[Split]Debris piles at GZ- split from: UL Moves For Sanctions Against Morgan Reynold

[Arus808]

can we confirm that this is indeed Judy Wood? Otherwise, all the images jammonious is posting is HOTLINKING from Judy Wood's site without permission.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

can we confirm that this is indeed Judy Wood? Otherwise, all the images jammonious is posting is HOTLINKING from Judy Wood's site without permission.

That is assuming that she has the rights to host them on her web site to begin with.

 

[theauthor]

can we confirm that this is indeed Judy Wood? Otherwise, all the images jammonious is posting is HOTLINKING from Judy Wood's site without permission.

Is that the best you can do

Jammonius is Andrew Johnson. he certainly will have Judy Woods permission seeing as they do research and appear on programmes together.

 

[sts60]

And, oh, by the way, the effects of DEW are very long lasting.

What effects, exactly? And from exactly what kind of energy? Infrared light? Microwaves? A stream of ionized, or neutral, particles?

You have previously claimed that there are directed-energy weapons in orbit. Which ones, exactly? What specific evidence do you have to support your assertion?

You also claimed that classified information would be irrelevant. Have you ever had a security clearance? (I have). Yes or no. On what basis, exactly, do you claim information related to the performance and operational aspects of such weapons - the most important information related to the very mechanism you postulate, and the most likely to be classified - to be irrelevant?

As has been mentioned, GZ is still being cleanup up; and here's a photo dating from March 2002, after the full autumn and the full winter of 01-02 had passed and they're still hosing it down. Posters, that is not a normal effect of a hydrocarbon fire; rather it is consistent with DEW.

Exactly what are the differences expected between a "normal hydrocarbon" fire and one started by a DEW?

On what basis, exactly, do you make such a claim? Have you any firefighting experience? (I do) Yes or no.

By the way, your question is incorrect in its very formation. The fires at the sights involved enormous amounts of Class A and Class B materials. It's simply wrong to use the phrase "normal hydrocarbon fires". Why exactly did you use such a term?

 

[Arus808]

Is that the best you can do

Jammonius is Andrew Johnson. he certainly will have Judy Woods permission seeing as they do research and appear on programmes together.

sorry, but rules are rules here. Hotlinking images is against the policies of this forum and if he isn't hosting those images himself somewhere, then he is hotlinking.

The best I can do? who said I wanted him to stop posting pics? just that he shouldn't be stealing the bandwidth of someone's website, with such huge images. He can easily photobucket them or imageshack them as they are accepted here.

Is that the BEST you can do?

 

[theauthor]

sorry, but rules are rules here. Hotlinking images is against the policies of this forum and if he isn't hosting those images himself somewhere, then he is hotlinking.

The best I can do? who said I wanted him to stop posting pics? just that he shouldn't be stealing the bandwidth of someone's website, with such huge images. He can easily photobucket them or imageshack them as they are accepted here.

Is that the BEST you can do?

But you only report truthers for hotlinking.

 

[Arus808]

But you only report truthers for hotlinking.

where did I report anyone for hotlinking? NOw you are lying (and I know you are liar, because you just proved that you are a liar)

I asked if Jammonius was Judy wood, and IF it is fine, he/she could use his own site to post the images. However, hotlinking is not allowed on this forum. I didn't report anyone for hotlinking, and that is your WRONGLY based assumption. I just pointed out that the large images, are linking to a site that may not be owned by the person posting those images.

YOU lack reading comprehension skills as shown by your posts.

 

[theauthor]

where did I report anyone for hotlinking? NOw you are lying (and I know you are liar, because you just proved that you are a liar)

I asked if Jammonius was Judy wood, and IF it is fine, he/she could use his own site to post the images. However, hotlinking is not allowed on this forum. I didn't report anyone for hotlinking, and that is your WRONGLY based assumption. I just pointed out that the large images, are linking to a site that may not be owned by the person posting those images.

YOU lack reading comprehension skills as shown by your posts.

