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

[Sabretooth]

Well done, Sabretooth, I made a mistake. Thank you for your kind correction.

Do you feel better now?

all the best

I'll feel better when we see you actually pose facts instead of woo.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Look, let's do this the right way. I have previously indicated that the "energy canard" is a frequent flyer when it comes to discussing the DEW proof of destruction of the WTC.

Here's the way it was put in another thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5739690&postcount=161

Take a look at that claim, if you would please. It is a variation on an oft-repeated claim that it would take more energy than the earth is capable of producing to power the destruction of the WTC, as observed.

Yet, not once has that exceedingly large energy requirement assumption been used to question the capacity of weak gravity to have pulverized 289
combined stories of steel reinforced and concrete skyscraper.

I here assert that the energy issue has not ever been equally applied; accordingly, that issue is being put forward in a fallacious manner.

According to this 2007 released document about DEW's from the Secretary of Defense, DEW's don't exist:

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

So much for your DEW weapon Jammy.

 

[Sabretooth]

Yet, not once has that exceedingly large energy requirement assumption been used to question the capacity of weak gravity to have pulverized289
combined stories of steel reinforced and concrete skyscraper.

Gravity didn't pulverize anything...it was the giant mass of the upper floors assisted by gravity that brought down the buildings.

 

[excaza]

I here assert that the energy issue has not ever been equally applied; accordingly, that issue is being put forward in a fallacious manner.

A fallacious matter? The amount of energy required for Judy Wood's DEW theory debunks DEW on its own. Judy has yet to show that any DEW sufficiently powerful enough to do what she's asserting exists.

Yet, not once has that exceedingly large energy requirement assumption been used to question the capacity of weak gravity to have pulverized 289 combined stories of steel reinforced and concrete skyscraper.

Many times on this forum you have been shown the calculations, but you ignore them.

 

[DGM]

Yet, not once has that exceedingly large energy requirement assumption been used to question the capacity of weak gravity to have pulverized 289
combined stories of steel reinforced and concrete skyscraper.

I here assert that the energy issue has not ever been equally applied; accordingly, that issue is being put forward in a fallacious manner.

Actually it has. Have you ever heard of a report done by Zdenek Bazant?

 

[jammonius]

Actually it has. Have you ever heard of a report done by Zdenek Bazant?

Yes, I have. That report is so lacking in merit that it is rarely mentioned anymore. I am surprised you have done so. Note, in particular, that if DEW requires "more energy than the planet is capable of" (or words to that effect), how on earth could Bazant have attributed so much energy to lowly gravity, the very weakest of the four forces claimed by 20th Century physics?

By the way, where do you stand on plasma physics and its energy characteristics?

 

[Sabretooth]

That report is so lacking in merit that it is rarely mentioned anymore.

As opposed to "no-planes" and "DEW's"?

 

[excaza]

Note, in particular, that if DEW requires "more energy than the planet is capable of" (or words to that effect)

There have never been words to that effect. The DEW theory requires a laser that doesn't exist, and orders of magnitude more powerful than any current or proposed system.

how on earth could Bazant have attributed so much energy to lowly gravity, the very weakest of the four forces claimed by 20th Century physics?

"Weak" is a relative term. The fact that you don't grasp the concept speaks volumes about your understanding of basic physics.

 

[Oystein]

Thanks for the update. Your contact has apparently fallen for the same fallacy that some others have fallen for concerning energy. It is interesting that the question of energy does not ever seem to have been a serious impediment to the belief that a few 1000 gallons (not barrels) of kerosene and the weak force of gravity could annihilate two 110 story buildings, while simultaneously pulverizing another 22 story skyscraper (in most cities) that doesn't even get mentioned in the destruction of the WTC complex (Marriott Hotel), for a grand total 287 stories of pulverized buildings (adding in the 47 from WTC7 that does get honorable mention sometimes).

Two hundred eighty seven (287) stories of building gone, courtesy of a few thousand (few1000) gallons of residual kerosene not burned up in the presumed initial fireballs seen on teevee and described by virtually all witnesses as "an explosion" and almost never as "a plane crash."

That is the proper perspective for the "energy question" where the request is "do the math."

You get it all wrong jammonius.

"a few 1000 gallons (not barrels) of kerosene" contain a few 10¹¹ Joules of energy.
That is 100.000 times more energy than the most advanced DEW of our time can direct at a target.

