Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[sts60]

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.

Irrelevant. I am analyzing the energy required to eliminate a certain amount of the steel. In fact, I'm giving a lower bound for it which addresses directly your belief that most of the steel was vaporized.

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.

Irrelevant. There are a great many other threads discussing the energy of the aircraft impacts, the energy of the fuel, the potential energy of the structures themselves, and the energy of the contents fires. (At least you've come closer to accurately representing the scenario you're disclaiming; you only left out one major item.) Feel free to discuss this in one of the other threads. This is a thread about directed-energy weapons.

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.

That is a very generous estimate, mind you, and does not include minimum interval possible between shots (I don't know that figure).

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]

The Airborne Laser is not operational. The COIL has not even been integrated into the aircraft yet. What exactly is your evidence for even one operational ABL, let alone an "array"? Especially when each one of these alleged systems could deliver (given the most optimistic values for power and duty cycle, using 100% efficiency figures for everything) far less than one-tenth of one percent of the energy needed to destroy one percent of one of the towers? There's not enough airspace over Manhattan Island to put all your imaginary ABLs flying wingtip-to-wingtip! Utter fantasy.

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.

Hey! A quantifiable claim! Now all you have to do is identify holes which can only be produced by beams produced by some of the tens of thousands of ABLs, operating simultaneously, your scenario requires. You can start by determining the ABL's actual beam width on target. After all, you said classified information is irrelevant, and you had all the information you need, so specific evidence for your beam width claim should be easy to provide.

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

Yes, I have shown that your scenario requires tens of thousands of your imagined weapons. And that's just the start of the problems with your scenario.

For that, I express gratitude.

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

When you do, feel free to offer any specific objections to the analysis itself, not irrelevant issues. Perhaps you'd like to provide a quantitative estimate of the energy you think is necessary to vaporize almost all of the steel in the towers.

 

[DGM]

sts60:
I don't know Jack about lasers but beams 24' to 36' wide. I thought high powers lasers are more along the lines of fractions of an inch.

What kind of beam widths could be considered realistic?

 

[TjW]

[/qimg]http://phunkadelic.org/duck.jpg[/qimg]

Jammonius:
I see this as clear and indisputable evidence that the WTC complex was destroyed by the Soul Cake Duck. She instantaneously laid heavy non-melting chocolate eggs throughout the upper blocks. This quickly overloaded the structure, resulting in the collapse.
For the people investigating the collapse, the eggs did not exist, because they did not believe in the Soul Cake Duck. As we all should know, if you do not believe in the Soul Cake Duck, you do not receive chocolate eggs from the Soul Cake Duck. (I will not address, at this time, what you receive if you do believe in the Soul Cake Duck.)

I'm perfectly willing to put this substantive claim up against your vague handwaving.

I have stated what destroyed the complex: an anthropomorphic personification from a popular author's imagined universe.
I have been specific about what kind of anthropomorphic personification: the Soul Cake Duck.
I have been specific about how it destroyed the complex.

You have done none of these things. You do not have a claim.

 

[jhunter1163]

I for one welcome our new chocolate-egg laying overlords.

 

[Bananaman]

I haven't read all this thread, because to be honest, the idea proposed is bollocks.

We're not living in a Star Wars movie, we're living in 2008 where children still starve and most people regard a mobile phone as advanced technology.

If anyone, as the title of this thread suggests, imagines that some sort of laser beam ******** brought down the twin towers, or any other similar bullcrap theory, then as I've already said, and been told off off about, they're living in Wizard of Oz land.

Bananaman.

 

[sts60]

sts60:
I don't know Jack about lasers but beams 24' to 36' wide. I thought high powers lasers are more along the lines of fractions of an inch.

What kind of beam widths could be considered realistic?

DGM, I'm not a laser guy. I believe the beam director on the ABL is 1.8 m in diameter but I don't know the beam spread/focusing characteristics.

 

[R.Mackey]

sts60:
I don't know Jack about lasers but beams 24' to 36' wide. I thought high powers lasers are more along the lines of fractions of an inch.

What kind of beam widths could be considered realistic?

The width depends on mission. The beam will spread over distance, limited by optical size and optical quality. Paradoxically, the smaller the beam is when it starts, the faster it spreads. Think of it as a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle issue -- you are defining beam position with higher precision, so you are forced to give up precision in the beam's "velocity," actually diffraction.

So if you're working in the lab, and your optical path length is a dozen meters or so, you can work with a very tight and efficient beam. If your range is hundreds of kilometers, you will deliberately use a beam that is initially larger to help control the spread.

