Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[jammonius]

What was this roof top corner, made of? The death-star could not "disappear" it! Hmmmm...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10923485eafcbc93eb.jpg[/qimg]

No, it is more likely that beam attenuation occurred as a result of either being split by the 'corner' effect or, perhaps, by the materials used. Beam weapons have quirks like that.

In fact, I think the photo you reposted may serve as a real clue to those who are charged with knowing the lethality effects of DEW. I consider the photo to be, as it were, a smoking gun (pun intended).

Thanks for your post.

 

[twinstead]

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.

Of course they are. I mean, how else could they contradict your obviously correct theory?

 

[Dog Town]

I consider the photo to be, as it were, a smoking gun (pun intended).

Thanks for your post.

Too bad you can't prove your fictional tale. Hell... I'd like to see you just explain it.
Your arms must get tired, hand waving so much.

Oh', and you're welcome.

 

[Mr.D]

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

(bolding mine)

Woah there.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you suggesting that the energy for the DEW that destroyed the WTC came from

1) The kinetic energy of the airplanes, which hit ~= half an hour before the DEW fired?
2) The chemical PE of the jet fuel (including the already burned fuel?!?)
3) The gravitational PE of the target itself?

That's one amazing system you propose.

 

[DGM]

[qimg]http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image149.jpg[/qimg]

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.

What are you talking about? I have as much proof as you do (for your fantasy) that they are Godzilla's foot prints. Look at the old Japanese documentary's on him. Notice the similarities to what he did to Tokyo?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No, it is more likely that beam attenuation occurred as a result of either being split by the 'corner' effect or, perhaps, by the materials used. Beam weapons have quirks like that.

In fact, I think the photo you reposted may serve as a real clue to those who are charged with knowing the lethality effects of DEW. I consider the photo to be, as it were, a smoking gun (pun intended).

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10923485eafcbc93eb.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks for your post.

Wait, a direct hit from you laser beams vaporizes the WTC, but it only punches a hole through the top of that building?
I sense your numbers must be flexing wildly.

 

[R.Mackey]

No, it is more likely that beam attenuation occurred as a result of either being split by the 'corner' effect or, perhaps, by the materials used. Beam weapons have quirks like that.

In fact, I think the photo you reposted may serve as a real clue to those who are charged with knowing the lethality effects of DEW. I consider the photo to be, as it were, a smoking gun (pun intended).

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10923485eafcbc93eb.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks for your post.

You are a bad rerun of Ace Baker. The shapes in the debris happen to match the structural design of the buildings. Load-bearing elements are more resistant to direct impacts of falling building pieces than spans of relatively unsupported roofs. Oooh, what a mystery.

There is no "corner effect."

A beam weapon that could punch through the WTC Towers would make mincemeat of the lower structures.

If the beam had a "quirk" that produced these shapes, it would be due to a reflection. So where did that energy go..?

If the beam was eight meters wide or more, as you've proposed, that means your emitter has roughly a 32-meter wide main reflector, unless you have such an absurd excess of power that diffraction doesn't bother you at all. Presuming near-optical frequencies, this means a main reflector over twenty times larger than anything ever proposed, and about 100 times larger than anything ever flown. If you attempted to do this in microwave frequencies, you'd wind up assembling something like this... in space. Somehow invisible from the ground.

And we still have the problem of powering this device. As I've shown before, it could take thousands of tons just to store the energy.

As I've argued before, if the New World Order is this powerful, then I for one am eager to sign up. Clearly there's nothing else with even a fraction of its power or technological sophistication anywhere on earth. They would be our future as a species.

 

[jammonius]

Greetings R. Mackey,

Thank you for your post. Unfortunately, your invective adds next to nothing to the quality of the thread and merely exposes you as opinionated. The subtext of your post is clear and apparent: You want us to know that you have some engineering expertise.

OK, R. Mackey, in your next post, why don't you write 50 times that:

"I am an ___________________[whatever your specific craft is]

That way, we'll know, for sure, who you think you are.

Meanwhile, the perpendicular holes and the circular cuts seen through GZ, by those who care to look, speak for themselves:

What is the diameter of the circular holes in WTC 6?

 

[jammonius]

Wait, a direct hit from you laser beams vaporizes the WTC, but it only punches a hole through the top of that building?
I sense your numbers must be flexing wildly.

Cute. Are you willing to engage in serious thought about this matter or not?

 

[twinstead]

What is the diameter of the circular holes in WTC 6?

Should I measure the shadows, or just the 'holes'?

 

[jammonius]

(bolding mine)

Woah there.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you suggesting that the energy for the DEW that destroyed the WTC came from

1) The kinetic energy of the airplanes, which hit ~= half an hour before the DEW fired?
2) The chemical PE of the jet fuel (including the already burned fuel?!?)
3) The gravitational PE of the target itself?

That's one amazing system you propose.

No, I thought I was clear. The statement I made indicated that those who undertook assumptions about the amount of energy needed for destruction by DEW needed, as a preliminary calculation, to assess how much energy the three factors presumed by the official story could have generated.

