Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[sts60]

Debris pile discussion ---> over here.

 

[phunk]

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.

The original image is a color-coded lidar map of ground zero, showing elevation as color. I simply outlined the different colored regions to make it easier to see, as the different shades of yellow would be hard to differentiate for someone with a cheap monitor or color blindness. It shows (yet again) that jammonius' claim of gz being flat is wrong.

 

[jammonius]

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.

sts60,

I have a suggestion I'd like to make concerning the energy requirment and/or DEW skeptics articles that you have linked us to, including, if I understand correctly, one that you did.

Why don't you post up one or more of those articles piecemeal in this thread. Take us through it, segment by segment and show us the impracticality of DEW and/or the impossibility of the energy requirment, step-by-step. I can commit to commenting as you go along in that process.

However, up to now, what you've basically done is said "you're wrong, read this". Screw that. That process does not lend itself to message board dialogue.

Maybe I should have made this suggestion earlier on; however, I thought sooner or later you'd post up your proof because I made it very clear to you that I was not going to allow you to engage in rhetorical questioning, wherein you reserve the right to declare everything I say is wrong and demand more proof. Screw that.

If you've got a position on something that you think proves something or another, then lay it out here and let us discuss it.

I don't accept as a given that you've proven the impracticality of DEW because the event itself -- the destruction of the WTC complex -- provides unrefutable evidence of unconventional, powerful weapons having been used. That is the only way to explain the completeness of the destruction that took place. That is an elementary reality that most people inwardly know to be true. However, the emotional need to avoid having to consider that elements of the US power structure did this to us is simply still too strong for a lot of people.

If you post up your article(s) piecemeal, I'll participate in dialogue. If you say, go read this and then come back and admit you're wrong, I will continue to disregard any such request. I hope you understand that in doing so, I'm not avoiding anything other than allowing you to try to pull off a cheap trick.

 

[jammonius]

The original image is a color-coded lidar map of ground zero, showing elevation as color. I simply outlined the different colored regions to make it easier to see, as the different shades of yellow would be hard to differentiate for someone with a cheap monitor or color blindness. It shows (yet again) that jammonius' claim of gz being flat is wrong.

phunk,

50% of your own graphic is at 0' level. 30% is at 25' up to 50'. I have thanked you for doing the graphic and I have explained my analysis of it.

GZ was, indeed, flat and your document confirms as much.

Yet again, the emotional attachment to concluding GZ was not flat is very strong. I know that. However, there's no real argument left with respect to the graphic you provided. That document speaks for itself and it speaks volumes.

 

[WildCat]

I don't accept as a given that you've proven the impracticality of DEW because the event itself -- the destruction of the WTC complex -- provides unrefutable evidence of unconventional, powerful weapons having been used. That is the only way to explain the completeness of the destruction that took place.

This is where you go horribly, off-the-cliff wrong.

 

[Arus808]

phunk,

50% of your own graphic is at 0' level. 30% is at 25' up to 50'. I have thanked you for doing the graphic and I have explained my analysis of it.

GZ was, indeed, flat and your document confirms as much.

Yet again, the emotional attachment to concluding GZ was not flat is very strong. I know that. However, there's no real argument left with respect to the graphic you provided. That document speaks for itself and it speaks volumes.

this is where you show that you are outright lying or just trollling. pick one.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

While I was joking earlier about Gundam SEED based Super Beam Weapons, uh.. that's because I find the concept that we have DEW in orbit that could fire without leaving clear trails laughable. DEW weapons are quite real ,but I don't believe one could have fired on the WTC without leaving footprints of it's passage.

 

[Viper Daimao]

phunk,

50% of your own graphic is at 0' level. 30% is at 25' up to 50'. I have thanked you for doing the graphic and I have explained my analysis of it.

GZ was, indeed, flat and your document confirms as much.

Yet again, the emotional attachment to concluding GZ was not flat is very strong. I know that. However, there's no real argument left with respect to the graphic you provided. That document speaks for itself and it speaks volumes.

So even though you say there were huge piles of debris where the towers were, you say ground zero was flat because there was no debris a safe distance from the towers?

 

[phunk]

phunk,

50% of your own graphic is at 0' level. 30% is at 25' up to 50'. I have thanked you for doing the graphic and I have explained my analysis of it.

GZ was, indeed, flat and your document confirms as much.

Yet again, the emotional attachment to concluding GZ was not flat is very strong. I know that. However, there's no real argument left with respect to the graphic you provided. That document speaks for itself and it speaks volumes.

As I said in the other thread, of course a lot of the picture is at street level, the picture is of a wider area than just the rubble pile. You're including space that isn't part of the pile in your crude calculation of the flatness of the pile.

