Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Just so everyone is tracking, arguing with a DEWer is about the same as arguing with a no planer. If they are so completely dellusional to actually believe that some sort of super secret energy weapon took down the towers odds are they need some sort of professional help that I doubt any of us have the credentials to provide.

I know what you mean Quad, it's like this: "Arguing with a Truther is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if they win, they're still retarded."

 

[carlitos]

Just so everyone is tracking, arguing with a DEWer is about the same as arguing with a no planer. If they are so completely dellusional to actually believe that some sort of super secret energy weapon took down the towers odds are they need some sort of professional help that I doubt any of us have the credentials to provide.

I think you are right. What I find fascinating is that this guy jammonius won't say what he believes happened, and indeed refuses to post at all in the proper thread. I suppose that the same type of special ability to believe in laser beams from space is a part of that process.

 

[joe911]

Not sure if this has been mentioned here,but whilst reading the zapruder film thread,this post came up,from 2006:

It's typical CT thinking: if the photographs don't match the theory, well then the photos must have been tampered with!

Wait and see. In a few years the 9/11 CTers will be claiming the thousands of photos taken on 9/11 and it's aftermath were ALL tampered with by the conspirators. We're already seeing this mentality with the TVfakery gang.

 

[dafydd]

deleted

 

[dc1971]

Not sure if this has been mentioned here,but whilst reading the zapruder film thread,this post came up,from 2006:

The TV Fakery gang would include Ace Baker... who happens to be posting incognito on Youtube as muzicmaker2001... such people are either lacking in their personal lives, or they're desperate for some sort of fame and fortune. For someone like Ace Baker, this guy had a somewhat comfortable career in music yet he probably wanted more of a Rock Star status! Well, since failing at reaching such status enter the video fakery claims concerning 9/11!! You have to be desperate to believe that CGI effects can be created on the fly and video fakery is possible on live TV!! Man, you should read some of his claims on YT... it's hilarious!!

 

[Wolrab]

Man, you should read some of his claims on YT... it's hilarious!!

We have seen his claims here. Posted by himself and his sweaty foot coverings.

 

[jammonius]

Oh, Christ... the context isn't even relevant, and certainly doesn't even bring to question the distinction between "combustible" and "flammable". He's not trying to make a fine point; he's trying to imply that jet fuel couldn't have caused what was seen on 9/11. And in particulars he's correct - the jet fuel was only involved initially. Problem is, he's wrong in overall thrust; if his argument is that the jet fuel is not "powerful enough to melt steel and almost instantaneously turn it to dust", then he's not even talking 9/11 anymore, let alone the difference between flammable and combustible. He's talking about a fictional scenario, not about the actual event itself.

• No steel melted. Nearly all steel was recovered, and of the recovered steel that was sent to NIST, none of it showed any signs of melting
• No steel turned to dust.
• The jet fuel burned off within minutes. The resultant fire was an office contents one; the jet fuel merely touched off that blaze.

So the technical distinction between "flammable" and "combustible" doesn't even apply here, because the whole idea he's presenting is that jet fuel could not have achieved two results that had nothing to do with 9/11: Melting steel and turning steel into dust. He's wrong at level so fundamental that doesn't even begin to require that we discriminate between "flammable" and "combustible".

ETA: Ps. Thanks for the information. Saved me from having to suffer yet another truther display of lunacy, and for that, I'm openly grateful!

Well, elmondo can choose to engage or not, as elmondo sees fit to do. However with respect to the following claims made by elmondo, I take exception to its content and to the nature of the assertion contained in it:


"[*]No steel melted. Nearly all steel was recovered, and of the recovered steel that was sent to NIST, none of it showed any signs of melting

[*]No steel turned to dust."

In conncection with the recovery of steel, NIST had but a measily 236 pieces to work with. If elmondo is interested in knowing the extent to which the cause of the destruction of the WTC complex remains unknown, uninvestigated and unsolved, then please let elmondo consider the following facts that contradict his stated understanding of what steel was recovered and what steel NIST had to work with.

Not only that, the paltry examples NIST had were used by NIST to justify its REFUSAL to extrapolate to the entire structure the low temperature evidence it found in the samples it had. So, not only did it find no evidence of steel melting as a result of high temperature, it found no evidence that steel had even reached a temperature where it should have been deformed.

But, apparently, elmondo does not realize that that is precisely why directed energy weaponry (DEW) is the cause of the destruction. We have steel destroyed, dustified, if you will, without reaching a high temperature.

