Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[sts60]

Dr. Wood never said the weapons are in space.

Then where are they? Ground? Air?

However, there is room for some legitimate misapprehension here. Dr. Wood used the term Star Wars because that was the generic program in which emphasis upon the further develop of DEW was placed. One can understand, however, that Star Wars does, by definition, contain a connotation of space weapons.

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 its utter infeasibility. Do you have anything other than a generic appeal to the concept of "Star Wars" systems?

 

[jammonius]

QUOTE]

For once, you are correct. I am prejudiced against America-hating loons who present absurd fantasies without a shred of evidence to support them.

You do not have a right to define patriotism for me and you damn sure do not have a right to dress your ass in the flag. Take it off immediately. It belongs to all of us and if you suggest otherwise ever again, and I mean ever, I will snatch it away from you immediately and leave you exposed butt naked.

I thought about it for a half-second

About average for you, right?

No, I most definitely do need or want any more hints, falsehoods, fairy tales, lunatic speculations, or empty rhetoric. I need the first bit of real evidence from the shameful gaggle of liars and fools that constitutes the fantasy movement.[/

No, you will not receive further hints. You have given inadequate thought to those already given.

 

[jammonius]

Then where are they? Ground? Air?

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 its utter infeasibility. Do you have anything other than a generic appeal to the concept of "Star Wars" systems?

Well, at least you've figured out that it is proper to refer to Dr. Wood. I assume you realized that by doing otherwise you were only revealing information about yourself and saying nothing whatever about Dr. Wood. That is good for you. I was going to remind you that you were revealing yourself as being disrespectful, potentially misogynistic and, perhaps, jealous, amongst other traits, had you continued along that line.

I addressed the forensic approach for deducing their location in a prior post.

The "studies" you have referenced are, in my view, so hopelessly flawed as to be utterly useless. And I mean that sincerely.

They are assumption riddled in such a way as to quite frankly give scientific methodology a bad name.

They are the functional equivalent to that branch of study that conclusively demonstrates tat bumble bees cannot possibly fly; and for all the same reasons: They ignore the reality.

Taken to the logical conclusion, your studies result in the finding, the inevitable finding, that the Twin Towers are still there.

Here's why: If DEW are not energetic enough to have destroyed the WTC complex, then what chance would kerosene have of pulverizing steel, concrete, rebar and every last person, place and thing in them in 10 seconds, leaving a debris pile in the range that has been delineated in the debris pile thread?

Answer: None whatsoever.

Please redo your studies so as to get rid of the grotesque assumptions contained therein and repost.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here's why: If DEW are not energetic enough to have destroyed the WTC complex, then what chance would kerosene have of pulverizing steel, concrete, rebar and every last person, place and thing in them in 10 seconds, leaving a debris pile in the range that has been delineated in the debris pile thread?

/kerosene/ gravity

Dave

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I was going to remind you that you were revealing yourself as being disrespectful, potentially misogynistic and, perhaps, jealous, amongst other traits, had you continued along that line.

Where the heck did that come from?

The "studies" you have referenced are, in my view, so hopelessly flawed as to be utterly useless. And I mean that sincerely.

They are assumption riddled in such a way as to quite frankly give scientific methodology a bad name.

They are the functional equivalent to that branch of study that conclusively demonstrates tat bumble bees cannot possibly fly; and for all the same reasons: They ignore the reality.

You clearly have immense ignorance... I've read Mackey's paper and much of his discussion is relevant to the material I've been covering in my design classes. I fail to see what 'details' of those papers give scientific methodology a bad name.

Here's why: If DEW are not energetic enough to have destroyed the WTC complex, then what chance would kerosene have of pulverizing steel, concrete, rebar and every last person, place and thing in them in 10 seconds, leaving a debris pile in the range that has been delineated in the debris pile thread?

This statement says a lot about you... Not only is your assumption that the official story says 'Kerosene' pulverized the building contents flat out wrong, it's a flat-out lie that no truther I've ever spoken to has matched. You seem to fail at realizing what 12 stories, and 29 stories worth of tower respectively does when the columns fail at any single floor and crushing building contents with upwards of 100,000 to 150,000 tons of force (adding more with the application of the dynamic loads).

Answer: None whatsoever.