 

[pomeroo]

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

You are, of course, quite right. I have never altered anyone's post before, but I wanted to tweak Max. We had--I thought--signed a peace treaty through private e-mails. I regarded his post as unnecessarily and unexpectedly nasty, as well as being devoid of substance. I didn't want to make an issue of it, and I suppose I responded to childish behavior with more of the same.

 

[DGM]

We know, with certainty, that WTC 3 completely disappeared. But there's no reason for that to have happened.

Um, No! Your not even trying any more.

 

[sts60]

sts60,

I have a suggestion I'd like to make concerning the energy requirment and/or DEW skeptics articles that you have linked us to, including, if I understand correctly, one that you did.

Why don't you post up one or more of those articles piecemeal in this thread. Take us through it, segment by segment and show us the impracticality of DEW and/or the impossibility of the energy requirment, step-by-step. I can commit to commenting as you go along in that process.

I'll repost it for your convenience in the next post, and you can bring up any specific comments or objections at any step you wish.

However, up to now, what you've basically done is said "you're wrong, read this". Screw that. That process does not lend itself to message board dialogue.

A gross inversion of reality. I have asked you specific questions about your premise; I have prepared quantitative analysis and repeatedly linked to that of others; I have made specific objections and comments to other statements of yours, and I have provided evidence or indicated relevant personal experience as appropriate. I have asked you repeatedly for basic clarifications of your premise or specific objections to my rebuttals, yet all you have offered is a stream of diversions and vague complaints.

Maybe I should have made this suggestion earlier on; however, I thought sooner or later you'd post up your proof because I made it very clear to you that I was not going to allow you to engage in rhetorical questioning, wherein you reserve the right to declare everything I say is wrong and demand more proof. Screw that.

I originally provided my quantitative analysis here, and have reminded you of it something like a dozen times. I am at a loss to understand how any English-literate participant in this thread could claim I have not yet posted my analysis.

If you've got a position on something that you think proves something or another, then lay it out here and let us discuss it.

Projection noted. I have done so, in exhaustive detail, first in the "debris pile height" thread and then here, in the very thread I created for your convenience. And after all this time, you cannot be troubled to even specify what type of DEW you think was used.

I don't accept as a given that you've proven the impracticality of DEW because the event itself -- the destruction of the WTC complex -- provides unrefutable evidence of unconventional, powerful weapons having been used. That is the only way to explain the completeness of the destruction that took place.

Appeal to incredulity noted. Feel free to continue that argument on the "debris pile height" thread.

That is an elementary reality that most people inwardly know to be true. However, the emotional need to avoid having to consider that elements of the US power structure did this to us is simply still too strong for a lot of people.

Begging the question.

If you post up your article(s) piecemeal, I'll participate in dialogue. If you say, go read this and then come back and admit you're wrong, I will continue to disregard any such request. I hope you understand that in doing so, I'm not avoiding anything other than allowing you to try to pull off a cheap trick.

As a courtesy, even though I have already posted my analysis and repeatedly called your attention to it, I will repost it immediately following. You may offer specific objections to any part or parts you wish; I have been asking you to do so for days.

 

[sts60]

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, and it's the most powerful DEW system in development.

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 system efficiency, 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 what the "directed energy" is. The whole DEW-zapping-WTC scenario is nothing more than a particularly delusional handwave.

ETA: See also the analyses by myriad and BenBurch - which I have also repeatedly drawn to jammonius' attention.

 

[van_dutch]

I'm glad you brought up the ABL sts60, I was going to bring it up. Your post covered quite well the points I was going to make. That is a quite generous estimate about the efficiency and power of the ABL. The value you calculate to vaporize that amount of iron is power delivered to the target. Adding in losses due to absorption by the atmosphere, spread, and tracking would shoot up the necessary power for the source to generate very quickly. That being said, those effects make it even more implausible and ridiculous.

I did some more reading on the ABL and they are planning to try to actually shoot down a missile in 2009. An older, less powerful system did bring down some missiles in the 80's. I know it is not the best source, but according to wikipedia (I am trying to find the article that is cited), the ABL "produces enough energy in a five-second burst to power a typical American household for more than an hour." Here is a link to the original article in which that is mentioned http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123045745.

In other words, the laser currently being developed for shooting down missiles is many orders of magnitude below what would be required to bring down the towers with a similar system. This begs the question, if the technology existed for such a powerful system, why would the government waste billions of dollars to create a less powerful one?

 

[bonavada]

I moved this to here from the "debris pile" thread.

