Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

Here is a list of the anomalies that trouble Wood and Reynolds.

[SIZE=+1]Here are the principal data that must be explained:[/SIZE]
  1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (free fall speed "collapse")
  2. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers
  3. The rail lines, rail cars and tunnels had only light damage
  4. The WTC mall survived well, witness Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends
  5. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on our comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition
  6. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up
  7. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth
  8. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, plus a cylindrical arc into Bankers Trust and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust
  9. All planes but top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes after WTC 1 had been destroyed
  10. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers
  11. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and neighboring buildings
  12. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared
  13. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball and electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction
  14. Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955*, commercial and military development of beam technology has proceeded apace, so use of high-energy beams are likely
Click to expand...
Anybody want to view the pictures and take a swipe at explaining some of these things?

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam2.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html
 
Last edited:
1: strawman, they ddint fall at "free fall speeds" and physics can explain it just fine

2: is there any reason the bathtub should have been damaged?

5: miminal seismic compared to a CD, wouldnt that indicate it WASNT a CD?

6: yes, right from where the planes hit them and the worst fires were in fact, how very odd....

7: riiiight

9: 2 minutes after WTC1 collapsed, but how long after planes started being hijacked and crashed into things?

10: whats strange about it?

11: you seem to have a funny definition of "minimized"

13: could you cite some of these eyewitness accounts? id be particularly interested in see some of the "waves" ones (BTW why put quotes around unexplained?)

14: existance of technolgy is not evidence
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
One of the problems is that there is no significant rubble at WTC. About 20% of the steel, and about 1% (at most) of the concrete.
Click to expand...

Not even getting into the accuracy of the statistics, do remember there being just the tiniest amount of dust at WTC after the collapse?

Sheesh, these people really do only see what they want to see.
 
7.The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth
Click to expand...

So, if 80% of the upper parts of the towers were turned into fine dust, what did the study of the composition of the dust find so little iron:

Fe-rich Primarily Fe and Fe oxide 0.2 – 1.3 0.1 – 1.1

Compare to the amounts of Gypsum:

Gypsum Includes all Ca sulfate particles 26.3 – 53.3 63.3 – 63.7

(first range is percentage for outdoor samples, second for indoor, see table on page 5)

So are you saying the towers contained gypsum in an amount between 25 and 50 times the amount of iron(steel)?

Or maybe your 20% of the steel left number is just a tad off?
 
You ever wonder why Woods doesnt attempt to publish her "Star Wars Beam" theory, or even get it reviewed by a few REAL CIVIL/STRUCTURAL Engineers?

TAM
 
Horatius said:
This almost makes me believe in god, that he would keep such an abomination out of the air....What were they thinking?
Click to expand...


To be fair, the X-32 performed very well in trials, and though the X-35 out performed it in a couple of areas, it actually out performed Lockheed Martin's craft in others.

I believe a primary reason for selecting the X-35 was the compatibility with the already-selected F-22, also made by Lockheed Martin (the X-35 is based on the F-22 design).

However it was repeatedly noted that the X-32 was very ugly... :p

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
To be fair, the X-32 performed very well in trials, and though the X-35 out performed it in a couple of areas, it actually out performed Lockheed Martin's craft in others.

I believe a primary reason for selecting the X-35 was the compatibility with the already-selected F-22, also made by Lockheed Martin (the X-35 is based on the F-22 design).

However it was repeatedly noted that the X-32 was very ugly... :p

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
I worked JSF -- for both contractors -- during the proposal phase. The X-32 presented by Boeing is a much earlier design study, sort of like the concept cars you see at auto shows. The actual Boeing JSF proposal involved a much more conventional-looking aircraft. The X-35 by Lockheed, on the other hand, was very close to their proposed aircraft.

There are many possible reasons why the Air Force chose one over the other. One possible reason I heard floated was that the X-35 was a more "realistic" prototype, signifying better progress in the Lockheed team or more confidence in their design.

Risk, particularly development risk, is a killer when it comes to large contracts.
 
gumboot said:
To be fair, the X-32 performed very well in trials, and though the X-35 out performed it in a couple of areas, it actually out performed Lockheed Martin's craft in others.

I believe a primary reason for selecting the X-35 was the compatibility with the already-selected F-22, also made by Lockheed Martin (the X-35 is based on the F-22 design).

