Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[tsig]

There is ample evidence that the Towers and WTC7 were destroyed by a diffuse, ambient, radially aligned gravity beam, directed upward from the center of the earth.

So devastating is this weapon that physicists have concluded that no shielding is possible. Instead, every structure we build anywhere within a few miles of earth's surface must be equipped with gravity countermeasures to supply the necessary gravity-canceling force vectors or else suffer immediate destruction.

This was clearly demonstrated on 9/11, when extensive damage to the gravity countermeasures in three large buildings led to their total loss.

So far, all attempts to send expeditionary forces to the earth's core to neutralize this threat at the source have failed. (Also, though there are many ongoing and very expensive efforts to reduce the threat by removing some of the higher-gravity substances, such as gold and uranium, from the interior of the earth, their effect on the gravity beam has so far been negligible.) So instead, engineers are learning what they can from the disaster about how to improve the gravity countermeasures in existing and future buildings.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Nominated

 

[LashL]

By the way, there are 503 actual eyewitnesses. I think I was the first to call attention to that source. Why don't other posters use it in an affirmative way, rather than merely criticize the witnesses that I bring up?

There are far more than 503 eyewitnesses. The 503 to whom you refer are just the tip of the iceberg and consist only of firefighters, paramedics and emts who were interviewed by FDNY after the events, on an invitational basis. There were thousands more witnesses, of course.

And, no, you are not - by a longshot - the first to call attention to the NYT source. It was published years ago and some of us here - myself included - have read all 12,000+ pages of them a long time ago. We have discussed them and cited the source numerous times on numerous threads here.

That you failed to look for those references and that you are oblivious to the fact that that we have been aware of and referring to it for years is yet another indication of your poor research skills.

Moreover, like most conspiracy fantasists, you have simply cherry picked portions of statements that you think - usually wrongly - support whatever fantasy you are espousing, and you disregard or handwave away everything else. That does not constitute legitimate or honest research. But then, you have not demonstrated that you are capable of legitimate or honest research, so this is not terribly surprising.

Maybe you should send ARA and SAIC and the others GOOD LUCK cards and tell them that you're rooting for them!!

They don't need any "luck" to have both of the idiotic complaints dismissed. The complaints will fail because they are legally unsustainable. It is the results of the motions for sanctions in both pieces of litigation that I am more interested in.

 

[Arus808]

::cough::cough:: realstice ::cough::cough

 

[tsig]

Hell yeah. Why isn't Tora Bora a slag heap now?

Why are we worried that Iran will build a nuclear device? We could slag their supposed weapons sites and not risk a single American life.

Why are we bothering with warships? You could sink anything afloat without ever getting your feet wet.

Why all the anti-missile missiles up in Alaska? A weapon like this would be an assured kill on any ballistic missile.

And WHY are these truthers still alive? You could obliterate their homes with surgical precision and people would merely think there was a gas explosion.

Since it can be tweaked to control thoughts why don't we all love Big Brother?

 

[Sparky]

I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone of anything

That's good because you're doing a damn fine job of it.

 

[sts60]

sts,

From your post above,this is worth exploring:

"Incorrect. Neither SAIC nor ARA manufacture directed-energy weapons."

What, then, is their involvement with DEW? I don't think it appropriate for you to give a simple, totally unsupported answer like that.

The answer is simple, because your claim was wrong. Directed-energy weapons are not among the numerous products offered by either company (SAIC:
Advanced Technologies, products; ARA: products). They do not manufacture such systems, though they offer some engineering analysis and support in the field - as in hundreds of other fields.

Furthermore, I disagree.

Then you may support your position with evidence. Otherwise, you may argue from personal authority, after citing your relevant credentials. I have already given mine.

In the absence of either evidence or argument from relevant authority, your disagreement is irrelevant.

The rest of your post merely argues with me.

I have demonstrated quantitatively that your proposed system is infeasible. I have pointed out several serious inconsistencies in your arguments. I have pointed out other areas where your claims are unsupported (such as your appeal to equivalent authority). I have repeatedly cited quantitative refutations of your scenario by several other posters.