I wonder why, perhaps 'jet fuel AKA kerosene' was never stated as having 'pulverized' an entire building.... Where exactly did you read this up? Gravity.... important concept

 

[WildCat]

then what chance would kerosene have of pulverizing steel, concrete, rebar and every last person, place and thing in them in 10 seconds, leaving a debris pile in the range that has been delineated in the debris pile thread?

3" rebar on 4' centers?

 

[Furi]

Here's why: If DEW are not energetic enough to have destroyed the WTC complex, then what chance would kerosene have of pulverizing steel, concrete, rebar and every last person, place and thing in them in 10 seconds, leaving a debris pile in the range that has been delineated in the debris pile thread?

Answer: None whatsoever.

so now that gravitational acceleration and momentum laws are : I need to know how I stay in my seat whilst I type, and why eggs smash when I drop them onto the kitchen floor but not onto a pillow from the same height, please I am afraid to walk home incase I drift off floor.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The "studies" you have referenced are, in my view, so hopelessly flawed as to be utterly useless. And I mean that sincerely.

They are assumption riddled in such a way as to quite frankly give scientific methodology a bad name.

Then you will have no problem in stating their specific flaws. This, it seems to me, is an entirely appropriate thread in which to do so.

Your first stated flaw - that if DEW could not have destroyed the Twin Towers, no other cause could do so - is rejected, on the basis that several studies have shown the gravitational potential energy stored in the WTC structures to be greatly in excess of the energy requirements for destruction of the structure to the degree observed.

What's your second?

Dave

 

[Furi]

3" rebar on 4' centers?

Space Bea... Oh wait..

I think I'll Join you

 

[sts60]

Well, at least you've figured out that it is proper to refer to Dr. Wood.

You may be Ms. Wood as far as I know; there is no functional difference between your claims and hers.

I assume you realized that by doing otherwise you were only revealing information about yourself and saying nothing whatever about Dr. Wood. That is good for you.

I merely addressed a claim - or rather, the lack of a claim - you brought up.

I was going to remind you that you were revealing yourself as being disrespectful, potentially misogynistic and, perhaps, jealous, amongst other traits, had you continued along that line.

Hogwash. I respect competency regardless of gender. I respect neither incompetence nor the bogus use of credentials to lend an air of authority outside of one's area of knowledge. I have already pointed out why the honorific is not warranted, and I am not interested in your diversionary attempts at ascribing motives to me which do not exist.

I addressed the forensic approach for deducing their location in a prior post.

If you have specifics for "deducing their location", then you can provide an estimate for said location. Where? In the air? In low orbit? In high orbit?

The "studies" you have referenced are, in my view, so hopelessly flawed as to be utterly useless. And I mean that sincerely.

Handwaving. What specific flaws do you claim?

They are assumption riddled in such a way as to quite frankly give scientific methodology a bad name.

Handwaving. The assumptions are clearly stated, and bound specific cases. Do you have a specific claim about the assumptions?

They are the functional equivalent to that branch of study that conclusively demonstrates tat bumble bees cannot possibly fly;

LOL! You can't even name "that branch of study". And you're wrong anyway; aerodynamics does not claim that bumble bees cannot fly.

and for all the same reasons: They ignore the reality.

Taken to the logical conclusion, your studies result in the finding, the inevitable finding, that the Twin Towers are still there.

The Twin Towers are observed to have been destroyed, following impacts by fast-moving aircraft and subsequent heavy fire. The only thing here not observed is a directed-energy weapon of any sort.

Here's why: If DEW are not energetic enough to have destroyed the WTC complex, then what chance would kerosene have of pulverizing steel, concrete, rebar and every last person, place and thing in them in 10 seconds, leaving a debris pile in the range that has been delineated in the debris pile thread?

Are you really so unobservant that you cannot grasp that building collapses were due to a combination of impacts and content fires as well as by the jet-fuel fires? Or are you being deliberately disingenuous in this grotesque misrepresentation?

Please redo your studies so as to get rid of the grotesque assumptions contained therein and repost.

Do you have any specific challenge to the assumption and calculations, or do you simply intend to keep up an endless stream of vague complaints?

Not that it's really relevant, but here's kerosene at work:

 

[BenBurch]

jammonius does appear to be a non-de-guerre for Dr. Wood. Likes arguing in the third person though as she can then deflect anything she cannot answer with a hand wave; "You'll have to ask Dr. Wood."

 

[sts60]

Well, it doesn't really make a difference; jammonius' claims (such as they are) are essentially regurgitations of Ms. Wood's web site. I don't particularly care if they are two separate people or simply one using an alias.