I'd have to know more about the ABL's planned mission, i.e. engagement range, to guess about the beam width. In press reports they speak of the beam being "about the size of a basketball," which feels correct.

 

[Bananaman]

R. Mackey, I have to applaud your ability to remain straight-faced and rational when confronted with total crap. (How you don't show your giggling muscles showing defeats me.)

I wish I had the same cool and rational response as you, replying in a way that tried to explain why nonsense is nonsense.

Unfortunately I tend to just say, "what a load of bollocks".

Bananaman.

 

[R.Mackey]

R. Mackey, I have to applaud your ability to remain straight-faced and rational when confronted with total crap. (How you don't show your giggling muscles showing defeats me.)

I wish I had the same cool and rational response as you, replying in a way that tried to explain why nonsense is nonsense.

Unfortunately I tend to just say, "what a load of bollocks".

Bananaman.

It's easy. I only respond if there's something to be learned, and hang the context in which it's spoken.

Most of the time, anyway.

 

[Drs_Res]

I have one question for jammonius.

How did a DEW start the collapse of each building (WTC 1 & 2) at the impact area, and yet destroy the entire building?

 

[ktesibios]

I have one question for jammonius.

How did a DEW start the collapse of each building (WTC 1 & 2) at the impact area, and yet destroy the entire building?

Indeed. I would also ask: if you postulate a DEW operating from overhead, which does appear to be part of Jammonius' belief system, then how is it that the tops of the towers, which would be the first part of the buildings that the beam encountered, were essentially intact as the collapses initiated?

 

[sts60]

Another thing about the magic beams: a few pages ago I calculated that a hypothetical 100% efficient (100% conversion, no losses or attenuation, etc. at all) system capable of vaporizing even one percent of the steel in one of the Towers had to deliver about 300 gigawatts on target (also assuming 100% conversion of impinging beam energy into heating). That, of course, is unphysical, but it gives the absolute maximum theoretical lower bound for the energy this magic weapon would have to generated. Spread over a circle equal in diameter to the width of one of the Towers, that beam would have an irradiance of about 100 MW/m². Over an area of about one meter as jammonius alleges, we're up to over 300*10⁹ W/m². Imagine that... beams delivering hundreds of gigawatts per square meter lancing through the skies, and lancing through all that dust and smoke. That would have been the lightning storm and light show of all time; it would have blinded people for miles and miles around. Those beams probably would have done that in clear air, let alone the smoke and dust laden air of that morning. It's simply another facet of the utterly delusional nature of the DEW/WTC premise.

 

[BenBurch]

Hmmm... Well, watts is not a good measure of a bomb's output. Kilowatt Hours is.

The Hiroshima bomb was 11,600,000 KWH.

Now if this was expended over 1 second, is 41,760,000,000 Kilowatt Seconds.

So the time element is critical to determining intensity and energy delivered to target.

 

[sts60]

I came up with about 1.7*10⁶ kWh to vaporize a little over one percent of the steel in one of the Twin Towers. If you want to make 90% of the steel go away, that's 1.5*10⁸ kWh - 150,000,000 kWh.

But I don't understand your "expended over 1 second" associated with your conversion from kWh to KWs. The energy is the same no matter how fast it's expended. Did you mean to say, "the power, if this was expended over 1 second, is 41,760,000,000 Kilowatts"?

 

[jammonius]

sts60:
I don't know Jack about lasers but beams 24' to 36' wide. I thought high powers lasers are more along the lines of fractions of an inch.

What kind of beam widths could be considered realistic?

The diameter of various circular hits seen here and in other overhead images of GZ on and shortly after 9/11 is a basis for the 24' and 36' estimates. One approach to asessing DEW is to assess the forensic evidence found in the visual information of the event.

Based on experience had in the thread on the flatness of the debris pile, I know that almost no one is able to agree on how to interpret photographic information. So, for starters, what I am asserting are circular holes, perpendicularly cut, as though they were bullet holes, will likely be denied by some. But, that is ok, all I can do is say what I see.

 

[SDC]

The eye is a liar. What you "see" means nothing. How about some math?

 

[jammonius]

Irrelevant. I am analyzing the energy required to eliminate a certain amount of the steel. In fact, I'm giving a lower bound for it which addresses directly your belief that most of the steel was vaporized.

Irrelevant. There are a great many other threads discussing the energy of the aircraft impacts, the energy of the fuel, the potential energy of the structures themselves, and the energy of the contents fires. (At least you've come closer to accurately representing the scenario you're disclaiming; you only left out one major item.) Feel free to discuss this in one of the other threads. This is a thread about directed-energy weapons.