That is what FEMA also discovered and that is why the following evidence of steel deformation, without reaching a high temperature, results in the valid conclusion that DEW did this:

So, let's review the evidence.

No steel reached a temperature over 600degrees C that NIST had. But, steel was known to have deformed in ways both unexpected and unexplained. And, steel was seen to turn to dust.

Plus that, the dust cloud itself, that enveloped a lot of people, didn't burn anyone to death. Yes, it was warm, according to some witnesses, but it was cold according to others because it blocked out the sun.

That anamoly is starring us right in the face posters. Of course, if none of this is of interest to elmondo, that's ok.

Here, for elmondo's sake, are the relevant quotes from NIST's NCSTAR1 report, together with pdf page references. The treatment of its inability to find any steel tht had reached a temperature of 600 degrees C is put in red:

"Over a period of about 18 months, 236 pieces of steel were shipped to the NIST campus, starting about six months before NIST launched its Investigation. These samples ranged in size and complexity from a nearly complete threecolumn, three floor perimeter assembly to bolts and small fragments. Figures 6–3 through 6–5 show some of the recovered steel pieces. Seven of the pieces were from WTC 5. The remaining 229 samples represented roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.
The collection at NIST included samples of all the steel strength levels specified for the construction of the towers. The locations of all structural steel pieces in WTC 1 and WTC 2 were uniquely identified by stampings (recessed letters and numbers) and/or painted stencils. NIST was successful in finding and deciphering these identification markings on many of the perimeter panel sections and core columns, in many cases using metallurgical characterization to complete missing identifiers. In all, 42 exterior panels were positively identified: 26 from WTC 1 and 16 from WTC 2. Twelve core columns were positively identified: eight from WTC 1 and four from WTC 2. Twentythree pieces were identified as being parts of trusses, although it was not possible to identify their locations within the buildings.
pg 137


Examination of photographs showed that 16 of the exterior panels recovered from WTC 1 were exposed to fire prior to the building collapse. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were directly exposed to fire. NIST used two methods to estimate the maximum temperatures that the steel members had reached:
Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 C: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 C. NIST did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors.pg 140

Observations of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to a fire, can alter the basic structure of the steel and its mechanical properties. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.pg140"

So, posters, are we now agreed that the issue of what happened to the steel can only be understood if DEW is considered the cause. Steel both melted, as seen in the photographed sample, was wildly deformed and turned to dust.

Yet, no steel was found to reach a temperature higher than 600degrees and the dust cloud was not noteworthy for being hot. But, the dust cloud is evidence that the steel was turned to dust.

Those factors require the determination that DEW brought on the destruction, posters.

I conclude with dustification evidence:

 

[carlitos]

That damn 2 megabyte animated gif slows my browser to a crawl. Please don't post it AGAIN in another OFF TOPIC thread. Thank you. This thread is titled "Meet Jerry V. Leaphart," not "let's discuss flammable materials," for anyone who is capable of sentient thought.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, let's review the evidence.

Let's review the evidence for steel turning to dust, shall we?

Some dust was seen in a place near where there was previously some steel.

And that's it.

Bye bye.

Dave

 

[dropzone]

You are open-loop delusion posting. You can't even stop to correct your errors; how much of the WTC was air?

You say the WTC pile was flat then you say 40 to 50 feet; when I say 95 percent air you say I am tell a lie but fail to back up your delusion with evidence.

What is low is your steel turning to dust lie; a big lie you can't back with anything but more lies.

Dust?
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtclookingforThermitenotfound.jpg[/qimg]
More dust
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/steelstuffWTC.jpg[/qimg]
What exactly turns steel to dust? Please explain your discovery; details and sources.

To be fair, the photos you and Parky posted show steel in the process of dustification. Most folks would call it "rust" and it takes a while to rustify all of the steel, but it can be dusty.

 

[carlitos]

To be fair, the photos you and Parky posted show steel in the process of dustification. Most folks would call it "rust" and it takes a while to rustify all of the steel, but it can be dusty.

As ever, the Chicago Bears are near the heart of the conspiracy.

 

[BigAl]

Well, elmondo can choose to engage or not, as elmondo sees fit to do. However with respect to the following claims made by elmondo, I take exception to its content and to the nature of the assertion contained in it:

...

Those factors require the determination that DEW brought on the destruction, posters.

