Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

[Bell]

Hotdamn Martians and their f-ing heatray!

 

[tsig]

So it was a controlled thermite demolition AND a beam weapon attack? And there were no planes and all of the videos were fakes?

And they used the MIB tools to make us all think we see planes.

Wait, that does not make sense....

 

[R.Mackey]

Did falling debris do this? [qimg]http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image172.jpg[/qimg]

Please explain how the "collapse" melted the front door and removed the door handle, yet left the back door panel pristine. Can't wait to hear this.

I would surmise that fire did most of that.

Could have been flaming debris.

I take it you've never seen a car fire before?

How is this supposed to be proof of 'splosives or the Death Star, precisely?

Oh, by the way Alex, how come you now quote yourself twice in your signature, but use two different names? Seems a bit... odd, don't you think?

 

[tsig]

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.

Yes, very hard for me to understand, do take a try a explaining how a flaming building falls and accomplishes this stuff.

Most things seem very hard for you to understand.

Why is this?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Oh, by the way Alex, how come you now quote yourself twice in your signature, but use two different names? Seems a bit... odd, don't you think?

Yes, it's very odd. A multitude of vertical round holes of similar diameter bored down through rubble is normal, and a person using his own real name, and also using an internet name, that's odd. The first quote clarifies Gravy's signature, in which "TruthSeeker1234" is quoted out of context.

Now that that's cleared up, please clear this up.

 

[Skibum]

Now that that's cleared up, please clear this up.

Looks like debris tore holes in the building, whats odd about that.

 

[Garb]

Yes, it's very odd. A multitude of vertical round holes of similar diameter bored down through rubble is normal, and a person using his own real name, and also using an internet name, that's odd. The first quote clarifies Gravy's signature, in which "TruthSeeker1234" is quoted out of context.

Now that that's cleared up, please clear this up.
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image149.jpg

Debris.

 

[Bell]

Yes, it's very odd. A multitude of vertical round holes of similar diameter bored down through rubble is normal, <snip>?

Did you notice those two 110 story skyscapers crashing onto those buildings? I guess not, since you're not very perceptive.

 

[Oliver]

Did falling debris do this?

Please explain how the "collapse" melted the front door and removed the door handle, yet left the back door panel pristine. Can't wait to hear this.

It was an intelligent bomb that is able
to destroy only the desired part of a car.

 

[FramerDave]

What's to clear up?

 

[tsig]

Hmm, got a better idea. I'll booby trap the entrance and try to lure the troofers in. I mean, they come pre-packed in tinfoil, just throw them on the barbie and enjoy a good meal. May have to switch to fava beans for that tho'. In any case it'll be an excellent opportunity to practice new culinary disciplines for when our reptoid overlords take over openly.

I've got a pretty good barbque sause

 

[R.Mackey]

Yes, it's very odd. A multitude of vertical round holes of similar diameter bored down through rubble is normal, and a person using his own real name, and also using an internet name, that's odd. The first quote clarifies Gravy's signature, in which "TruthSeeker1234" is quoted out of context.

I still don't know what "round holes" you're talking about.

And that has nothing to do with your signature. I was merely commenting on people who refer to themselves in the third person. You may want to change your signature again, since I didn't make the connection between yours and Gravy's signature -- I doubt many other readers will get that impression.

Now that that's cleared up, please clear this up.
[qimg]http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image149.jpg[/qimg]

You're not giving me much to work with.

Are you proposing that the areas of collapse -- whichever building this is, obviously hammered by falling debris -- showing vaguely round shapes, is evidence of space-based beam weapons?

Can you accept that a localized building collapse might fracture on a convex load line? That's what really happened.

If these were punchouts from beam weapons, first of all, they're way smaller than the WTC collapse itself. So... your beam weapon has multiple settings?? Throttleable? And they fired it at random, punching little holes hither and thither in an orgy of wanton destruction?

Second, how do you reconcile that there appear to be no thermal plumes from these beam weapon impacts? No jets of steam, molten rebar, smoke, not even scorch marks around the edges? This beam weapon of yours appears to mimic blunt impact quite well... or is that what They want us to think??

Third, do you have any idea what the state-of-art in beam weapons is?

I work for NASA, pal. If we had the ability to launch a ruddy orbital cannon, we wouldn't be struggling to finish the International Space Station. And it would be about a million times more awesome.

Go back to your comic books.

 

[tsig]

You guys are confusing black projects with secret projects. A secret project can be known to the public, like the Joint Strike Fighters in the photographs. Those are also secret programs because the details (system capabilities, specs, performance numbers, etc.) are secret. A 'black' project is different because the public does not even know of its existance. The conspiracy nutjobs like to play the 'black project' card because they can pretend any kind of weapon exists to do whatever they please. It's the equivalent of saying 'Goddidit' to plug up the holes in your arguement.

