters there didn't even realize that you were poking fun at their naivete and gullibility.

I really wonder sometimes how they manage to function in the real world, and what on earth they'll do with themselves when the dungeon dies down to fewer than 10 posts a day in the next month or so, which it will likely do if we skeptics continue to stay away.
 
Last edited:
the idea seems to be that beam weapons were used to disintegrate the top of the WTC so that the impact of the massive weight of the WTC buildings wouldn't destroy lower Manhattan with a large earthquake.
Click to expand...
:dl:

The most compelling evidence for this theory is that the seismic signal for the WTC collapses was MUCH SMALLER than it should have been.
Click to expand...
first the huge seismic spike proves explosives, now the small one proves death star, brilliant

If you think this is all sheer craziness, there's probably not much anyone can say to you at this point.
Click to expand...
i would think the same about anyone who DOESNT think this is sheer craziness, lol
 
Question for you skeptics, do you think the U.S. military current possess secret weapons?

Note that I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the Woods and Reynolds about their new theory, just want to know skeptic's opinions on secret weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom