Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D, Materials Science, 9/11, & Directed Energy Weapons

[jammonius]

When will the RHETORIC cease?

Djlunacee,

While you are not a rookie and you almost certainly know that I do not go off on stupid "wild goose' chases of answering dumb questions that are posed as a substitute for the making and the supporting of claims of posters who could make claims but who, lazily and ineptly, do not do so.

Occassionally I will take a rhetorical post and examine it in order to reconfirm why I do not play rhetorical games. Your recent post will serve as a vehicle for yet another demonstration of why I do not play stupid rhetorical games with posters.

You say:

Direct questions for Jammonious, or any other supporter of the DEW theory:

What was the deployment method of the energy beam? What is the range of a weapon this grand? Where was it fired from? Was this weapon used on the Pentagon as well?

Your questions are stupid because you are seeking to impose a number of assumption in on us without proving them. Chief among the assumptions you are seeking to impose is that your questions have something to do with proving that DEW destroyed the WTC. I do not abide in the acceptance of untested assumptions. Please stop fooling yourself and those who wish to be fooled. You have not got any right to pose questions that rely on unproven assumptions, Djlunacee, could you but realize it.

On the otherhand, you are perfectly free and at liberty to make claims. You could say, but you have not said, as follows:

I, Djlunacee here claim that the deployment method of the energy beam used on 9/11... FOLLOWED BY WHATEVER YOUR CLAIM IS

I, Djlunacee here claim that the range of a weapon this grand...FOLLOWED BY WHATEVER YOUR CLAIM IS

I, Djlunacee claim it fired from...FOLLOWED BY WHATEVER YOUR CLAIM IS

I, Djlunacee claim it was/wasn't used on the Pentagon as well...FOLLOWED BY WHATEVER YOUR CLAIM IS

Do you grasp that if you have a claim, make it. If you have questions that you think extend or limit, further or retard, make or break a claim that I am making, then answer your own questions and post up what you have come up with.

This is really all quite simple isn't it? Some posters want me to answer questions so they can say my answers are wrong. Why anyone, anyone at all would think for a minute I would ever, under any circumstance, give another poster the ability to use the process of questioning against me is beyond me.

I do not play that game and I do not put other posters in that position, either.

Cut the crap. I do not play stupid gotcha games.

Ever

 

[beachnut]

Judy's beam weapon is the flypaper to catch the anti-intellectuals in the 911 truth movement who are the most gullible and knowledge free.

Right up there with nukes as the dumbest delusion on 911.

Let me check to see what we have caught this time; oops, Plymouth wheel-covers and other moronic insanity.

 

[jammonius]

OK Beachnut,

We grasp that you want to continue the discussion of Flight 93 and the proof that no jetliner crashed at that site. We also get that you still want to contest or make claims arising from the handful of photos showing things being dug up from rural PA, in or near a landfill, that look to be consistent with junk one would expect to find in that area. You appear to take exception to junk found in rural PA looking like common wheel covers. Instead, you want to claim common junk found in rural PA looks like a Boeing 757 to you. Fine, go for it.

The claim that Plymouth wheel covers is what was found there was supported in the thread dealing with that topic. It sounds like you want to revisit the claim. If so, post there and I will respond. As the record stands at present, I am very satisfied that the ineptitude and unpersuasive nature of the Moussaoui trial exhibits, used as a source of proof of what happened on 9/11, is well documented. This would include the claim that a photo of a piece of junk that looks like a wheel cover is a part of a Boeing 757. The common storyline of 9/11 relies on the public's gullibility. It is too bad you have dedicated so much energy to fooling yourself and those who wish to be fooled.

It sounds like you may want to be reminded of just how weak use of Moussaoui as your source of proof of what happened on 9/11 really is. If so, post in the proper thread.

Do better

 

[SanityGap]

I asked him the same question in another thread, he dodged....I really don't expect any answers....

Looks like the MDC cheque is heading your way...

Just another word salad handwaving.

Jammy, why did no one notice this huge piece of weaponry being launched?

 

[AaronMic22]

Looks like the MDC cheque is heading your way...

Just another word salad handwaving.

Jammy, why did no one notice this huge piece of weaponry being launched?

You remember that space station we're building?

 

[SanityGap]

I do not go off on stupid "wild goose' chases of answering dumb questions that are posed as a substitute for the making and the supporting of claims of posters who could make claims but who, lazily and ineptly, do not do so.


Ever

So let me get this straight. You assert some wild idea as a fact, then when some one has the audacity to question it, you then decide that you require claims Remember, it's your claim.
I really want to know all about this DEW and how it got there. If you cannot then it is a figment of your imagination.
The way you are suggesting it be debated I now claim Mothra did it and await your counter(wild)claim.

 

[SanityGap]

You remember that space station we're building?

Oh crap.

 

[T.A.M.]

So let me get this straight. You assert some wild idea as a fact, then when some one has the audacity to question it, you then decide that you require claims Remember, it's your claim.
I really want to know all about this DEW and how it got there. If you cannot then it is a figment of your imagination.
The way you are suggesting it be debated I now claim Mothra did it and await your counter(wild)claim.