 

[jammonius]

/kerosene/ gravity

Dave

In what proportion and to what effect?

And, what happens with the gravity factor in assessing destruction by DEW?

Note, too, that a 10 second destructive interval for an edifice that stood 1360+/-ft is <1 second longer than it takes an object free falling in a vacuum to hit the ground.

Yes, indeed, the gravity factor does need to be looked at, carefully, I might add.

As for kerosene, that is a gritty middle distillate fuel, not even flammable, let alone generating sufficient heat to pulverize steel. In fact, steel is used to enclose kerosene base fires, as in say, your oil burning furnace (as you know, kerosene and home heating oil are almost identical substances, the one has certain types of cleaning additives, the other a different sort). Kerosene cannot achieve more than about 50% of the temperature needed to do anything to steel, let alone pulverize it instantaneosly. Kerosene cannot ever do that.

DO posters agree?

 

[jammonius]

Thank you for that. Now, please indicate what impact the kerosene shown above is having upon the steel and the concrete onto which it is depositing its fury?

Or, let me put it thi way, sts, would you agree with me that the awesome display of kerosene that you posted is not doing any damage whatsoever to the concrete, much less the steel it is coming into contact with?

 

[Disbelief]

[qimg]http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/KSC-69PC-442_t.jpg[/qimg]

Thank you for that. Now, please indicate what impact the kerosene shown above is having upon the steel and the concrete onto which it is depositing its fury?

Or, let me put it thi way, sts, would you agree with me that the awesome display of kerosene that you posted is not doing any damage whatsoever to the concrete, much less the steel it is coming into contact with?

Add in structural damage and other combustibles. Why do you think kerosene was the only flammable present?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Note, too, that a 10 second destructive interval for an edifice that stood 1360+/-ft is <1 second longer than it takes an object free falling in a vacuum to hit the ground.

Please, not the old "Twin Towers fell too fast" canard. Many people, myself included, have calculated the expected collapse times based on a reasonable set of assumptions. Nobody has yet to come up with a result which disagrees with the measured 12-16 second collapse time.

And please, not the old "9-11 commission report says the South Tower fell in 10 seconds" canard. It's abundantly clear from the context of the statement that it isn't intended as an accurate measurement of the collapse time, but as an order-of-magnitude indication.

If you factor in the gravitational energy and determine the energy required from a DEW to bring about the observed collapse, the answer is zero. That's why people without absurd preconceived opinions don't bother considering the possibility that the collapses were assisted by DEW; they simply weren't needed.

Yes, indeed, the gravity factor does need to be looked at, carefully, I might add.

It has been, extensively and thoroughly, and is well understood.

As for kerosene, that is a gritty middle distillate fuel, not even flammable, let alone generating sufficient heat to pulverize steel. In fact, steel is used to enclose kerosene base fires, as in say, your oil burning furnace (as you know, kerosene and home heating oil are almost identical substances, the one has certain types of cleaning additives, the other a different sort). Kerosene cannot achieve more than about 50% of the temperature needed to do anything to steel, let alone pulverize it instantaneosly. Kerosene cannot ever do that.

It has never been suggested that kerosene either pulverised steel, or was the sole combustible material responsible for the collapses. The major causes of the building collapses were impact damage, possibly removal of fireproofing, kerosene fires and building contents firec accelerated by kerosene. The major causes of partial pulverisation of concrete and complete pulverisation of drywall and plaster were gravity-driven collapse. The major causes of pulverisation of steel were not investigated because steel was not pulverised.

DO posters agree?

That you're making up strawman arguments about pulverised steel? I suspect so.

Dave

 

[Apollo20]

Jammonius:

Why do you claim that steel was "pulverized"?

Could you explain what you mean by pulverized in the context of what happened to the concrete, the gypsum wallboard, the glass, etc.

And by the way, the WTC dust contained less than 2 weight percent of Fe and some of that was from impurities in slag wool and concrete.

 

[Furi]

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/KSC-69PC-442_t.jpg

Thank you for that. Now, please indicate what impact the kerosene shown above is having upon the steel and the concrete onto which it is depositing its fury?

Or, let me put it thi way, sts, would you agree with me that the awesome display of kerosene that you posted is not doing any damage whatsoever to the concrete, much less the steel it is coming into contact with?

