Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[sts60]

As for kerosene, that is a gritty middle distillate fuel, not even flammable,

Irrelevant; it is combustible.

let alone generating sufficient heat to pulverize steel.

We already understand that you cannot specify what you actually do believe. Is it too much to ask that you refrain from grotesquely misrepresenting the thing against which you are so vaguely arguing?

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.

Factually incorrect. The maximum temperature of combustion of Jet A is 980 degrees C.

Of course, the energy which did the damage to the Towers came from several sources, namely, the impact of an airliner at high speed, the energy released by atomized jet fuel, and the energy released by a variety of materials burning in the towers. That is clear enough, even if you do not agree with the conclusion, that you should be able to recapitulate that scenario without further mangling it.

DO posters agree?

You haven't come close to describing what you think happened. You're doing an even worse job of describing the scenario you don't think happened. Your characterizations are so far detached from observed reality that "wrong" hardly serves to describe them.

If you would like to argue about kerosene, however, feel free to start another thread. This thread is about your general premise that directed-energy weapons destroyed the Towers.

What kind of directed-energy weapon do you claim did so? You've indicated you have specific information pointing to their general location. Where were they?

 

[applecorped]

Don't sugarcoat it pomeroo.

 

[sts60]

Not that being the thread-starter gives me any authority, but I'd prefer to leave such arguments about motivation out of this thread. IMO, they serve only as diversions. We have already seen jammonius' attempt at poisoning the well with the digressions about the "Military-Industrial Complex" rather than developing her own claim or addressing rebuttals. Challenges about patriotism from either side do nothing to advance the discussion.

What type of directed-energy weapon does jammonius think was used? Where were they, approximately? jammonius has claimed that there are DEWs in orbit; what evidence does she have for that claim? Etc., etc.

 

[sts60]

Duplicate. Bad space-dog! No biscuit!

 

[Dog Town]

What type of directed-energy weapon does jammonius think was used? Where were they, approximately? jammonius has claimed that there are DEWs in orbit; what evidence does she have for that claim? Etc., etc.

I'll give you this, you are persistent! You have noticed Jam repeatedly telling you this will not be answered by him/her? They have a saying about trying the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. Just say'en...

But good luck.

 

[sts60]

Well, it's like this. jammonius asserted in no uncertain terms that DEWs were used to destroy WTC 1 and 2, and that she would engage in a discussion thread about DEWs. So I created one for her, and have asked her some very simple questions in order to understand her claim. If she is incapable of, or completely unwilling to answer even the simplest questions (what kind? where does she think they might have been?) about her premise, then how can anybody really "engage" on it? I'm simply taking her promise at face value, and hoping that she'll attempt to develop and defend her DEW premise.

 

[Dog Town]

Well, it's like this. jammonius asserted in no uncertain terms that DEWs were used to destroy WTC 1 and 2, and that she would engage in a discussion thread about DEWs. So I created one for her, and have asked her some very simple questions in order to understand her claim. If she is incapable of, or completely unwilling to answer even the simplest questions (what kind? where does she think they might have been?) about her premise, then how can anybody really "engage" on it? I'm simply taking her promise at face value, and hoping that she'll attempt to develop and defend her DEW premise.

Tis a noble cause indeed, you champion. I just don't think it will ever happen.
I am eager to see you succeed. Again, good luck.

 

[pomeroo]

Don't sugarcoat it pomeroo.

Tell me the truth: am I becoming a wimp?

 

[Max Photon]

New Wimproved Pomeroo!

Tell me the truth: am I becoming a wimp?

Let's see......

blimp
chimp
gimp
limp
pimp
simp...

...to tell the truth, I don't think you've evolved that far.

 

[pomeroo]

Let's see......

blimp
chimp
gimp
limp
pimp
simp...

...to tell the truth, I don't think.

Fixed it for you.

 

[TheRedWorm]

So what we have here is someone that doesn't know what the DEWs are capable of, where they are, how they could reasonably have arrived there, how they are powered, how they operate, nor anything, really, about these DEWs, but for some reason knows that they are responsible for the collapse of WTC 1 & 2? Does anyone but me find this a little bit strange, or am I just drunk again?

 

[Dog Town]

So what we have here is someone that doesn't know what the DEWs are capable of, where they are, how they could reasonably have arrived there, how they are powered, how they operate, nor anything, really, about these DEWs, but for some reason knows that they are responsible for the collapse of WTC 1 & 2? Does anyone but me find this a little bit strange, or am I just drunk again?

