Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[SDC]

Normally I don't try to post in the more technically-based threads, because I am not qualified to argue matters of engineering, physics, math, etc.

But wowser. This one seems to include material that is way beyond ... uh, reality. (I was going to type, "way beyond stupid," but didn't want to be rude.) I mean, is there no goddamned balm in Gilead? Who left the nuthouse door unlatched, huh?

 

[theprestige]

I will start by saying that although the information available to the general public (which is what I am limited to) makes it absolutely clear that DEW are deployed on land, at sea and in the air, at all levels of height, including earth orbit, it is not possible to be specific down to the level of, say, knowing the serial numbers of the gizmos or any other exacting inquiry, beyond more than a few of the weapons.

I'm sorry, but I would like to know exactly what information sources you are using to support these claims. If they are publically available, you should have no problem providing links, titles of books and documentaries, etc.

DEW are impracticable as weapons and the US military is resisting their use. That is the most important information I can impart.

DEW operate at the speed of light and they are calibratable over a wide range of lethal effects over a variety of distance parameters. One slip up, and you could cause havoc. They can be, and are, WMDs and they can merely sting you at the other end of their lethality spectrum. They can also control your thought process and make you jump, and therein lies, another clue. The use of DEW create a chain-of-command nightmare.

I don't know the exact upper range of their lethality, but I fear they can destroy the earth. I assert they pulverized 2 110 storey buildings in <10seconds. The query then is, what can they destroy if the beam remains on for 20 seconds, for 1 minute?

I cannot serve as answerer of all questions. DEW are easy to google and you can start anyplace, including wikipedia, if you just want background information. The only other thing I'll say is the closer you look, the more you can know.

I'm sorry, but I would like to see the evidence you have to support these claims.

 

[CurtC]

Would each person who would like to engage in a DEW discussion please start by indicating what their current understanding of the subject consists in; together with a basic assertion as to whether they think such weapons exist and have been deployed in some venue or another?

I have a degree in Electrical Engineering, and as part of that I took a senior-level course on pulsed power which dealt with getting large amounts of energy from one place to another very quickly. Part of the class was a field trip to Sandia National Labs in Albuquerque, where the government does much research on this subject. Part of the class was building a project where students built such things as rail guns.

I don't think such weapons exist, except the low-power Active Denial System, and the fact that a bullet could be considered directed energy.

 

[BenBurch]

I have a degree in Electrical Engineering, and as part of that I took a senior-level course on pulsed power which dealt with getting large amounts of energy from one place to another very quickly. Part of the class was a field trip to Sandia National Labs in Albuquerque, where the government does much research on this subject. Part of the class was building a project where students built such things as rail guns.

I don't think such weapons exist, except the low-power Active Denial System, and the fact that a bullet could be considered directed energy.

Well, I think they CAN exist to the extent of a boost-phase missile killer.

But a BIRD impact can kill a boost-phase missile, so the energy imparted to target is nowhere near what you would need to blast a building from orbit.

And if you will see the posting I made in the other thread about atmospheric windows, you will see that there are significant issues with doing that from orbit EVEN if you could make a laser with that kind of output.

 

[sts60]

... The information base on DEW is vast and no one who posts here should be deemed to know any more or any less than anyone else.

Statement of equivalent authority. Kindly support this claim by citing your relevant credentials. (I have an undergraduate degree in physics, a master's degrees in electrical engineering and another in system engineering, and over a decade and a half as a professional aerospace engineer working on civil, military, and commercial space projects.)

...together with a basic assertion as to whether they think such weapons exist and have been deployed in some venue or another?

Everyone here knows (or should know) that DEWs exist. That is not the question. The question is whether such a weapon could have destroyed the WTC buildings.

.I will start by saying that although the information available to the general public (which is what I am limited to) makes it absolutely clear that DEW are deployed on land, at sea and in the air, at all levels of height, including earth orbit, it is not possible to be specific down to the level of, say, knowing the serial numbers of the gizmos or any other exacting inquiry, beyond more than a few of the weapons.

Straw man. What DEW systems are deployed in Earth orbit? Exactly what is your evidence for this claim?

DEW are impracticable as weapons

But they are capable of neatly vaporizing skyscrapers, without any sign of their existence or operation? What exactly is your definition of "impracticable"?

and the US military is resisting their use...]
Factually incorrect. The military is actively funding and developing microwave weapons for crowd control (the "pain ray", already tested) and for damaging or disabling enemy systems. They are also actively funding and developing laser weapons for anti-missile and anti-aircraft use (like the already-demonstrated THEL) as well as airborne weapons like the Advanced Tactical Laser, and, of course, the Airborne Laser system you frequently reference.

DEW operate at the speed of light ...

Only electromagnetic instruments. Particle beams do not travel at the speed of light.

I don't know the exact upper range of their lethality, but I fear they can destroy the earth. I assert they pulverized 2 110 storey buildings in <10seconds.

Exactly what type of weapon do you claim did this?
Exactly what is your evidence for its existence?

The query then is, what can they destroy if the beam remains on for 20 seconds, for 1 minute?