Nobody got a suntan at WTC on 9/11. This by itself is sufficient evidence to conclude that no "Directed Energy Weapons" were in use. I didn't get one. Nobody did.

The amount of science education and intellectual curiosity you display declines every time you post this stupidity.

 

[Travis]

Nobody got a suntan at WTC on 9/11. This by itself is sufficient evidence to conclude that no "Directed Energy Weapons" were in use. I didn't get one. Nobody did.

There's also the fact that there isn't any DEW in existence that would be both powerful enough and light enough to destroy the WTC from an airborne or orbital position.

 

[bill smith]

Guys, what's the context of the jet fuel claim here? I don't feel like wasting my time watching some moron rant to find out. Is he drawing on the technical distinction between flammable and combustible? Or is he merely trying to build a case that jet fuel could not have caught fire in the Twin Towers. If the former, what's the connection to conspiracy fantasy? If the latter, why does he think the conditions weren't enough for the fuel to flash over when an airliner with running jet engines struck both buildings?

Haven't you seen the video where there is a clear 'flash' in both buildings a millisecond prior to penetration ? Just ask and I will produce. Many believe that these incendiary events may have been to act as a match for the kerosene.

NIST says that an office fire wiill typically only burn at one location for 20 minutes before all the available fuel is consumed.Of course the kerosene fires lit a much much larger area in one go- I'm sure you have to agree. Therefore the much much larger area would all have finished burning together 20 minutes later plus/minus.. (The kerosene itself of course was gone in mere minutes as you would expect with jet fuel burning off).It was mostly atomised from the impact anyway and went up for the most part in the initial fireball.

You know all this already. Look at me rambling on.....lol

 

[bill smith]

Let's review the evidence for steel turning to dust, shall we?

Some dust was seen in a place near where there was previously some steel.

And that's it.

Bye bye.

Dave

Bye Bye Dave.

 

[HannibalGroup]

Of course the kerosene fires lit a much much larger area in one go- I'm sure you have to agree.

I see - so you disagree with Leaphart and his conclusions. That's a step in the right direction, at least.

 

[sadhatter]

Well, elmondo can choose to engage or not, as elmondo sees fit to do. However with respect to the following claims made by elmondo, I take exception to its content and to the nature of the assertion contained in it:


"[*]No steel melted. Nearly all steel was recovered, and of the recovered steel that was sent to NIST, none of it showed any signs of melting

[*]No steel turned to dust."

In conncection with the recovery of steel, NIST had but a measily 236 pieces to work with. If elmondo is interested in knowing the extent to which the cause of the destruction of the WTC complex remains unknown, uninvestigated and unsolved, then please let elmondo consider the following facts that contradict his stated understanding of what steel was recovered and what steel NIST had to work with.

Not only that, the paltry examples NIST had were used by NIST to justify its REFUSAL to extrapolate to the entire structure the low temperature evidence it found in the samples it had. So, not only did it find no evidence of steel melting as a result of high temperature, it found no evidence that steel had even reached a temperature where it should have been deformed.

But, apparently, elmondo does not realize that that is precisely why directed energy weaponry (DEW) is the cause of the destruction. We have steel destroyed, dustified, if you will, without reaching a high temperature.

That is what FEMA also discovered and that is why the following evidence of steel deformation, without reaching a high temperature, results in the valid conclusion that DEW did this:

[qimg]http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/tpics/FEMA_41.jpg[/qimg]

So, let's review the evidence.

No steel reached a temperature over 600degrees C that NIST had. But, steel was known to have deformed in ways both unexpected and unexplained. And, steel was seen to turn to dust.

Plus that, the dust cloud itself, that enveloped a lot of people, didn't burn anyone to death. Yes, it was warm, according to some witnesses, but it was cold according to others because it blocked out the sun.

That anamoly is starring us right in the face posters. Of course, if none of this is of interest to elmondo, that's ok.