You have failed to answer any of these challenges, and after multiple attempts to get to you to fulfill your stated intention to engage in this conversation - all of which you have assiduously avoided - I consider you to have functionally abandoned your claims.

Of course, you cannot even define your claim; you are evidently completely incapable of even saying what kind of directed-energy weapon you think destroyed the Twin Towers. Needless to say, such a vague, completely open-ended claim is indistinguishable from an appeal to magic, and equally disconnected from reality.

Nevertheless, four separate posters (myself , myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch) have offered quantitative and specific analyses bounding the directed-energy weapon/WTC claim, each clearly demonstrating it to be unphysical. Since you have failed to dispute these analyses - the very type of discussion for which you've asked - they stand as clear refutations of the DEW scenario.

If, however, you change your mind and decide to attempt to defend your claim - or at least define it - I will be happy to discuss it with you.

 

[Sparky]

Since Jammonious has labored several times to offer the Weather Anomalies page of Judy Jetson's site as some sort of proof, I decided to go take a look for myself. Unfortunately, my eyes fogged over at about the 200th photograph of a cloudy sky and I dropped it.

Did anyone else get anything more out of it than a thousand photographs, vague speculation with no concrete evidence, JAQing and multiple references to Tesla coils, levitation and HAARP? I didn't see anything in my short stay there offered up as actual proof of anything, let alone detailed power calculations required to cause the imagined steerable hurricanes and artificial earthquakes.

 

[pomeroo]

Greetings Myriad,

and, as usual, thanks for your thoughtful post.

Your post is largely speculative -- and that is NOT a criticism. Speculation is a valid part of the discovery process. In science it is classically referred to as having an hypothesis.

In connection with 9/11, we are each pursuing our hunches and applying reason as best we can in connection with trying to determine what happened and how best to interpret witness accounts. Your hypotheses may differ from mine and vice/versa. No?

Your entitled to your interpretation, of course. But, would you agree with me that my interpretation could, conceivably have some merit?

By the way, there are 503 actual eyewitnesses. I think I was the first to call attention to that source. Why don't other posters use it in an affirmative way, rather than merely criticize the witnesses that I bring up?

Again, this is not a onesided thread. We're all searching for meaning and for signficance together. I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone of anything, other than the fact that there is tangible and real support for the proposition that DEW destroyed the WTC, in the form of effects and in the form of witness observations.

There are many witnesses who make statements similar, in substance, to that of Karin Deshore.

Consider, for instance, Fernando Camacho who "saw steel disappear" and who, unfortunately, also saw "people disappear."

Given that ALL of the structural steel was recovered, how much disappeared?

 

[beachnut]

...
Consider, for instance, Fernando Camacho who "saw steel disappear" and who, unfortunately, also saw "people disappear."

When will you present the evidence? The people did not disappear, they were crushed. False ideas on 9/11, why?
DEW did it? Please state the required energy.
Mentioning Camacho actually makes your claim false. When you make up stuff, do not mix in reality, it kills your fantasy. Anyone can look up Camacho and see you are making up a fantasy.

 

[Furi]

Just on the question of DEWs and their power to pulverise building matter, could I ask where is the trail of Ionised atmosphere that would pinpoint the source?

I am sure our Jolly friends Nitrogen and Oxygen where most unexcited at being specifically left out of this high power party.

 

[BenBurch]

Just on the question of DEWs and their power to pulverise building matter, could I ask where is the trail of Ionised atmosphere that would pinpoint the source?

I am sure our Jolly friends Nitrogen and Oxygen where most unexcited at being specifically left out of this high power party.

IR in the four micron window might not do that. But it would have other effects (like the whole thing would GLOW for hours, and "shine" from the target would have set paper alight in New Jersey) that would exclude it.

See the window post in the parent thread to this one.

