Split Thread SAIC, ARA and 9/11 (split from "All 43 videos...")

[Oystein]

Here's one of the Directed Energy Directorate's locations where they blow up little soda cans, BigAl:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/abdaeriel.gif?t=1282910266[/qimg]

Is this near the WTC?

Here's what happens to them when they blow them up:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/TrailfromLaunchatWhiteSandsMissileR.jpg?t=1282910590[/qimg]

How much material is depicted there? Order of magnitude in, say, metric tons.

Here's what the Directed Energy Directorate's sister agency, the Space Vehicles Directorate, concerns itself with:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AFG-070403-011.jpg?t=1282910654[/qimg]

Do they have any such devices up there? What are the power and energy capabilities of these devices today, and what were they in 2001? Order of magnitude in Joules and Watts will do.

And here's simply an oldie but a goodie:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/msf0614881.jpg?t=1282910691[/qimg]

The Boeing YAL-1, right? First airborne test was 2007. Oldie? What do you call systems that existed in 2001, if that is an oldie?
It has a Megawatt-class laser that can shoot pulses for 5 seconds.
One MW for 5 seconds, that's 1x10⁶W * 5s = 5*10⁶ Joules.
That is about the energy content of 225 grams of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutella

So dou you suggest that if I eat 225 grams of Nutella (which I can easily do in an hour, with good German bread), I should have enough power and energy in me to completely dustify a 110 story office building?




P.S.: The YAL-1 is said to have the capacity to destroy a ballistic missle, i.e. make it crash.
I can do that after eating Nutella: I have then the power to lift a hammer and bang on the missle a few times such that it would be too damaged to fly with good control.

 

[Oystein]

...Your interpretation ignores important aspects of context that I will not even bother to point out to you as you are unlikely to be able to understand the context in less than about 1,000,000 years.

Yeah, the old "I could give you dozends of facts, if only I knew of any". Dodge noted

However, to your credit, your capacity for ignoring information is not as bad as some. Those who, as they say, "have me on ignore" do not realize they are simply confirming their own preference for, you guessed it,

IGNORANCE

As a matter of fact, I do have you on ignore, but I can't keep from glimpsing and viewing your posts. That train wreck is just too bad! It is so bad it is actually good

 

[BigAl]

Here's one of the Directed Energy Directorate's locations where they blow up little soda cans, BigAl:

Yup, that's about what it takes to destroy a missile.

 

[excaza]

That train wreck is just too bad! It is so bad it is actually good

There was no train.

 

[twinstead]

Isn't this like somebody claiming he can lift an car over his head and showing pictures of himself lifting cotton balls as evidence?

 

[jammonius]

Is this near the WTC?



How much material is depicted there? Order of magnitude in, say, metric tons.



Do they have any such devices up there? What are the power and energy capabilities of these devices today, and what were they in 2001? Order of magnitude in Joules and Watts will do.



The Boeing YAL-1, right? First airborne test was 2007. Oldie? What do you call systems that existed in 2001, if that is an oldie?
It has a Megawatt-class laser that can shoot pulses for 5 seconds.
One MW for 5 seconds, that's 1x10⁶W * 5s = 5*10⁶ Joules.
That is about the energy content of 225 grams of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutella

So dou you suggest that if I eat 225 grams of Nutella (which I can easily do in an hour, with good German bread), I should have enough power and energy in me to completely dustify a 110 story office building?




P.S.: The YAL-1 is said to have the capacity to destroy a ballistic missle, i.e. make it crash.
I can do that after eating Nutella: I have then the power to lift a hammer and bang on the missle a few times such that it would be too damaged to fly with good control.

Lurkers and Victims Family Members,

One way to differentiate mere rhetoric from a legitimate inquiry is to post up the source where information can be found. For instance, if posters here are interested in knowing whether Myriad's claim of disbelief of what was written and put before her very eyes is true or not, Myriad and others could call the source.

For those interested in knowing what the Directed Energy Directorate does, what weapons are in the US's arsenal of directed energy weaponry and what their lethality effects are, they have but to inquire and obtain publicly available information.

Those interested in knowing what SAIC and ARA are up to with respect to their respective arsenals of directed energy weaponry have but to say that they think TRW might be a little bit ahead of them in getting DOD $$$. That ought to get a rise out of SAIC and ARA, I'll betcha.

But, hey, it's not up to me to tell you folks how to go about formulating what you choose to believe and what you choose to ignore. As I have said many times, I do not care what you believe. My interest is in posting up and sourcing information. If you choose to remain ignorant, then that is your affair.

Mind you, if you want to remain ignorant then by all means do not call the Directed Energy Directorate and ask them any questions.

To your bliss:

 

[BigAl]

Lurkers and Victims Family Members,

One way to differentiate mere rhetoric from a legitimate inquiry is to post up the source where information can be found. For instance, if posters here are interested in knowing whether Myriad's claim of disbelief of what was written and put before her very eyes is true or not, Myriad and others could call the source.

For those interested in knowing what the Directed Energy Directorate does, what weapons are in the US's arsenal of directed energy weaponry and what their lethality effects are, they have but to inquire and obtain publicly available information.

And nothing they have can do much more than puncture a soda can.