You seem to lack writing skills. The first letter of a sentence should be a capital.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

What effects, exactly? And from exactly what kind of energy? Infrared light? Microwaves? A stream of ionized, or neutral, particles?

You have previously claimed that there are directed-energy weapons in orbit. Which ones, exactly? What specific evidence do you have to support your assertion?

You also claimed that classified information would be irrelevant. Have you ever had a security clearance? (I have). Yes or no. On what basis, exactly, do you claim information related to the performance and operational aspects of such weapons - the most important information related to the very mechanism you postulate, and the most likely to be classified - to be irrelevant?

Exactly what are the differences expected between a "normal hydrocarbon" fire and one started by a DEW?

On what basis, exactly, do you make such a claim? Have you any firefighting experience? (I do) Yes or no.

By the way, your question is incorrect in its very formation. The fires at the sights involved enormous amounts of Class A and Class B materials. It's simply wrong to use the phrase "normal hydrocarbon fires". Why exactly did you use such a term?

I suppose an abnormal hydrocarbon fire would be one with either more hydrocarbon or less hydrocarbon???

Also in a normal hydrocarbon fire, it has an ignition source, whereas a DEW initiated fire would ignite by [insert magic here].

 

[Arus808]

Is that the best you can do? so, liar, when are you going to prove i reported the posts for hotlinking?

 

[sts60]

There are DEW in all ranges of the light spectrum, not just the visible.

And in any range, the beam would have been spectacularly visible as it interacted with the smoke and debris from the building.

Moreover, as DEW exist and are deployed, your expert is woefully out of date.

I'm skeptical that any theoretical DEW with enough power to vaporize thousands of tons of steel could actually become airborne let alone be put into orbit.

jammonius has failed to answer my challenges from post 135. In particular, I asked her exactly what directed-energy weapons are currently deployed, as she claimed, in orbit.

But jammonius' appeal to the general notion of directed-energy weapons, without any evidence whatsoever for the existence of the skyscraper-vaporizing beam she keep alleging, or any understanding of the effects such a beam would and would not have, can be addressed quantitatively, despite her obviously incorrect claim here that Almost all so-called 'technical' discussions of DEW centering, for instance, on the "power requirement" are so assumption riddled as to be next to useless. The problem can be bounded.

Let's take a crude look at what it would take to vaporize about one percent of the roughly 96,000 tons of steel in each of WTC 1 and 2.

For the sake of convenience, we'll use one metric ton (1000 kg), which is actually 1100 "short" tons. Again, it's a little over one percent of the steel in one of the buildings.

I'm also going to use the heat of vaporization for iron. I know this is just an approximation for that of steel, and I don't know whether it's high or low. But I'm sure it's good enough for an order-of-magnitude estimate.

Fe, Heat of vaporization: 349.60 kJ/mol
Fe, Atomic mass 55.847 => 1 mol Fe = 55.85g
=> Heat of vaporization = 349.60 kJ/(mol * 55.85 g/mol) = 6.26 kJ/g

Energy needed to vaporize that much iron = 6.26 kJ/g * 10⁹g ~ 6.3*10⁹ kJ = 1.7*10⁶kWh.

But this power must be delivered over only about 10 seconds - let's make it 20 to be very generous:

Power required = 1.7*10⁹Wh / (20s / 3600s/h) = 310*10⁹W (310 gigawatts).

jammonius has repeatedly offered as support for her claim a picture of the Air Force's Airborne Laser (ABL), which is being integrated into a converted 747. The Missile Defense Agency's fact sheet notes that the ABL, a megawatt system, has delivered its energy over a ten-second period, which is about the right length of time - but only in a lab test. Not in flight. So jammonius' example isn't even operational.

The operational ABL is supposed to be able to take up to 40 shots, up to 5 seconds each, with its chemical-oxygen-iodine laser (COIL) (which itself weighs something on the order of 18,000 kg). I don't have the output power (I wouldn't be surprised if it's classified), but let's generously say it's 10 MW. Thus, the ABL that jammonius is so fond of showing as support for her claim has a beam power five orders of magnitude too small for our limited scenario.