That is a very generous estimate, mind you, and does not include minimum interval possible between shots (I don't know that figure).

The Airborne Laser is not operational. The COIL has not even been integrated into the aircraft yet. What exactly is your evidence for even one operational ABL, let alone an "array"? Especially when each one of these alleged systems could deliver (given the most optimistic values for power and duty cycle, using 100% efficiency figures for everything) far less than one-tenth of one percent of the energy needed to destroy one percent of one of the towers? There's not enough airspace over Manhattan Island to put all your imaginary ABLs flying wingtip-to-wingtip! Utter fantasy.

Hey! A quantifiable claim! Now all you have to do is identify holes which can only be produced by beams produced by some of the tens of thousands of ABLs, operating simultaneously, your scenario requires. You can start by determining the ABL's actual beam width on target. After all, you said classified information is irrelevant, and you had all the information you need, so specific evidence for your beam width claim should be easy to provide.

Yes, I have shown that your scenario requires tens of thousands of your imagined weapons. And that's just the start of the problems with your scenario.

When you do, feel free to offer any specific objections to the analysis itself, not irrelevant issues. Perhaps you'd like to provide a quantitative estimate of the energy you think is necessary to vaporize almost all of the steel in the towers.

sts60

In the above you demonstrate reliance upon one of the techniques frequently used to thwart valid science. It is a technique used in a competitive setting where points are sought to be proven, without regard for truth. You carefully prepare a construct so that what you contend may be correct, technically understood, but it has nothing to do with anything other than that which is subssumed within the defined task or issue.

You're constructing your own set of parameters, or "box" if you will, and then you exclude all else from that which you say is under examination. OK, if that is what you are doing on the one hand, then it is inappropriate, in my view, for you to claim that what you are doing has reference to the theory that DEW destroyed the WTC, on the other. Note, too, that you have also denied that your construct is even required to confirm the validity of the official explanation that presupposes that kerosene, a little damage to .05% of the floors of a 110 storey building and gravity could mount the energy necessary to disintegrate the steel, concrete, rebar etc.

That is a mighty tight box you've created and I submit it is a useless one.

You frequesntly use the one word response of "irrelevant" to dispense with that which you disagree with. That works for purposes of your own comfort, perhaps, but your reply is not an answer; rather it is in the form of an excuse for not dealing with a stated concern.

I have stated that your methodology here does not address the forensic inforation available with respect to the event itself -- the destruction of the WTC and what can be seen resulting therefrom -- and that, accordingly, your hypothetical construct is useless.

I think this observation stands. Certainly, as I continue in this discussion, I will offer up forensic information, as I have begun to do in the post above, noting that there are circular 'bullet' holes seen in that forensic information that I contend are consistent with DEW.

 

[BenBurch]

I came up with about 1.7*10⁶ kWh to vaporize a little over one percent of the steel in one of the Twin Towers. If you want to make 90% of the steel go away, that's 1.5*10⁸ kWh - 150,000,000 kWh.

But I don't understand your "expended over 1 second" associated with your conversion from kWh to KWs. The energy is the same no matter how fast it's expended. Did you mean to say, "the power, if this was expended over 1 second, is 41,760,000,000 Kilowatts"?

A certain number of kWh expended over one second is 3600 times as many kWs. So the INTENSITY is 3600 times more than the same energy expended over an hour. Energy is intensity times duration.

 

[Dog Town]

What was this roof top corner, made of? The death-star could not "disappear" it! Hmmmm...

 

[jammonius]

The eye is a liar. What you "see" means nothing. How about some math?

I recognize the epistemological dispute we have here. I abide in the folk wisdom "seeing is believing" because, for amongst other reasons, sight is the most highly developed organ of perception available to human beings. Next after sight, is sound.

Of course, in epistemological terms -- how do you know what you think you know? -- there is room for discounting what is seen and heard. We know, too, that visual imagery can be manipulated, very easily at that, and that what people think they see, let alone hear, can be misleading.

I have no objection to your desire to discount everything I post that relies on visual information. That is your choice.

Mathematics, in its pure form, is ridigdly logical and has good validity in the right context. However, the ability to manipulate mathematical results at least equals the ability to manipulate visual data and such results are generally less trustworthy overall than what one can actually see, in my opinion. You can differ, if you like.

Certainly, the mathematical models presented in this thread are purposefully rigged so as not to even deal with the energy contradiction presented by assuming that lowly, gritty, nonflammable kerosene could have had anything whatever to do with the seen massive destructive event taking place at the WTC on 9/11/01.