 

[jammonius]

BigAl,

Fine, so long as "soda can" is a metaphor or nickname for the Twin Towers and the World Trade Center complex

 

[Oystein]

There was no train.

But it sure sounded like one.
And actually, below the WTC there were subway trains.

So the theory that trains brought the WTC down deserves much more attention than the claim that DEW did the deed:
- Trains are known to have been there, DEW are not
- Witnesses described the collapse of the first tower as "sounded like a train". No witness described anything as sounding, looking or smelling "like a DEW"
- Trains can store and release much more energy than the biggest stationary laser known in 2001, and a LOT more than the biggest mobile lasers today.
- In the Dick-Oliver movie, jammonius heard a train.

 

[BigAl]

BigAl,

Fine, so long as "soda can" is a metaphor or nickname for the Twin Towers and the World Trade Center complex

The skin of a missile is about as thick as a soda can.

This is not a simile.

 

[Oystein]

Isn't this like somebody claiming he can lift an car over his head and showing pictures of himself lifting cotton balls as evidence?

Let's see...
Weight of car: about 10⁶ grams
Weight of cotton ball: 10¹ grams
That's 5 orders of magnitude difference.

Energy that was not sufficient to destroy and dustify WTC, according to jammo: More than 10¹¹ Joules
Energy available to strongest known airborne DEW in 2007: Less than 10⁷ Joules
That is also about 5 orders of magnitude difference.

Good comparison!

 

[excaza]

Let's see...
Weight of car: about 10⁶ grams
Weight of cotton ball: 10¹ grams
That's 5 orders of magnitude difference.

Energy that was not sufficient to destroy and dustify WTC, according to jammo: More than 10¹¹ Joules
Energy available to strongest known airborne DEW in 2007: Less than 10⁷ Joules
That is also about 5 orders of magnitude difference.

Good comparison!

Not to mention the fact that since it's from space, it's going to need even more energy in order to counteract the diffraction going through the atmosphere

 

[Oystein]

BigAl,

Fine, so long as "soda can" is a metaphor or nickname for the Twin Towers and the World Trade Center complex

Your beloved DEW, in 2007, can amounts direct energy roughly equivalent to this:

(10⁷ Joules)
(only a fraction of that energy can actually be converted into destruction, most is lost over distance through atmosphere or reflected from target)

You deny that the potential energy stored in Towers 1 or 2 (about 5*10¹¹ Joules) would suffice to crumble them. That is equivalent to this (full of light oil):

(Nearly all of this energy actually does get converted on the target)

So no, BigAl is really talking about soda cans, not tall buildings.

Your theory is off target by several orders of magnitude, and none of your fancy images, font formatting or word salads can discuss that away.

 

[Oystein]

Not to mention the fact that since it's from space, it's going to need even more energy in order to counteract the diffraction going through the atmosphere

We don't need to tell jammo this. He already knows this from his quoted sources. I am just not sure he also understands what that means.

 

[fess]

BigAl,

Fine, so long as "soda can" is a metaphor or nickname for the Twin Towers and the World Trade Center complex

When you are stuck in a deep hole, STOP digging!

 

[lapman]

Here's what happens to them when they blow them up:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/TrailfromLaunchatWhiteSandsMissileR.jpg?t=1282910590[/qimg]

That's a lie. That is only the trail from a missile launch in the upper atmosphere after the wind currents get a hold of it. I've seen these myself while the missile is creating them.

 

[Andy_Ross]

All the links Jammy6 has given are for Lasers. How do Laseers make the buildings 'dustify' and then 'fume' for months?

 

[jammonius]

All the links Jammy6 has given are for Lasers. How do Laseers make the buildings 'dustify' and then 'fume' for months?

That is not true. However, I will give you credit for calling attention, albeit indirectly, to the fact that directed energy weaponry encompasses far more than mere laser weapons.

Well done.

I will also grant to you that most of the devices shown in the slide presentation set out above pertain to lasers.

Once again, well done Captain. Keep up the good posting.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

That is not true. However, I will give you credit for calling attention, albeit indirectly, to the fact that directed energy weaponry encompasses far more than mere laser weapons.

Well done.

I will also grant to you that most of the devices shown in the slide presentation set out above pertain to lasers.

Once again, well done Captain. Keep up the good posting.

Here's a shocker for Jammy:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476320.pdf

Applications with potential to provide superior capabilites include long-range strategic missions such as space control and force protection, and tactial missions such as ground based defense against rockets, artillery, and mortors and defense against man portable air defense systems. For some applications, directed energy has the potential to complete favorably with kentic solutions: for others, no kinetic approach currently exists

Jammy should read the hillited part!

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Hey Skinny,

You are engaging in understatement and in an attempt at minimization.

The writer is the spokesperson designated to respond on behalf of the DIRECTED ENERGY DIRECTORATE, the entity that manages the United States' military's arsenal of directed energy weaponry.

Your speculation seems to be totally oblivious to that fact as your response nowhere mentions it.

Why on earth would a LABORATORY in the AIR FORCE "manage the United States military's arsenal of directed energy weaponry" (assuming such an arsenal existed in the first place)??

A laboratory would seem like an extremely poor choice to manage an arsenal.

Is your full time job writing science fiction?