Here, for elmondo's sake, are the relevant quotes from NIST's NCSTAR1 report, together with pdf page references. The treatment of its inability to find any steel tht had reached a temperature of 600 degrees C is put in red:

"Over a period of about 18 months, 236 pieces of steel were shipped to the NIST campus, starting about six months before NIST launched its Investigation. These samples ranged in size and complexity from a nearly complete threecolumn, three floor perimeter assembly to bolts and small fragments. Figures 6–3 through 6–5 show some of the recovered steel pieces. Seven of the pieces were from WTC 5. The remaining 229 samples represented roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.
The collection at NIST included samples of all the steel strength levels specified for the construction of the towers. The locations of all structural steel pieces in WTC 1 and WTC 2 were uniquely identified by stampings (recessed letters and numbers) and/or painted stencils. NIST was successful in finding and deciphering these identification markings on many of the perimeter panel sections and core columns, in many cases using metallurgical characterization to complete missing identifiers. In all, 42 exterior panels were positively identified: 26 from WTC 1 and 16 from WTC 2. Twelve core columns were positively identified: eight from WTC 1 and four from WTC 2. Twentythree pieces were identified as being parts of trusses, although it was not possible to identify their locations within the buildings.
pg 137


Examination of photographs showed that 16 of the exterior panels recovered from WTC 1 were exposed to fire prior to the building collapse. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were directly exposed to fire. NIST used two methods to estimate the maximum temperatures that the steel members had reached:
Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 C: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 C. NIST did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors.pg 140

Observations of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to a fire, can alter the basic structure of the steel and its mechanical properties. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.pg140"

So, posters, are we now agreed that the issue of what happened to the steel can only be understood if DEW is considered the cause. Steel both melted, as seen in the photographed sample, was wildly deformed and turned to dust.

Yet, no steel was found to reach a temperature higher than 600degrees and the dust cloud was not noteworthy for being hot. But, the dust cloud is evidence that the steel was turned to dust.

Those factors require the determination that DEW brought on the destruction, posters.

I conclude with dustification evidence:

[qimg]http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/dustspire.gif[/qimg]

The posts in this thread by this guy need to be nominated for the " sounded much better in my head award."

 

[ElMondoHummus]

There's also the fact that there isn't any DEW in existence that would be both powerful enough and light enough to destroy the WTC from an airborne or orbital position.

I want to emphasize what Travis has posted here. He is of course right. Ryan Mackey pointed this out back in 2006, and it's still true today:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2086102#post2086102

Anyway -- seems we're still thinking about those pesky beam weapons, despite having shown you much less sinister mechanisms that provide the same "round holes," and are in fact completely consistent with the expected building performance. We've also shown you how your Star Wars weapon actually doesn't fit the "evidence" that you (and only you) see.

Still, elsewhere, you've insisted that we treat this as a valid hypothesis. It must be tested, you say.

The test is simple: Do beam weapons of this magnitude exist? No.

Still doubting, eh?

In that case, class, pull up a chair. Today we're going to design our own WTC Killing Beam Weapon of Doom to see just what one would look like. While the beam emitter itself could plausibly be a "black" project, something the Governmint doesn't want us to see, it would be dependent on much more mundane technologies -- launch vehicles, power systems, that kind of thing -- and still restrained by the laws of physics. While we may not know anything about the weapon itself, we can figure out the rest.

So suppose an unsmiling man in a grey suit delivers a magical beam weapon to us, and insists we make it functional. All we know are its requirements. Some of these we can divine from what we saw on Sept. 11th.

1. Orbit

The beam weapon must fire from almost directly above its target, and must do so unseen. If it fired at an angle, the beam -- allegedly capable of destroying the WTC towers -- would have cut through at an angle, leaving a quite interesting damage path, one that was not seen on TV. Likewise, TV cameras did not capture any blimps or dirigibles or large aircraft hovering high above the Towers. Thus, we assume the beam system was orbital.

There are basically two choices for an orbital system: LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and GEO (Geosynchronous) or similar orbits. Both of these orbits have problems.

Recall that not one tower was destroyed, but two. The South Tower fell at 9:59 AM, and the North Tower fell at 10:28. In LEO, the orbital period is a function of altitude, and the spacecraft orbits faster as it gets lower. However, the minimum usable orbit is about 90 minutes long. If the two different firings suggested happened on successive orbits, i.e. 29 minutes apart, the spacecraft altitude would have been below sea level. This is impossible.

If the two firings occurred on the same orbit, we now require a much, much higher orbit. A true GEO orbit won't work either, since you only remain geostationary above the equator, otherwise the spacecraft will appear to oscillate north and south while retaining the same longitude. We need a firing angle that is just about straight down and stays that way for 30 minutes, or 1/48th of an orbit. A GEO track would move by a minimum of 7.5% of peak latitude, or over 1.6^o of latitude, which may be unacceptable. So we would need to be much, much higher than GEO.

The high-orbit situation is also impractical for two military reasons. First, high orbits require much larger rockets. Second, it severely limits your options, since it could take hours, days, or even forever to orient this beam on a particular target.