But power is only one of the problems. The total energy needed, even in the very limited, purely theoretical (100% efficiency) scenario, also shows how laughably disconnected jammonius' scenario is from reality. Using our generous 10MW beam power guess for ABL, it can deliver 40*5s*10MW = 2000MWs, or 2*10⁹Ws ~560,000 Wh ~ 560 kWh.

Thus, the energy available to the ABL system for one flight is, very roughly, three-tenths of one percent of what is necessary to theoretically vaporize roughly one percent of the steel in one of the Towers. And it hasn't even flown yet.

And that doesn't take into account atmospheric attenuation, or attenuation from all the smoke and dust from the towers - which, as I mentioned earlier, would have lit up blindingly from that kind of beam hitting it. Or the fact that no orbital track will take an alleged tower-zapping satellite back "in range" an hour later. (If you speculate a geosynchronous satellite, your atmospheric attenuation and beam-spreading issues become even more ludicrous.) Or the other issues associated with the construction, launch, operation, efficiency, and visibility of such a system. Or the problem of generating and using the power needed. (See R. Mackey's excellent post exploring a range of such topics.) Let alone the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for its existence, or that the observed reality doesn't match the claimed mechanism, or that jammonius can't even describe that the "directed energy" is. The whole DEW-zapping-WTC scenario is nothing more than a particularly delusional handwave.

 

[BenBurch]

Add to that the window issue I noted...

 

[sts60]

Sorry for the pull-and-edit job. I realized I said "one ton" when I meant one percent. I also had some connection issues trying to post before, and had to put back some edits I lost.

One other thing I wanted to mention is that the ABL, which jammonius likes to show as if it was proof of skyscraper-vaporizing Death Rays From Above, is designed to damage - not vaporize - missiles with masses on the order of ten tons. Showing that picture to support the notion of a weapon that vaporized the better part of two hundred thousand tons is... well, it's funny.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

One other thing I wanted to mention is that the ABL, which jammonius likes to show as if it was proof of skyscraper-vaporizing Death Rays From Above, is designed to damage - not vaporize - missiles with masses on the order of ten tons. Showing that picture to support the notion of a weapon that vaporized the better part of two hundred thousand tons is... well, it's funny.

That's why I quit trying to get any serious discussion in this thread. Why spend time discussing the height of the debris pile, when the DEW theory is so far-fetched, it's laughable.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

...and then on top of atmospheric dispersive effects, when you actually hit anything, then you have the problem of penetrating material or vapor ablated from the surface.

The most amazing aspect of Judy Wood's beams are that they continue to penetrate the vaporized and pulverized material to work on the buildings, and the apparent presence of all of that smoke, vapor, concrete, and what-have-you, doesn't seem to impact the effectiveness of the beams on the remaining building below the vaporization front.

And WTC 4 was mostly pulverized, with just a narrow sliver of it remaining and still no damage underneath.

It has occurred to me that Dr. Wood's beam weapon would need one additional feature: incredibly accurate range. Bear this out:

Dr. Wood claims that the debris pile is only 1 story above ground, and that the basement levels were essentially undamaged. She says that WTC 4 was pulverized, with no damage underneath. This means that the beam weapon was able to pulverize the building material down to street level and no further. In order for the basement not only to remain intact but to not fill with debris, the floor of the ground floor must not have been penetrated. Which means this beam weapon could activate in space, send its beam for however many miles down to earth, and then make it stop projecting when it gets to ground level, within a tolerance of, conservatively, ten feet.

I would love to know how to get a beam of energy to do that.

 

[bonavada]

I think you're nit-picking here. No matter how you slice it, the debris pile does not go any higher than, at most, the midpoint of those lobby windows anywhere; and, the mean or median height is, in my view of the photos, not that of others, no more than about 1 storey. I am here reporting on what I see in the photos.

I have to stop now, will return later. Gotta go.