I have already demonstrated the energy required to vaporize even one percent of one of the towers was more than five orders of magnitude greater than the energy deliverable by the ABL you are so fond of displaying as support for your claim. The theoretical beam power necessary is comparable to the combined output of every nuclear power plant on Earth. What is your evidence for the existence of such a weapon? Exactly what type of beam did it generate? Where do you assert it was operated?

I cannot serve as answerer of all questions....

You have yet to answer any of the questions that have been posed to you in response to your claim, including myriad's analysis of the energy required. Or R. Mackey's analysis of the system needed to deliver the same energy as imparted by the impacting aircraft. Three quantitative analyses, and a host of specific questions specifically on this topic, have been presented to you. Start by answering them.

 

[RedIbis]

Just as easy as knocking down the claims that WTC7 had only a "few small fires" or that it "wasn't hit by anything".

Don't you mean as easy as knocking down the claim that WTC 7 was a raging inferno? But let's not distract.

 

[Spud1k]

I don't know the exact upper range of their lethality, but I fear they can destroy the earth. I assert they pulverized 2 110 storey buildings in <10seconds. The query then is, what can they destroy if the beam remains on for 20 seconds, for 1 minute?

All very scary, but that doesn't answer the OP - what evidence do you have that they were used on 9/11? On what basis do you 'assert' that they did all that pulverising?

 

[Alt+F4]

Don't you mean as easy as knocking down the claim that WTC 7 was a raging inferno? But let's not distract.

Then why do you?

 

[leftysergeant]

Not exactly because I don't think the theory is being misrepresented.

The theory is being represented as true by the Woodies, and as a possible explanation of what happened. Those of us who have fire fighting experience are representing it as an example of the BS that some people try to drag in here.

 

[SDC]

Don't you mean as easy as knocking down the claim that WTC 7 was a raging inferno? But let's not distract.

False claims should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

Horsefeathers, Red I. Nonsense.

 

[leftysergeant]

I am still waiting for someone to explain how their supposed weapons would function without visible light, intense heat and ear-destroying sound that would be detectible over the chaos of collapse.

 

[Dog Town]

Don't you mean as easy as knocking down the claim that WTC 7 was a raging inferno? But let's not distract.

Maybe you should look words up before using them!

For you.http://dictionary.reference.com/

inferno
noun

2. a very intense and uncontrolled fire

raging
Very active and unpredictable; volatile: a raging debate; a raging fire.
Remarkable; extraordinary:

 

[sts60]

Everyone, kindly refrain from unrelated discussions, and from trying to get in the last word about unrelated topics.

Questions are on the table for jammonius which she has yet to address. No distractions, please, or I will request that the thread be moderated.

 

[Dog Town]

Sorry bout that. I too would love to see Jamm'n Judy answer.

 

[theauthor]

How many times do i have to tell people that jammonius is Andrew Johnson, not Judy Wood.

 

[NickUK]

tinyurl com/5v9u27
updated History of 'Directed Energy Weapons'

[updated and based on research by ewing2001 aka nico haupt, also highlighted at fcs[dot]shortURL[dot]com ]

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Jammonius asked about qualifications: Other than my engineering degree and a basic understanding of physics, I'm only slightly more qualified in that I'm a safety engineer (and by default, the Laser Safety Officer) for a laboratory that has over 300 Class IIIB and Class IV lasers, ranging in power from 0.5 milliwat to over 100 kilowatts and covering about every type (Gas, Chemical Dye, Continuous Wave, Pulsed, Gaussian, Flat-top, etc.)

I'm no laser expert, but I think I understand them better than the average person.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

How many times do i have to tell people that jammonius is Andrew Johnson, not Judy Wood.

I didn't assume it was her the first time I posted, and BTW, I did see your previous post regarding this.

Mind sharing how you concluded this is Andrew Johnson and not Judy Wood, since he seems to be spouting a Judy Woods line of thinking and seems to primarily refer to her web site.

 

[jammonius]

I'm sorry, but I would like to know exactly what information sources you are using to support these claims. If they are publically available, you should have no problem providing links, titles of books and documentaries, etc.


I'm sorry, but I would like to see the evidence you have to support these claims.

Let me repeat. I'm not going to serve as answer person here. If, as you say, "[you] would like to see the evidence..." then you look it up. It's publicly available and you may google or go to reference sites, or .mil or .gov sites just as easily as anyone else.

I will provide some clues. For instance, assume you're interested in DEW deployed at sea. Then, use "navy" in your search. Here's a search suggestion: "navy, cruiser, directed energy"

Note, the above suggestion is only that, you can actually construct your own searches and might get more specific results in so doing.

Ultimately, you'll find the names of the ships that have DEW deployed on them, but you might not find that in your first search.

 

[theauthor]

I didn't assume it was her the first time I posted, and BTW, I did see your previous post regarding this.

Mind sharing how you concluded this is Andrew Johnson and not Judy Wood, since he seems to be spouting a Judy Woods line of thinking and seems to primarily refer to her web site.

Andrew Johnson collaborates with Judy Wood. His website is Checktheevidence.com

You can see from his style that it is him.