O' I'm with ya...on both counts!
Cuz what's wrong with both?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Hey, around half my posts are while drunk, only time I have a easy going enough attitude to deal with truthers!

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Fixed it for you.

Ron, please don't alter people's posts like that.

 

[Apollo20]

Mr. Skinny:

About altering posts... I agree with you .... I believe it's against forum rules!

 

[jammonius]

I've located what I think is a cross-over issue between this and the debris-pile thread. The issue is WTC 3.
It appears from the above Lidar data that WTC 3, which, like WTC 7, is almost never discussed in terms of what could have caused that building to self-annhilate since no plane hit it, that WTC 3 has its own pile, separate from WTC 2 and there was no signficant spillover from one to the other. And, as WTC 3 wasn't soaked in merely combustible kerosene and had no smack from a jetliner to cause it to completely disappear, this is something that looks mysterious and not adequately accounted for by the standard version of what happened. We know, with certainty, that WTC 3 completely disappeared. But there's no reason for that to have happened.

The Lidar data, as dressed up by poster phunk, led that poster to clearly draw and depict discreet debris piles for WTC 3 and 2, with no spill over from the one to the other. The circles closed in phunk's rendering. In fact, you can actually say there's a buffer zone seen in the lidar where one pile ended and the other began.

So, absent the dynamics of fuel and impact, there's good reason to infer exotic weaponry, in a distinct and discreet attack upon WTC 3 as the reason for its disappearance down to next to nothing.

I do wish ktesbios would rejoin us. That poster with his/her nine and twenty years in some specialty or another might be helpful to this discussion.

Clearly, the effects seen with respect to WTC 3 require consideration -- by those who don't want to face it -- of a discreet destructive phase for that building because there's no real way to attribute its disappearance to mere sympathy for the loss of its once tall neighbor.

 

[beachnut]

Clearly, the effects seen with respect to WTC 3 require consideration -- by those who don't want to face it -- of a discreet destructive phase for that building because there's no real way to attribute its disappearance to mere sympathy for the loss of its once tall neighbor.

There was not beam weapon used to destroy the WTC. The beam weapon idea is tied with thermite, AP, nukes, and other methods which ignore the terrorist action on 9/11.

The irony of the name 9/11 "truth" movement, is emphasized each time you try to imply, mass was vaporized.

 

[Jontg]

Lasers. Lasers destroyed the World Trade Center. Lasers.
...
(begins rant)
Sweet Moses on a stick, this is the most ridiculous farce since 1-inch. Jammy, honey, you're either a pathetically obvious troll or a complete twelve-cylinder whacko, and everyone on this thread--no, this forum--knows it. Just reading your ravings is giving me a headache, and each has already been... no, dissected isn't the proper word, you can't dissect a freaking prokaryote. Which is exactly what your argument thus far has been--an amorphous heap of BS with no definition or substance, barely even qualifying as thought, let alone a coherent thesis. You bleat about how you don't have to answer our questions, so why are you even posting here, you blithering imbecile!?
(ends rant)
...
Wow, there's spittle on my screen.

 

[sts60]

I've located what I think is a cross-over issue between this and the debris-pile thread. The issue is WTC 3.

Feel free to start a separate thread discussing WTC 3, or...

So, absent the dynamics of fuel and impact, there's good reason to infer exotic weaponry, in a distinct and discreet attack upon WTC 3 as the reason for its disappearance down to next to nothing.

... feel free to discuss the specific characteristics of a DEW which support this assertion, and the specific evidence you observe at WTC 3 for it. This, of course, brings up a few very basic questions such as:
- what type of DEW do you claim did it?
- where, roughly, do you claim it was? On the ground? In the air? In low orbit? In high orbit?
You've also compounded your claim by earlier suggesting that WTC 7 was also destroyed by a DEW; in fact, you suggested that a different type of DEW was used there than on WTC 1 & 2. Now you're suggesting WTC 3 as well. This brings up a couple more fundamental questions:
- how many DEWs do you think were involved?
- how many different types do you think were involved?

That would be a start to actually defining your claim.


ETA: It's discrete, not "discreet". Picky, I know, but for some reason, I find that very annoying.

 

[Viper Daimao]

sorry to ask stupid questions here, but can someone explain what the picture is supposed to be, besides someone drawing a duck (seriously, it's called duck.jpg) and claiming it's evidence of a dew.