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEWcon/DEWconpics/12541.jpg

No nit-pick. Recall these are pictures you introduced for us to consider as evidence re: the height of the debris pile. I looked and a few very elementary calculations tell a different story (no pun intended)
The towers were about 410 m high consisting of 110 storeys. That gives me a figure of about 3.73 m per storey. Let's call it 12' per storey I know some are more comfortable with Imperial measures.
Look at the pic you posted (below) I inserted a rough yellow scale based on what seems to be a person standing adjacent to a pillar in the centre distance. Count the ticks upward, I count 8 to the midpoint you mention. I would suggest that that point measures at least 40' (about 12 m) from the floor there. And that is only estimating the scale is at about 5' per tick (Unless there was a dwarf convention at the Tower when this photo was taken) Do you still assert the pile is no more than one storey?

You are proven wrong, plainly and simply.

Anyway I think you should move on from this nonsense and get your teeth into ElMondoHummus' post above.

​

BV

 

[sts60]

That's why I quit trying to get any serious discussion in this thread. Why spend time discussing the height of the debris pile, when the DEW theory is so far-fetched, it's laughable.

Well, I don't really expect any serious discussion; I crunched the numbers for the heck of it (and would appreciate anybody checking my numbers and assumptions). I've gone through similar exercises with Apollo "hoax believers", and only once have I ever gotten an acknowledgment.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Why spend time discussing the height of the debris pile, when the DEW theory is so far-fetched, it's laughable.

So as to demonstrate the fact that the wrong information is being used to buttress the fantasy weapon charge. It's true that energy beam weapons self debunk in a way, and everyone's doing stellar work at describing why the boundaries of the problem demonstrate it's lack of validity, but in my opinion, the details beyond the descriptions are also are worthy of comment. Those details being cited are wrong, demonstrably so. It's too easy to accept or ignore a truther's description of the state of Ground Zero on the way to lambasting an outrageous hypothesis, but it leaves basic background information in disarray when that happens.

I think it's important to demonstrate that 1. The debris pile was not as uniform or as "short as jammonious claims, and 2. The underground areas were indeed heavily damaged because it's basic information, and because allowing those canards to remain unchallenged may lead some to think "Okay, well DEW is out, but what else can explain the effects?" There are no effects to explain, and that becomes apparent when people are shown the distortions used to buttress fantastic claims.

 

[Alt+F4]

What effects, exactly? And from exactly what kind of energy? Infrared light? Microwaves? A stream of ionized, or neutral, particles?

You have previously claimed that there are directed-energy weapons in orbit. Which ones, exactly? What specific evidence do you have to support your assertion?

Here's Dr. Wood's answer:

Jenkins: Could you give a proposed overview of the type of weapons that could be used for such a thing?
Wood: We haven’t really gotten into listing them yet. Just energy weapons.
Jenkins: In what form?
Wood: I don’t think we really need to define it. What we did was assemble the pictures that we trust.
Jenkins: Have you done any energy calculations at all to get a scale for what is involved for doing that?
Wood: We don’t need to get distracted by those values. If you look at the pictures and the scrap pile is there any question the buildings were pulverized?
Jenkins: If you use a laser beam of some kind you run into some problems, mainly the amount of energy required to evaporate the steel in the towers is…
Wood: You’re specifying evaporation what about dustification?
Jenkins: You want to talk about dustification?
Wood: That’s turning the building contents into nano-dust.
Jenkins: Has this been done in the laboratory? Has anything been done that would turn steel into dust?
Wood: Various types of energy beams.
Jenkins: What kind of energy beam?
Wood: You put something in your microwave oven and leave it in there extra long see what happens to it.
Jenkins: That’s food, not metal.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

 

[A W Smith]

Here's Dr. Wood's answer:



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

Come to think of it. We have been missing a lot of forks lately. Perhaps somehow they have found their way into our microwave oven and been dustified!

jammonies. how tall of a pile of dust should i expect to see in my microwave from one stainless steel flatware fork?