The only practical solution, then, is to have two beam weapon satellites. We will assume these are orbiting in the cheapest orbit possible, i.e. LEO.

2. Beam Energy

The beam must be capable of delivering a WTC-finishing blow in roughly 10 seconds. How much energy are we talking about?

To make this exercise remotely plausible, we will consider a firing energy much lower than the tower destruction itself. For sake of argument, suppose the beam delivers 6.0 x 10⁹ Joules of energy -- a number chosen because it is twice that of the aircraft impact kinetic energy, as calculated in Greening (pg. 10). This is an arbitrary choice but clearly a beam energy higher than the impacts is needed, since the impacts alone finished off neither structure.

We further assume that the beam weapon is 50% efficient, an "ideal" figure (cutting-edge lasers built for efficiency are typically around 16% efficient). This means a total of 1.2 x 10¹⁰ Joules of energy must be supplied by the spacecraft, over a period of 10 seconds, or 1.2 x 10⁹ Watts of power. That is the design requirement of our black-box beam weapon.

It should be pointed out that we have neglected many efficiency-robbing problems to arrive at this figure -- attenuation by the atmosphere, for instance, and beam absorption or reflection by the target are both major concerns. In practice I would not be surprised to see an effective beam efficiency as low as 5% under ideal conditions.

3. Energy Storage

As this power figure is roughly equivalent to the output of a commercial nuclear power plant, it is clear that our WKBWD satellite cannot provide this continuously, but must store the energy. This poses a big problem.

The most obvious solution is battery power. The highest energy density rechargeable batteries currently envisioned (and these have not been qualified for space) can supply about 1 MJ / kg of battery mass. To supply the 1.2 x 10¹⁰ Joules we require, this means 12,000 kg of battery.

But this figure cannot be trusted. Recall that we require a full discharge in only ten seconds. Batteries don't like this. They heat up, which increases their internal resistance and robs power, and chemical pathways become blocked, making much of its storage unavailable. Given this requirement, our battery size would need to be much larger -- Lithium ion batteries over 20 second peak load are limited to a mere 1500 W/kg. Since our beam requires 1.2 x 10⁹ Watts, we would actually need 8,000 tons of battery.

So batteries are out. What about capacitors? If we assume a spacecraft bus voltage of 1000 Volts (which is unacceptably high for space applications, as arcing would probably destroy our satellite), to reach our total energy requirement, E = 0.5 C V², thus capacitance C = 24,000 Farads. This can be done with, say, ten tons of capacitors, however the leakage will be much higher -- rather than charging batteries over periods of weeks, the capacitors will require a much more rapid charge cycle, and any weight saved in the capacitors themselves will be lost to solar arrays and thermal management.

The very last possibility is the extreme explosive compression flux generator, basically a one-shot motor that uses explosives to push a magnet and a coil. This is similarly "black" and exciting to Conspiracy Theorists, but not practical here either. While this little gadget can crank out a reported 10¹² Watts, it only does so for a few microseconds. To sustain our ten-second beam, we would need about a million small copies of this, and they would have to somehow be shielded from each other. Alternatively, if we convinced the beam weapon designers to change their beam, so that it fired one extremely rapid pulse, we would only need a few thousand of these.

In either case, the beam weapon would have to handle several million Amps of current, and somehow convert this into a useful, collimated beam. If anybody has any ideas how to do this, let me know. The best I can think of is a microwave waveguide -- but the biggest of these is Arecibo, it's four orders of magnitude weaker than we'd need, and it would clearly be seen orbiting the Earth!

We also have a another stealth problem. If we generate a 1.2 x 10¹⁰ Joule energy pulse, that means we're setting off much more than 1.2 x 10¹⁰ Joules worth of explosives, or 3 tons TNT equivalent, in orbit. This can be done, provided we don't mind creating a flash in the upper atmosphere that would be clearly visible to the naked eye in full daylight, and provided we don't mind alerting the early warning systems of every nuclear-armed government in the process.

4. Launch Considerations

Each of our proposed solutions above requires a satellite that masses over 10 tons for energy storage or generation above. Since the thermal control, solar generation, attitude control, and payload are also assumed to be significant, we may assume the power storage is reasonably close to a standard satellite MEL (Mass Equipment List) breakdown, and is thus around 10-25% of the total satellite mass. We thus estimate our spacecraft minimum mass is around 40 tons.