Well a lot of the pad 39 stuff I got when looking for construction and post launch damage was mostly due to the shuttle launch damage (why did I anticipate your question hmmm), but sts knows his way around the resources a lot better than I, I am sure he would also be able to list the speed and velocity of the stack that was also accelerated, but then again pressure from kerosene combustion wouldn't be enough to do anything, such as propel a rocket at great speeds... or even an aircraft turbine, so I am sure the explosion of a huge injection of fuel into an area not purposefully designed or hardened to withstand such energy imputs would be most stressed.

I will see if I can find the expected SSKP of the later revision SS18 silos again, you know the ones designed to withstand multiple strategic nuclear warhead hits 220-400kt, but you have to ask were these blast pits and silos engineered with exactly that purpose in mind? did they use the same standards of materials? were they a little different from your local ready cast and precast merchants? or did they just call O'Reilleys 'cause they do it cheaper than Stubbs?

 

[sts60]

Thank you for that. Now, please indicate what impact the kerosene shown above is having upon the steel and the concrete onto which it is depositing its fury?

The exhaust plume for the Saturn V stack impinged upon a steel flame deflector weighing approximately 600 tons^1,2 and coated with a replaceable ceramic ablator³, which diverted the exhaust into two 58-foot wide flame² trenches lined with reinforced concrete and firebrick. A water deluge¹ system dumped approximately 10,000 gallons of water onto the deflector over about a half-minute period. The Launch Umbilical Tower base and deck received an additional approximately 30,000 gallons of water over the same period. The deluge system provided not only cooling but also suppression of acoustic energy which could otherwise have inflicted significant damage to the vehicle and ground equipment. An additional 20,000 gallons per minute was supplied to the LUT base and deck for several more minutes after launch, and an additional several thousand gallons per minute were used to fog the tower for cooling through nozzles at several levels.

Now, of course, the RP-1/LO₂ propellant mixture energy went largely into providing 7.5 million lbf thrust and thus pushing a few thousand tons rapidly into the sky (you know, the rocket thingy). But, even despite the heavy construction of the facilities, purpose-built to endure the launch conditions, the cooling and acoustic-suppression systems, and the transitory nature of the launch, there was certainly some damage. The facility required refurbishing after each launch. I don't know how much, exactly; coming up with a specific description would require additional research. If you're interested, I'll provide you with an hourly rate...

Or, let me put it thi way, sts, would you agree with me that the awesome display of kerosene that you posted is not doing any damage whatsoever to the concrete, much less the steel it is coming into contact with?

No, of course not; but the point is irrelevant anyway. Are you comparing the effect of approximately fifteen seconds' worth of rocket launch on facilities described above to the effect of high-speed airliner impact, and subsequent jet fuel and contents fires, on a skyscraper? Really? If you'd like to do so, feel free to start another thread.

On this thread, we're still waiting for you to specify your claim, or to offer any specific objections to the studies refuting your premise, or to address the numerous other errors and self-contradictions in your claims.

Sources:
1. NASA TMX-65237, Apollo/Saturn V Facility Description, Vol. II: Launch Complex 39 Facility Description, NASA/KSC: 1 October 1966.
2. Apollo press kits (e.g., Apollo 13 press kit, available at http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-13/docs/apollo-13-press-kit.txt)
3. Saturn V News Reference (Facilities), NASA: December 1968 update.

 

[pomeroo]

You do not have a right to define patriotism for me and you damn sure do not have a right to dress your ass in the flag. Take it off immediately. It belongs to all of us and if you suggest otherwise ever again, and I mean ever, I will snatch it away from you immediately and leave you exposed butt naked.

You're cute when you bark like a dog.

Aren't you the America-hating loon who called Harry Truman's decision to save five million Japanese and one million American lives a "war crime"?

Aren't you the America-hating loon who pretends, against all reason and evidence, that the U.S. government employed imaginary weapons to commit a mass murder for no discernible purpose?

You despise this country and everything it stands for. Nothing disgusts me so much as loony-leftists who spew their mindless poison and then pretend to act offended when they get called on it.

About average for you, right?

Normally, I'd require a full second, but for the likes of you, that would be overkill.

No, you will not receive further hints. You have given inadequate thought to those already given.

You're damn right I won't receive hints or anything else. You are a transparent fraud promoting an insane thesis. You are incompetent to address the objections raised by real scientists and engineers. You have given NO thought to the nonsensical snake oil you peddle.