 

[sts60]

Here is Ben's post. (I have practice citing it for jammonius - it's exactly the type of discussion for which she has repeatedly asked, and yet somehow she has avoided it despite my repeated efforts to point it out to her.*)

I was thinking about ionized air last night. Let's suppose the beam is exactly as wide as one of the Towers. A circular beam, then, is about 3100 m². According to my analysis, the beam needs to deliver something like 310*10⁹ W, so the beam irradiance is on the order of 100 MW/m². I was thinking about whether the energy absorbed by clear, dry air of such a beam would cause ionization, but don't have time right now to look up the specific numbers. Any suggestions? I'm not a laser guy.

It is clear (so to speak) that such a beam would show up... clearly (sorry!) when it interacted with the smoke and dust billowing from the site (not to mention police helicopters and birds).

*And let's not forget myriad and R. Mackey, who also showed quantitatively the infeasibility of the "DEW did WTC" claim. Again, exactly the type of discussions for which jammonius has called, yet she has studiously ignored them.

 

[Disbelief]

I also want to know how they tested this. How did they calibrate it? If it was strong enough to vaporize steel and concrete, how did it not punch through a large portion of the Earth's crust?

 

[jberryhill]

I take no specific position on what exact type of DEW was used. After all, DEW remain a highly secretive aspect of the US armada. If you were to ask me for the serial number of, say, the thyratron trigger on a particular type of DEW, I would not be able to say what it is because I do not know.

Nobody asked you about the serial number of any part, so you can stop protesting that you can't provide one.

On the subject of qualifications, I have a doctorate in Electrical Engineering with relevant background that includes extensive work and an issued patent in optoelectronics. I also have experience with resonant microwave devices (in particular optically-induced modulation of microwave diodes).

Getting back to the "what kind of device", my understanding is that you posit an electromagnetic wave producing device of unspecified wavelength(s) that

1. Has the ability to turn steel and concrete into dust and vapor.

2. Produce "anomalous partial burning" effects in nearby vehicles.

3. Does not burn paper.

4. Is not dispersed or attenuated by ablated material in the course of performing its function on an extremely large scale.

5. Causes persistent "fuming" in impacted materials for months.

So, before we get to "what type of device", please let me know whether 1-5 are the operational characteristics of the device you assert, or whether there are any other significant characteristics of device performance which you would like to add to that list.

You have invited us to apply our respective expertise to "answering our own questions". I have considered the list of characteristics above, and I am no closer to identifying a device with those operating characteristics. Hence, a hint from you, since you are certain of the existence of this device would dispel the notion that your reluctance is a mere dodge.

 

[BenBurch]

40 DEW Questions, question ONE

Nobody asked you about the serial number of any part, so you can stop protesting that you can't provide one ...

I'll make it simple for her - 40 questions.

Question one;

Is the DEW photons or other sorts of particles?

 

[A W Smith]

Judy Wood. With a mask and a blonde wig

I believe they have solved the problem of projecting nuclear energy!

 

[jammonius]

Then you may support your position with evidence. Otherwise, you may argue from personal authority, after citing your relevant credentials. I have already given mine.

In the absence of either evidence or argument from relevant authority, your disagreement is irrelevant.

I have demonstrated quantitatively that your proposed system is infeasible. I have pointed out several serious inconsistencies in your arguments. I have pointed out other areas where your claims are unsupported (such as your appeal to equivalent authority). I have repeatedly cited quantitative refutations of your scenario by several other posters.

You have failed to answer any of these challenges, and after multiple attempts to get to you to fulfill your stated intention to engage in this conversation - all of which you have assiduously avoided - I consider you to have functionally abandoned your claims.

Of course, you cannot even define your claim; you are evidently completely incapable of even saying what kind of directed-energy weapon you think destroyed the Twin Towers. Needless to say, such a vague, completely open-ended claim is indistinguishable from an appeal to magic, and equally disconnected from reality.

Nevertheless, four separate posters (myself , myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch) have offered quantitative and specific analyses bounding the directed-energy weapon/WTC claim, each clearly demonstrating it to be unphysical. Since you have failed to dispute these analyses - the very type of discussion for which you've asked - they stand as clear refutations of the DEW scenario.

If, however, you change your mind and decide to attempt to defend your claim - or at least define it - I will be happy to discuss it with you.