"the weak force of gravity" forced the builder of the WTC to lift building materials and invest energy, which got stored as Potential energy by mere virtue of buildings having height and mass. Each of the twin towers thus stored, and was able to release in a collapse, about 5 * 10¹¹ Joules of energy.
That, too, is about 100.000 times more energy than the most advanced DEW of our time can direct at a target.
Twice that much for 2 towers (220 stories), and more energy of course for the other buildings (WTC7 for example: 8 * 10¹⁰ J - 50.000 times more energy because of "weak" gravity than the most advance high-energhy DEW can project today)

All buildings contain combustible contents, such as paper, plastics, the of wood furniture etc.. All of these organic materials contain energy in high density. Their total mass far far far exceeds the mass of the jet fuel, and so does their total releasable chemical energy. It is safe to say that normal office contents contained many million times as much energy as the most advanced DEW of our time can direct at a target.

Heck, even the people in the buildings bring more energy to collapse than DEW could possibly do! The average person in the twin towers had about 140.000 J of potential energy on account of his body lifted to his office - 50 of them together would outdo the most advanced DEW of our time merely by their "weak" gravity! But you know there were 2500 of them, most on the highest floors. The people trapped in the collapsing towers had 100 times more potential energy than the most advanced DEW of our time can direct at a target, jammonius!
But I have a gruesome fact for you, jammonius: when you set people aflame with jet fuel, the burn! I would have to do some research (the kind done to figure out how they pulled off Auschwitz), but am fairly certain that the average human releases more energy simply by burning to ashed than the most advanced DEW of our time can unleash on a target!

The math obscures. The observed data provides clarity. So, I'll put it to your contact this way:

Post up the observed data to which the energy and mathematics are to be applied.

In other words: State the assumptions made, rather than have them remain unstated.

Put simply, there is no basis to interpose an obligation to do an energy/math calculation on the DEW proof when no such obligation was applied to kerosene/gravity.

You are a liar, jammonius! The energy/math calculation on kerosene/gravity has been done a long time ago in this very thread, and you must know, because you have replied to it, and I have repeated the results many times. I just did it again.

Please take note: The energy obligation of the kerosene/gravity has been settled already. In fact, years ago. Several peer reviewed engineering papers have shed light on the energy requirements, and answered any question.

The key to the understanding of DEW proof consists in the observed data. Likewise, the key to understanding that kerosene, that wasn't even there, and gravity, that was, had nothing (because kerosene wasn't there) and little (because gravity is too weak), respectively, to do with the destruction of the WTC, lies in the observed data.

You, jammonius, need to understand that gravity alone was able to unleash 100.000 times more energy than the most advances DEW in existence today. You posted up images of their capabilities and capacities! They can - melt a few ounces of steel, and take out tin cans!



And that is why you must understand, jammonius, that this thread is over with.

The math has been done.
Your delusion is 5 orders of magnitudes short of reality.
Like snails racing NY-Boston in 30 minutes
Like 10 soldiers invadiung Japan
Like the olympic champion lifting the weight of tthe WTC core columns
Like seating the entire population of planet earth in one football stadium.

 

[Oystein]

Gravity had a lot to do with what happened.

I take it you don't believe in physics? This is not a smart ass question, I'm serious. Please answer.

This question has been asked (and ignored) before, posed in more jammo-friendly language: Should the issue of WTC destruction and DEW be treated within the framework of physics?

 

[tsig]

OK, since you asked, please consider the following.

Please understand that you can go about the process of asking questions in any number of ways. You have seen how that works in this thread, right? You can be appropriate, inappropriate, smart, dumb, etc. What I will shortly outline for you is a process that should work, given the MIC context.

You will note that I have had a modicum of success in getting lurkers to reply and in getting a few responses from some MIC people. There's no harm in asking and there's no reason to think that they will not talk with you if you are polite, appropriate and cordial.

How you choose to go about this process will likely have a lot to do with the answers you get.

If you have a number of people from which to choose, please consider asking the one(s) who you think are the most self-aware, self-confident, and independent. That said, as Raytheon is an MIC company, they do not really value the attributes heretofore named, so you might have a hard time finding people who work for Raytheon who display them. Still, there are some. You just have to find them.

That said, here's the drill:

Ask them what if anything do they know about the Active Denial System that they would be comfortable talking with you about.

Ask for links to publicly available information about ADS and, in particular, Raytheon's role in its development.

Then ask them if they would be willing to talk with you about that system after you have reviewed the publicly available information.

That's it. That's all I suggest you do for starters. Please let me know the responses received, and I will then suggest next steps to be taken.

If any of this is unclear, or if you disagree with it, are troubled by it, etc., please let me know and I will try to make other suggestions that you might be more comfortable with.

Let's see if I got this right.

Anyone who's not part of the MIC can't have the right answers and anyone who is part of the MIC won't give you the right answers.