The point here is this: Kerosene, a combustible product that is safe to transport on roads and highways (because it is nonflammable), gravity and the amount of damage a hollow aluminum tube can cause to structural steel designed to make stable the tallest building in the world (when it was built) cannot possibly have resulted in the complete and total annhilation of that strutucture, let alone the companion structures like WTC3 that also disappreared.

I hope this clarifies.

 

[R.Mackey]

Greetings R. Mackey,

Thank you for your post. Unfortunately, your invective adds next to nothing to the quality of the thread and merely exposes you as opinionated. The subtext of your post is clear and apparent: You want us to know that you have some engineering expertise.

OK, R. Mackey, in your next post, why don't you write 50 times that:

"I am an ___________________[whatever your specific craft is]

That way, we'll know, for sure, who you think you are.

Scientific facts are never opinionated. Read my post, please. Unless you can respond with facts of your own, your claims are utterly mad.

I'm also amused by your request for me to argue from authority. I don't do that, although I could. My CV is on the web if you really care that much.

 

[Mr.D]

No, I thought I was clear. The statement I made indicated that those who undertook assumptions about the amount of energy needed for destruction by DEW needed, as a preliminary calculation, to assess how much energy the three factors presumed by the official story could have generated.

Done to the satisfaction to nearly everyone, but unacceptable to you for reasons you've made clear in this thread and others.

Gotcha.

Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to go shutdown the grill in the backyard by smothering the coals with a bucket full of jet fuel.

 

[pomeroo]

No, I thought I was clear. The statement I made indicated that those who undertook assumptions about the amount of energy needed for destruction by DEW needed, as a preliminary calculation, to assess how much energy the three factors presumed by the official story could have generated.

The point here is this: Kerosene, a combustible product that is safe to transport on roads and highways (because it is nonflammable), gravity and the amount of damage a hollow aluminum tube can cause to structural steel designed to make stable the tallest building in the world (when it was built) cannot possibly have resulted in the complete and total annhilation of that strutucture, let alone the companion structures like WTC3 that also disappreared.

I hope this clarifies.

How is your insane deception supposed to work if everyone here understands perfectly well that the Twin Towers were not, in any coherent sense, "annihilated"? All of the structural steel was recovered--it was not "dustified"--and the gypsum was as pulverized as a sane person would expect it to be.

You may be the one person here who doesn't realize that Ryan Mackey is a NASA engineer, someone extremely well-qualified to expose the preposterous pseudo-science underpinning your fantasy.

 

[phunk]

Meanwhile, the perpendicular holes and the circular cuts seen through GZ, by those who care to look, speak for themselves:

Yeah, they're saying "This building was hit by thousands of tons of debris that fell 1000 feet."

In your DEW theory, how did they get the falling debris from WTC1 and WTC2 to land right in the bottom of those holes?

 

[jammonius]

phunk,

Foul!

You can't do this:

"In your DEW theory, how did they get the falling debris from WTC1 and WTC2 to land right in the bottom of those holes?"

That's cheating.

You presuppose there was debris at the bottom of the holes in WTC 6 and 5. Prove it.

Or, I can save you some time. You won't be able to do so. There was none.

But the larger point here is simply in the ease with which supporters of the official myth get to state suppositions about debris without having to prove it. Yet, werever and whenever I or others supporting the DEW theory have mentioned debris, no amount of proof has ever been sufficient; the denial mechanism continues on and on and on.

Not this time.

Since you claim there was debris there, you find evidence of it. You won't.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Please, if you would J, tell us everything you know about these DEWs. Every specification that you can think of, we would like to hear. Specifications such as: Type? Power? Power generation? Location? Locomotion (unless specified by location i.e. fixed to earth or in geosynchronous orbit)? Characteristics of after effects? You know, stuff like that.

You are supremely confident that these weapons took down myriad buildings, so tell us all you know about them. Thank you.

 

[jammonius]

redworm,

With due respect, I must decline to do the research you requested for you. I consider such requests to be cheap tricks, to put it plainly. This is a dialogue. If there are questions about DEW that you have, then look them up and post your results.

Requests such as yours are a invitation to allow you to sit back and do next to nothing.

No thanks.

 

[sts60]

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.

There are some vaguely circular holes. Also holes with square edges, holes with part curved edge and part straight edge. The holes in the picture you show also vary in relative size by ratios of 3:1 or greater.

Your observed claims of 24' and 36' circular holes are demonstrably incorrect, by the very photograph you showed. Do you have any evidence for your claim?

 

[TheRedWorm]

redworm,

With due respect, I must decline to do the research you requested for you. I consider such requests to be cheap tricks, to put it plainly. This is a dialogue. If there are questions about DEW that you have, then look them up and post your results.

Requests such as yours are a invitation to allow you to sit back and do next to nothing.

No thanks.

How am I to look up DEWs of which I know nothing? If you can't even give me plausible estimates to look up, what exactly am I to search for?