The Airborne Laser program is the closest thing we have to a Death Star. It is meant to shoot down a missile but even if it were operational, it would not be able to disintegrate a building.

How do the CT'ers know about the "black projects"

Could they be part of the cover?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

What's to clear up?

There are round holes, many of them. What round objects could have done this? Giant bowling balls? And where are the objects?

 

[Bell]

There are round holes, many of them. What round objects could have done this? Giant bowling balls? And where are the objects?

They're not round. They are holes, jagged and all. And the debris is inside, where the shadows are, so you cannot see it clearly. What did you expect, FDNY adding floodlight to the scene to satify some nutter like you?

 

[R.Mackey]

How do the CT'ers know about the "black projects"

Could they be part of the cover?

Impossible. No intelligence agency would use such unstable people as part of their operation.

There is some precedent for this, but using more legitimate public figures. The one that comes to mind is the Glomar Explorer, using Howard Hughes and a fake research mission as cover for a black project to recover a sunken Soviet boomer.

I guess one could argue that Howard Hughes was a bit of a crackpot as well, but the difference between this operation and the nearly unintelligible flotsam that is the 9/11 Truth Movement is stark. I don't see them as in any way equivalent.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I still don't know what "round holes" you're talking about.

You're not giving me much to work with.

Can you accept that a localized building collapse might fracture on a convex load line? That's what really happened.

If these were punchouts from beam weapons, first of all, they're way smaller than the WTC collapse itself. So... your beam weapon has multiple settings?? Throttleable? And they fired it at random, punching little holes hither and thither in an orgy of wanton destruction?

Second, how do you reconcile that there appear to be no thermal plumes from these beam weapon impacts? No jets of steam, molten rebar, smoke, not even scorch marks around the edges? This beam weapon of yours appears to mimic blunt impact quite well... or is that what They want us to think??

Third, do you have any idea what the state-of-art in beam weapons is?

I work for NASA, pal. If we had the ability to launch a ruddy orbital cannon, we wouldn't be struggling to finish the International Space Station. And it would be about a million times more awesome.

Your questions are good ones. Why no steam or other visual evidence besides the round holes? NASA, huh? Not surprised. No, I have no idea what the state of the art in beam weapons is.

COnvex load lines. In other words, buildings broke in a round fashion, because that was the weakest? Straight down through? Hmmmm. And what about the round holes in the dust and debris? Same thing?

 

[beachnut]

Your questions are good ones. Why no steam or other visual evidence besides the round holes? NASA, huh? Not surprised. No, I have no idea what the state of the art in beam weapons is.

COnvex load lines. In other words, buildings broke in a round fashion, because that was the weakest? Straight down through? Hmmmm. And what about the round holes in the dust and debris? Same thing?

So where did you, Judy, and Morgan get all the energy for your weapon?

Do you even have a clue how much energy Judy, Morgan and you are ignoring just in the events as they happen?

And how much energy they say they needed to bring down the WTC with their energy beam weapon?

 

[R.Mackey]

Your questions are good ones. Why no steam or other visual evidence besides the round holes? NASA, huh? Not surprised. No, I have no idea what the state of the art in beam weapons is.

Well, I do, and it's lousy megawatt-class weapons. That means in order to generate the same energy as the aircraft impact -- not counting the fuel on board or any other consumable, just the kinetic energy -- would take over an hour of continuous firing. It can't keep that up, by the way.

COnvex load lines. In other words, buildings broke in a round fashion, because that was the weakest? Straight down through? Hmmmm. And what about the round holes in the dust and debris? Same thing?

Concrete buildings tend to break in a round fashion. It's just the way certain materials fracture.

Obviously straight down. I'm suspecting this was secondary collapse after impact, though I still don't know precisely what I'm looking at. After being damaged, the only force remaining is gravity. What else were you thinking of?

And I still don't know what other "holes in the dust and debris" you're talking about. "Holes in dust" does not parse. Dust particles are too small to have holes, and dust clouds don't stay still long enough for well-defined holes.

 

[Bell]

Your questions are good ones. Why no steam or other visual evidence besides the round holes? NASA, huh? Not surprised. No, I have no idea what the state of the art in beam weapons is.

COnvex load lines. In other words, buildings broke in a round fashion, because that was the weakest? Straight down through? Hmmmm. And what about the round holes in the dust and debris? Same thing?

Big picture of big hole with big debris inside.

ETA: The above link doesn't work. Try this link, and click on the picture top right.

And you are either unfair, or REALLY unable to percieve the evidence. You have posted many times that picture of the WTC 1 collapse, taken from a helicopter. Here's a smaller version of said picture. What do you observe in this picture? And mainly about the debris crashing down?