Below was part of jams (non) answer to my question about the DEW that he asserts destroyed WTC7. Jammonius acknowledges the fact that WTC left behind "the highest debris pile" I wanted to know, if that building was also destroyed by DE weaponry, why wasn't it disintegrated in midair as per his claims regarding WTC1 + WTC?

You might want to find out what you can about the calibration aspect of DEW. They can be variously tuned for lethality effects, materials interactions and so on.

Please jammonius give me a reputable source where I can learn specific information about the type of weaponry with the ability to destroy such a building in the manner you espouse. Specifics such as capabilities, manufacture and deployment. I am genuinely interested in learning such details. Details which could prove the honesty of your endeavour here.

BV

 

[sts60]

Thanks for the link and comments, van_dutch. I was intentionally generous for the ABL, giving the benefit of the doubt to jammonius' side of the numbers, as it were. (Not that jammonius has actually offered any numbers on this topic, or even specified what kind of DEW she thinks was used, but...)

According to the Department of Energy, the average U.S. home used 920 kWh in a month (2006 values). At 30 days/month and 24 hours/day, that equals roughly 1.28 kWh in a one-hour period. Over a 5-second period, that's (1.28 kWh / (5 s / 3600 s/h)) = 920 kW. So that would indicate that the ABL laser will deliver about a megawatt - I seem to have been generous by about an order of magnitude!

And, of course, the ABL is not even operational yet. jammonius was quite fond of showing a picture of it for a while, but a picture of a flashlight would have been equally convincing.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

You are, of course, quite right. I have never altered anyone's post before, but I wanted to tweak Max. We had--I thought--signed a peace treaty through private e-mails. I regarded his post as unnecessarily and unexpectedly nasty, as well as being devoid of substance. I didn't want to make an issue of it, and I suppose I responded to childish behavior with more of the same.

Well, thanks for responding.

I just think it's bad form to do that. 'Nuff said.



I'll wager Max would accept your apology.

And BTW Jay and the Americans rock!

 

[Max Photon]

Just like him.

Pomeroo, think nothing of it; I didn't even know you did anything wrong, I asked for it. (I actually thought it was funny. I also thought Mr. Skinny's response was a subtle play....too subtle perhaps for even the author himself.)

And sorry if I'm teasing you too much. Consider it a sign of affection, and the fact that you leave a trail of prefabricated humor building blocks wherever you go.

Okay.....from now on I am going to be totally serious-

like.

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo, think nothing of it; I didn't even know you did anything wrong, I asked for it. (I actually thought it was funny. I also thought Mr. Skinny's response was a subtle play....too subtle perhaps for even the author himself.)

And sorry if I'm teasing you too much. Consider it a sign of affection, and the fact that you leave a trail of prefabricated humor building blocks wherever you go.

Okay.....from now on I am going to be totally serious-

like.

Please don't be totally serious. Under such circumstances, there would be absolutely no reason to keep you around.

Our peace treaty is still intact.

 

[jammonius]

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, and it's the most powerful DEW system in development.

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 system efficiency, 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 what the "directed energy" is. The whole DEW-zapping-WTC scenario is nothing more than a particularly delusional handwave.

ETA: See also the analyses by myriad and BenBurch - which I have also repeatedly drawn to jammonius' attention.

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.

And therein lies the crucial fallacy that renders the so-called "vaporization" analysis uttrly useless.

It starts with a hypothetical construct in a context where two things are known:

1--The effects of the destruction of the WTC complex are visible. Therefore, the actual analytic process should reference those effects. Stating them, listing them, cataloguing them and understanding them.

You have not done that.

2--There is already an officially assumed causal factor consisting in a smack from a presumed jetliner, a quantity of unburned and burned kerosene that, in the aggregate, would fill an average size swimming pool, and there is the factor of gravity.

As that is the presumed energy source for the visible destructive effects, it is absolutely crucial and highly relevant to assess the energy available through those sources in order to place any alternative assessment into its proper perspective.

You have not done that, either.

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.

This is useful and merits further review and expansion based on what can be publicly located. For instance,the 40 shot 5 second interval issue is interesting. We know that the Twin Towers were zapped in 10 seconds each, so that would make 2 hots possible, more or less, unless there were an array of ABLs out there. [See Patricia Ondrovic's statement for possible confirmation that there was an array out there]

Another key issue here consists in knowing what kind of hole an ABL COIL hit causes. What diameter, for instance. A close look at GZ reveals circular holes that are 24' and 36' in diameter. We knbow, too, that DEWs are calibratable, that is to say the beam is variable.

So, in this respect, sts60, you are definitely advancing the possibilities for better understanding.

For that, I express gratitude.

I've got to stop now. Business beckons. I will return to this.