However it was repeatedly noted that the X-32 was very ugly... :p

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

IIRC the X-32 had problems with the vertical landing, something about the hot air clogging up the trusters (they had to land atop a grill over a pit, so the hot air could stay a certain distance below the plane). There was also a certain trial the planes had to pass (take off - fly - land in one way or the other) that Boeing failed. To bad IMHO, I liked the design :p I tried looking for video's of the plane, but alas, couldn't.
 
Last edited:
Bell said:
IIRC the X-32 had problems with the vertical landing, something about the hot air clogging up the trusters (they had to land atop a grill over a pit, so the hot air could stay a certain distance below the plane). There was also a certain trial the planes had to pass (take off - fly - land in one way or the other) that Boeing failed. To bad IMHO, I liked the design :p I tried looking for video's of the plane, but alas, couldn't.
Click to expand...

Look for the Nova documentary "Battle of the X-Planes." Great show.

It's not uncommon for the worse plane to win, though. The YF-23 "Batplane" was, in many respects, superior to the F-22 Raptor that is now entering service.
 
R.Mackey said:
Look for the Nova documentary "Battle of the X-Planes." Great show.

It's not uncommon for the worse plane to win, though. The YF-23 "Batplane" was, in many respects, superior to the F-22 Raptor that is now entering service.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks Mackey. I think that's the show I saw a couple of years ago. There's a clip you can watch at that site, and it shows a small piece of the X-32 in flight right in the beginning. I always thought it looks like a great white shark, mouth open, ready to attack it's prey :)
 
Bell said:
Ah, thanks Mackey. I think that's the show I saw a couple of years ago. There's a clip you can watch at that site, and it shows a small piece of the X-32 in flight right in the beginning. I always thought it looks like a great white shark, mouth open, ready to attack it's prey :)
Click to expand...


I always thought it looked pregnant... :p

Which woulda been cool if it fired little baby jet planes out it's engine exhaust... :p

-Gumboot
 
Yeah.

For some reason it always reminded me of the old F-85 concept, although it isn't similar, of course. The big jaw-like chin was dictated by their hovering approach, quite different from the Flying Egg.
 
R.Mackey said:
Yeah.

For some reason it always reminded me of the old F-85 concept, although it isn't similar, of course. The big jaw-like chin was dictated by their hovering approach, quite different from the Flying Egg.
Click to expand...



Heh heh heh. I love weirdo prototype aircraft.

-Gumboot
 
Does anybody have any explanations for the observations in the paper? What could have caused the round holes? The strange car melting? The steel belts left on rims?

Is Wood wrong about the earthquake magnitudes? Is she wrong about how large of an earthquake would be generated by the fall of a tower?

I am at a loss to come up with any explanation for the round holes. They look like a giant drill press was used.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Does anybody have any explanations for the observations in the paper? What could have caused the round holes? The strange car melting? The steel belts left on rims?

Is Wood wrong about the earthquake magnitudes? Is she wrong about how large of an earthquake would be generated by the fall of a tower?

I am at a loss to come up with any explanation for the round holes. They look like a giant drill press was used.
Click to expand...

I dunno, but the only explanation I have is two really [rule8]ing big buildings fell down flinging debris everywhere.
 
Round holes: Debris falling at high speed orrrrrrrrr are they the tops of the pile foundations? Maybe we shall never know......

I didn't see any pictures of a strange car, but if it melted then that might be just as well. I have seen pictures of normal cars on fire though...if that helps

Steel belts left on rims is indeed suspicious and if I didn't know better I would say that the rubber mysteriously vanished, which of course is impossible unless it melted, which is of course absurd.

Makes life interesting though.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Does anybody have any explanations for the observations in the paper? What could have caused the round holes? The strange car melting? The steel belts left on rims?

Is Wood wrong about the earthquake magnitudes? Is she wrong about how large of an earthquake would be generated by the fall of a tower?

I am at a loss to come up with any explanation for the round holes. They look like a giant drill press was used.
Click to expand...

Since I'm at a loss for how the events pictured below happened, the only possible answer must be CONSPIRACY baybee!!!

Bell said:
Look, other weak items that crashed into stronger stuff. Unpossible!
Click to expand...

T29.jpg
T27.jpg


T31.jpg
T53.jpg


T36.jpg


Source
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom