Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[sts60]

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.

I ask again, do you have any specific objections to the analysis, or have you only an endless series of vague complaints?

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.

My analysis relied on only the effect you claim - the vaporization of the steel - and the relevant properties of the material itself, as clearly explained. Do you have any specific objections, or only an endless series of vague complaints?

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.

No. I said no such thing, and once again I would like to ask you to stop misrepresentation of my statements. Are you incapable of doing so, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?

If you want to talk about impact damage, jet fuel fires, and building content fires, feel free to discuss the topic on one of the many appropriate threads already existing, or start one. This thread, I remind you yet again, is for discussing your premise of directed-energy weapons used to destroy WTC 1 and 2 (and apparently, you believe, several other buildings). I created this thread because you said you would engage in such a discussion; is it really too much to ask for you to stick to the topic?

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.

Tell you what: I will stop saying "irrelevant" when you stop saying irrelevant things.

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.

Honestly, do you get paid by the word?

My analysis investigates the fundamental physics at the core of your vague premise, and finds it ludicrously unrealistic. Do you have any specific objections to it, or merely an endless series of vague complaints?

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.

The holes have straight, irregular, and circular sides, and vary in size by a range of at least 3:1; the only two specific observations you have made about them are demonstrably invalid. Do you have anything else you'd like to try?

But, since you claim that they are "perpendicular", clearly that suggests to you the origin of the beam. Where do you think the weapon or weapons were? In aircraft? In low orbit? In high orbit?

 

[jammonius]

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?

For starters, just use wikipedia for "directed energy weapons." Another good source is deps.org See, especially, their publications entitled WAVE FRONT.

After that, you should have a plethora of google search terms to use.

If you're particularly interested in DEW as it relates to the destruction of the WTC complex, I can think of no better source than

drjudywood.uk.com

 

[jammonius]

sts,

If #281 merits further reply I will do so a bit later, probably tomorrow. The main weakness I see is your candid admission that "My analysis relied on only the effect you claim - the vaporization of the steel - and the relevant properties of the material itself, as clearly explained. Do you have any specific objections, or only an endless series of vague complaints?"

Yes, I have a specific objection and I have named it. You have improperly narrowed the scope of your assessment so as to deny the reality of the event. Your construct is hopelessly flawed. Do please understand this. I have told you that you have too narrowly tailored the scope of your undertaking and have ignord both the forensic elements of the event itself, misstated the work done by Dr. Wood, whose work you say you are assessing, and created an outcome that leaves us with the conclusion that the buildings must still be standing.

This is not difficult to grasp. To the extent that you continue to assert there's some validity in what you did, then, to that extent, you and I have a disagreement. Do you grasp this?

 

[TheRedWorm]

It is your claim, you back it with a probability analysis, or retract it. If you, personally, cannot; invite Dr. Wood here, so she offer said probability analysis.

 

[sts60]

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]

This argument against relevant authority makes it incumbent on you to cite your relevant authority. What is it? I have a bachelor's in physics, a master's in electrical engineering, and another master's in system engineering, and over fifteen years' experience in aerospace engineering.

What is your relevant experience? No handwaving, please - you brought this topic up.

 

[jammonius]

It is your claim, you back it with a probability analysis, or retract it. If you, personally, cannot; invite Dr. Wood here, so she offer said probability analysis.

No

 

[TheRedWorm]

Why not?

 

[sts60]

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.

Ben, we're in violent agreement here; I'm just saying "power" where you're saying "intensity". And of course the intensity of any real beam weapon is too small by many orders of magnitude to do what jammonius claims, as is the total energy available to an real system such as the (not yet operational!) ABL. As I said before, jammonius might as well post a picture of a flashlight as a picture of the ABL; it would be equally convincing as a WTC-vaporizing weapon.

 

[volatile]

I have a question: how did the DEW destroy the Towers? That's the very, very basis of Jammonius' claim, as far as I can tell.

 

[beachnut]

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

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

Oops, WTC 1 and 2 did the damage to 5 and 6! Proven on 9/11! Sad you should have been there, you could have seen it. You continue to prove your ideas are pure fantasy with each post.

This takes care of you and Judy Wood. She was fired for making up fantasy; what reason did they give her? Sad when an engineer is not rational and makes up pure lies. What is your excuse for spewing the false information about DEW?

The proof you ask for was done on 9/11. You are over 6 years too late. Why are you short on knowledge about 9/11 and skills to help you understand? I am interested in how you can be short on knowledge and make up a fantasy that grows more fantastic as you go on.

 

[WildCat]

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.

He/she already has RedWorm - and the answer is absoultely nothing.

Why not?

He/she can't. Neither can his/her hero Judy Wood.

And for some reason the phrase "mad as a hatter" comes to mind.

 

[phunk]

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.

Foul yourself, I presuppose nothing. It's like you haven't even looked at the pictures of GZ before.

So, in your DEW theory, did they make that hole prior to the collase of WTC1 & 2?

 

[beachnut]

Foul yourself, I presuppose nothing. It's like you haven't even looked at the pictures of GZ before.
So, in your DEW theory, did they make that hole prior to the collase of WTC1 & 2?

Parts of the towers did the damage. And you can see it.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Foul yourself, I presuppose nothing. It's like you haven't even looked at the pictures of GZ before.

[qimg]http://phunkadelic.org/debris-hole.jpg[/qimg]

So, in your DEW theory, did they make that hole prior to the collase of WTC1 & 2?

Get ready for an idiosyncratic and utterly ridiculous ad hoc redefinition of the word 'debris'. She's not even trying to sound reasonable.

Why are you people attempting to argue with this dishonest charlatan, anyway? What's the point? Only a minuscule fraction of the already marginalized and risible Twoof Movement takes this crap seriously. Better to just let the paranoids in it maintain their fantasy of her being a "disinfo" agent. It's much funnier that way.

 

[pomeroo]

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.

In the same spirit, I decline to post my airtight proof of the Unified Field Theory. You dummies are just going to have to work it out for yourselves!

 

[pomeroo]

He/she already has RedWorm - and the answer is absoultely nothing.


He/she can't. Neither can his/her hero Judy Wood.

And for some reason the phrase "mad as a hatter" comes to mind.

\


That's funny--the phrase "mad as Judy Wood" comes to my mind.

 

[sts60]

sts,

If #281 merits further reply I will do so a bit later, probably tomorrow. The main weakness I see is your candid admission that "My analysis relied on only the effect you claim - the vaporization of the steel - and the relevant properties of the material itself, as clearly explained. Do you have any specific objections, or only an endless series of vague complaints?"

Yes, I have a specific objection and I have named it. You have improperly narrowed the scope of your assessment so as to deny the reality of the event.

Incorrect - in fact, you have it exactly backward. I have focused on the most fundamental aspect of your premise - is it physically possible? I have only used data which is intrinsic to your claim - the nature of the material you claim was destroyed, your claim that the buildings were "pulverized, turned to dust and utterly destroyed", and the ~10 second time frame in which you claim this was accomplished.

In fact, posters such as myself, myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch are the only ones to evaluate your claim in specific terms - not you. Beyond your bizarre and failed attempt to claim "24' and 36' round holes" and some subsequent backpedaling, you have failed to do any of the work in this thread, and have failed to even specify your claim. That's very disappointing given your previous pledge that you would "engage" in a DEW-specific thread.

Your construct is hopelessly flawed. Do please understand this. I have told you that you have too narrowly tailored the scope of your undertaking

Do you have a specific objection to my analysis, or are you merely unhappy that I actually evaluated the few details you have bothered to provide?

and have ignord both the forensic elements of the event itself,

Incorrect. Along with several other posters, I've already pointed out how your own "evidence" contradicted your own observations.

But since at least some of the holes were sorta "perpendicular", are you ready to tell us what this directionality means as far as the location of your alleged weapons? Or is this a case where you do not want us to follow your "forensic elements"?

misstated the work done by Dr. Wood, whose work you say you are assessing,

What exactly have I misstated? Shall I take your concern for this as a pledge that you will discontinue misrepresenting my statements?

and created an outcome that leaves us with the conclusion that the buildings must still be standing.

Bizarrely incorrect. I have merely evaluated your claims, such as they are, and quantitatively and in appropriate detail shown them to be unphysical, unsupported, and often self-contradictory.

This is not difficult to grasp. To the extent that you continue to assert there's some validity in what you did, then, to that extent, you and I have a disagreement. Do you grasp this?

I really think you must get paid by the word. Do you have any specific rebuttals, or merely an endless stream of handwaving and vague complaints?

 

[tsig]

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

I for one am leading the revolt against the chocolate-egg lying ducks. They hate our freedoms!!! The eggs aren't even chocolate.

 

[TjW]

Look, don't blame me when they find your body entirely encapsulated in Peeps. You don't mess with the Soul Cake Duck.

 

[tsig]

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.

Yeh if the unknown planners have these kind of weapons then just take over the world. Who could stop them?

World domination achieved. Maybe it's some kind of superman secret identity thing.