This exceeds the launch capability of any current launch vehicle -- almost double that of the Shuttle -- although Saturn V could do it.

Needless to say, this also isn't a good consideration for stealth.

Any other launch would require on-orbit assembly, and a rather complicated one at that. The extremely high-power storage and supply would have to be bridged. Pointing on the beam weapon would be critical, requiring utmost precision.

Lastly, this would mean that our astronauts are also members of the conspiracy.

5. Conclusion

Orbital beam weapons, even if the beam technology itself was sound, are not practical as tools of overt domination or covert destruction of land-based targets. There is simply no way to generate the power required to destroy hardened structures, let alone destroy them so thoroughly as to remove evidence of the beam weapon's use. In legitimate studies, beam weapons have only been considered in cases where a much lower power (1 MW or less) can achieve a useful result, such as damaging fragile sensors or puncturing thin-walled critical structures, e.g. the booster of an ICBM.

The fundamental roadblock is the ability to put power on the ground. As we saw above, the only credible approach is to use expendables, viz. explosives. In this case, the orbiting beam weapon offers no advantages over simply putting those same explosives on target. The difficulty and cost associated with the orbiting platform, coupled with the nonexistence of high performance beam emitters to begin with, makes this a complete non-starter.

-----

Thank you all for your attention. There's a sign-up sheet for my two-week Mad Scientist Camp circulating somewhere near the back.

________


Now, take a look at the latest test of an airborne anti-missle laser used to shoot down a missile. Note the energy class: "Megawatt". Take a look at the amount of work necessary to bring down the towers from Ryan's BOE calculation above: 1.2 x 10⁹ Watts in order to provide the 6.0 x 10⁹ joules, which should be enough to bring down the towers. Three orders of magnitude difference. Three orders of magnitude means a requirement in the billions, not millions (or in other words, giga, not megawatts). And this with technology 9 years more advanced than what was available in 2001. To induce a single failure in something already moving at several hundred miles an hour and still experiencing stress from it's acceleration (remember: The missiles that were shot down in the linked test were hit in the initial boost phase) that is by any measure far, far smaller in sheer size and horrendously smaller in mass than a pair of 110 storey skyscrapers.

Yet, DEW was supposed to not just bring down the towers, but turn steel to "dust"?



Travis is right in bringing that up. Ryan was pretty clear and straightforward in his argument. And anyone trying to claim DEW must first confront the straightforward issues of energy availability. So far, no one's been able to overcome them.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, elmondo can choose to engage or not, as elmondo sees fit to do. However with respect to the following claims made by elmondo, I take exception to its content and to the nature of the assertion contained in it:

(much lunacy snipped)

First of all, if you had bothered to read for comprehension, you'd understand that those tests were conducted on steel components at the periphery of the fire zone, and not in the hottest areas. They come out and note this. Heck, they openly talk about "perimeter columns" and "exterior panels" - go reread what you yourself posted - yet you think that somehow is representative of the entire fire? No. What those did were match the fire models; the models predicted temperatures in the areas were the steel was recovered to be within a certain range. And those recovered steel pieces matched that prediction. The models went on to predict the temperature ranges farther in, where the fires were the hottest, and other experiments written up in NCSTAR 1-5 matched that. You are showing a complete and utter misunderstanding of the NIST information when you try to say that NIST claimed none of the steel exceeded 600^oC. That is not what they said; rather, they were saying that those samples matched what their model predicted the fire would burn at in the areas in the towers those samples had come from. And had you had bothered to read NCSTAR 1-5 and the subreports, you'd see that their model predicted far higher temperatures farther in the towers.

Furthermore, the steel you showed was already studied by the Worcester Polytechnic group; google the forum for "eutectic". That was not done by an energy weapon. An examination of the corrosion clearly established that the steel underwent a sulfidation attack.

Two strikes in one swing. Takes a truther to pull that off.

 

[bill smith]

Well it eems that HAARP can be considered a direct energy weapon, In fact Hugo Chavez and millions of others think it was used to cause the Earthquake that destroyed Haiti in recent weeks. What say a variant of HAARP was used to destroy the WTC ? See videos 1+2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VX0JvpW5q0 video 1

Now President Hugo Chavez says that America used HAARP to cause the Haitian Earthquakes. Could they really be that cruel and merciless ? (See attached video 2)

http://hiphopblips.dailyradar.com/video/hugo-chavez-us-navy-created-haiti-earthquake-haarp/ video 2