The answer is simple, because your claim was wrong. Directed-energy weapons are not among the numerous products offered by either company (SAIC:
Advanced Technologies, products; ARA: products). They do not manufacture such systems, though they offer some engineering analysis and support in the field - as in hundreds of other fields.

The above is viciously disengenuous in that it downplays the role of SAIC and ARA in connection with DEW. Note the euphemisms used by sts:
He starts out by saying SAIC and ARA do not manufacture DEW. That claim, however, is highly misleading because the manufacturing element within the MIC is usually a highly dispersed process, so as to facilitate COMPARTMENTALIZATION and FRAGMENTATION so that no one knows exactly what is being made, let alone its purposes.

If I remember correctly, sts60 raised the issue of Security Clearances. sts60 did not raise the issue of how they actually work. However, compartmented information is a key element in the secrecy apparatus that informs SCs. Moreover, in high-tech weapons, the issue of manufacturing is only one part of a process that consists in design, development, prototype testing, refinement, further development, testing, deployment and so on.

Note how sts60 continues:

They do not manufacture such systems, though they offer some engineering analysis and support in the field - as in hundreds of other fields.

The euphemism is palpable: "...such systems" means DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS (DEW) and sts60 found it necessary to duck, dodge and not use that term. This is from someone who, in other posts, was demanding EXACT descriptions of them.

The euphemistic dodge continues. sts60 also states: "...they [meaning SAIC and ARA] offer some engineering analysis and support in the field..."

That is too clever by half, sts60. SAIC and ARA are deeply involved in the manufacture, development, testing, implementation and deployment of DEW.

You have not refuted that claim on bit. Rather, you have engaged in evasion.

Now, if you want answers to your exact questions about DEW, you can go directly to SAIC and ARA and get them.

That, by the way, is what Dr. Judy Wood has already done, by a factor of more than a year ago and her process in that respect is ongoing.

 

[jammonius]

False ideas on 9/11, why?
DEW did it? Please state the required energy.
Mentioning Camacho actually makes your claim false. When you make up stuff, do not mix in reality, it kills your fantasy. Anyone can look up Camacho and see you are making up a fantasy.

When will you present the evidence? The people did not disappear, they were crushed.

No, you do not have the right to change what an actual eyewitness said. I am quoting Fernando Camacho, a firefighter who was there and who's statement is officially recorded.

Were you there?

There is little or no evidence of crushing because there were very, very few bodies recovered, or even large fragments of them. Instead, the human remains were micoscopic and/or very small, consistent with the observation that people disappeared.

Please state the required energy.

This is a misleading query. Have you asked those who attribute the near instantaneous destruction of the WTC complex to explain how the low level energy of kerosene, a mere combustible, not even a flammable liquid, could have generated the "required eneergy" or have you merely let that issue pass and find it only applicable to exotic weaponry, like DEW?

What, by the way, is the energy capability of kerosene? What, for instance, can kerosene do to steel? Answer: Not a damn thing.

 

[jammonius]

They don't need any "luck" to have both of the idiotic complaints dismissed. The complaints will fail because they are legally unsustainable. It is the results of the motions for sanctions in both pieces of litigation that I am more interested in.

If they don't need any luck, then why are you rooting for them so hard?

By the way, then President Eisenhower, in January, 1961, admonished all of us to be extremely wary of the MIC. Too bad you didn't heed his warning. Instead, you seem to want to lead cheering for them.

Pity that. And pity the USA, too. Viewpoints like yours help sustain a system that is bankrupting us and doing nothing except devising ever more hideous weapons of mass destruction, like DEW.

 

[jammonius]

I'll make it simple for her - 40 questions.

Question one;

Is the DEW photons or other sorts of particles?

Question duly noted. Since Dr. Wood has put herself into position to be able to get the answers from those who develop the weapons, you just might be in luck.

Who else do you know of who has sued those elements of the MIC that are the most directly involved in DEW in a way that just might result in the answers you seek?

And, who else have you asked for an answer to Question one, if anyone?

Are you asking the question rhetorically in the actual hope that you won't get an answer?

What, pray tell, are you doing BenBurch?