 

[Oystein]

No, you are not serious. There is no need, at this juncture, for you to assume that you need to ask me whether I "believe in physics" DGM. Would you please consider lightening up a bit?

This question seriously needs an answer now because...

And, no again, gravity did not have a lot to do with the destruction of the WTC complex. Gravity had next to nothing to do with it.

...you seem to believe that gravity is not a physical phenomenon that can give rise to potential energy far far in excess of what DEW can direct.

 

[DGM]

Yes, I have. That report is so lacking in merit that it is rarely mentioned anymore. I am surprised you have done so. Note, in particular, that if DEW requires "more energy than the planet is capable of" (or words to that effect), how on earth could Bazant have attributed so much energy to lowly gravity, the very weakest of the four forces claimed by 20th Century physics?

By the way, where do you stand on plasma physics and its energy characteristics?

His report is based on events of 9/11 in NYC. The "more energy then on the planet" has to do what DEW advocates claim happened. Specifically that the buildings were "turned to dust" or "vaporized".


As far as "plasma physics and its energy characteristics " goes. I own a plasma cutter and pay the electric bill. Does that count?

 

[beachnut]

Yes, I have. That report is so lacking in merit that it is rarely mentioned anymore. I am surprised you have done so. Note, in particular, that if DEW requires "more energy than the planet is capable of" (or words to that effect), how on earth could Bazant have attributed so much energy to lowly gravity, the very weakest of the four forces claimed by 20th Century physics?

By the way, where do you stand on plasma physics and its energy characteristics?

E=mgh, some physics which show the WTC towers will release over 130 TONS of TNT Kinetic Energy in the collapse due to lowly gravity, a fact which you seem incapable of understanding. Simple physics is no in your tool box.

Got Physics?, no you have moronic insane claims made by Judy.

 

[fess]

Originally Posted by jammonius
That said, here's the drill:

Ask them what if anything do they know about the Active Denial System that they would be comfortable talking with you about.

Just for clarification, are you talking about the same weapon used for crowd control? If so, what the hell does that have to do with bringing down the WTC complex? Especially considering that this weapon wasn’t even a gleam in the eye in 2001.
Instead of asking us to do your leg work for you, why don’t you contact Raytheon on your own? I sure they would be only too happy to explain to you their involvement in DEW weaponry. Be sure to ask them for copies of their engineering documents.
While you are waiting, crawl back into the soothing arms of Judy Woo and rethink your position.

 

[fess]

Well done, Sabretooth, I made a mistake. Thank you for your kind correction.

Do you feel better now?

all the best

Finally, Jammonius has admitted he made a mistake. There may be some hope yet. I really don't believe it, but...

 

[fess]

And, no again, gravity did not have a lot to do with the destruction of the WTC complex. Gravity had next to nothing to do with it.

Then, using your reasoning, the complex should still be standing in all of its glory.

 

[DGM]

Then, using your reasoning, the complex should still be standing in all of its glory.

What you didn't know DEW's push things to the earth?

 

[Oystein]

...Note, in particular, that if DEW requires "more energy than the planet is capable of" (or words to that effect)...

This is not a claim anybody made in this thread. Nor did Mr. Bazant.
The claim was made a while ago in anther thread.

In the context of this thread, and in reply to a post about Mr. Bazant, you have clearly introduced a strawman.

Please drop that obvious and laboriously searched for strawman.

The kinetic energy of the planes, the chemical energy of the fuel, the chemical energy of the office contents, and the potential (gravitational) energy of the towers together were far exceeding 10¹² Joules. All can be shown to be sufficient to explain the destructions of the WTC.

In contrast, the most capable high-energy weapons in the arsenal of the MIC can at most unleash energy on the order of 10⁷ Joules. That is 5 orders of magnitude away from the very conventional energy sources actually known to have been present.

Your DEW-delusion is a snail racing against a business plane. It is 1.000 men taking on Japan. It is a muscle man trying to lift all the steel in the core of the North Tower in one go.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Let's see if I got this right.

Anyone who's not part of the MIC can't have the right answers and anyone who is part of the MIC won't give you the right answers.

Which means that, logically, jammonius is either wrong, or part of the MIC. But wait... if he is part of the MIC, then he wouldn't be giving us these answers, which leaves us with only one option: jammonius is wrong.

His report is based on events of 9/11 in NYC. The "more energy then on the planet" has to do what DEW advocates claim happened. Specifically that the buildings were "turned to dust" or "vaporized".

Yeah... they don't seem to get this. It takes far less energy to break drywall or shatter concrete than it does to "dustify" steel.