Mothra could not have done it, as I ate her for breakfast the morning of September 10th, 2001

Sorry.

TAM

 

[djlunacee]

Djlunacee,

While you are not a rookie and you almost certainly know that I do not go off on stupid "wild goose' chases of answering dumb questions that are posed as a substitute for the making and the supporting of claims of posters who could make claims but who, lazily and ineptly, do not do so.

Occassionally I will take a rhetorical post and examine it in order to reconfirm why I do not play rhetorical games. Your recent post will serve as a vehicle for yet another demonstration of why I do not play stupid rhetorical games with posters.

You say:

Direct questions for Jammonious, or any other supporter of the DEW theory:

What was the deployment method of the energy beam? What is the range of a weapon this grand? Where was it fired from? Was this weapon used on the Pentagon as well?

Your questions are stupid because you are seeking to impose a number of assumption in on us without proving them. Chief among the assumptions you are seeking to impose is that your questions have something to do with proving that DEW destroyed the WTC. I do not abide in the acceptance of untested assumptions. Please stop fooling yourself and those who wish to be fooled. You have not got any right to pose questions that rely on unproven assumptions, Djlunacee, could you but realize it.

On the otherhand, you are perfectly free and at liberty to make claims. You could say, but you have not said, as follows:

I, Djlunacee here claim that the deployment method of the energy beam used on 9/11... FOLLOWED BY WHATEVER YOUR CLAIM IS

I, Djlunacee here claim that the range of a weapon this grand...FOLLOWED BY WHATEVER YOUR CLAIM IS

I, Djlunacee claim it fired from...FOLLOWED BY WHATEVER YOUR CLAIM IS

I, Djlunacee claim it was/wasn't used on the Pentagon as well...FOLLOWED BY WHATEVER YOUR CLAIM IS

Do you grasp that if you have a claim, make it. If you have questions that you think extend or limit, further or retard, make or break a claim that I am making, then answer your own questions and post up what you have come up with.

This is really all quite simple isn't it? Some posters want me to answer questions so they can say my answers are wrong. Why anyone, anyone at all would think for a minute I would ever, under any circumstance, give another poster the ability to use the process of questioning against me is beyond me.

I do not play that game and I do not put other posters in that position, either.

Cut the crap. I do not play stupid gotcha games.

Ever

Readers, here is the prime example. Jammonious, these are questions you need to answer in support of your claim, not me. They are direct questions in which the answers need to be met by you. You are not fooling anyone Jammonious, not for a single second.

I do applaud you for trying to shift the burden of proof, but alas your aversion to questions is noted, and filed. You call it a game, you may be right, unfortunately for you it is a game you can not win until you or any other no-planer answers these simple questions.

See, I know why you refuse to answer the questions put forth. The answers that flow across your computer screen and on to this forum would lead to more questions, and those to more. Do you really expect me to take your theory at face value without JAQing off? If so, I give you to much credit.

Once again thank you for confirming all of my previous statements, and showing once again your cowardice to engage in real conversation.

 

[beachnut]

I find it is logical for someone who can look at a jet engine parts and claims they are Plymouth wheel-covers (including the year) to be a prime candidate to grasp Judy's moronic insanity of a Beam weapon and claim it is the weapon which destroyed, dustified, the WTC towers.

How do you rank the various nut case ideas on what destroyed the WTC towers? Is DEW dumber than Nukes, or the same?

 

[Sabretooth]

Jammers -

I CLAIM that Boeing 767's, heavily laden with jet fuel, crashed into the twin towers of WTC on 9/11/01. They jet fuel ignited uncontrollable and unfightable fires that weakened the steel supports of the buildings. Once the fires caused enough failure in the structure, the towers collapsed which ultimately killed nearly 3000 innocent people, fireman, policeman, and passengers.

MY PROOF lies within the documented records, eye-witnesses, ear-witnesses, flight records, radar data, seismic records, and general physics.

I CONTEND that your theory of no-planes and the existance of large scale DEW's has no merit.

MY PROOF lies within the lack of any documented physical capability to produce such a DEW.

I ASK, politely, that you explain how you have come to the conclusion that a DEW was used on 9/11/01...one that could produce the energy necessary to completely destroy two large buildings...one that, to date, has never been known to exist.

 

[SanityGap]

Mothra could not have done it, as I ate her for breakfast the morning of September 10th, 2001

Sorry.

TAM

Not the ending she would have wished for.

 

[X]

Readers, here is the prime example. Jammonious, these are questions you need to answer in support of your claim, not me. They are direct questions in which the answers need to be met by you. You are not fooling anyone Jammonious, not for a single second.

I do applaud you for trying to shift the burden of proof, but alas your aversion to questions is noted, and filed. You call it a game, you may be right, unfortunately for you it is a game you can not win until you or any other no-planer answers these simple questions.

See, I know why you refuse to answer the questions put forth. The answers that flow across your computer screen and on to this forum would lead to more questions, and those to more. Do you really expect me to take your theory at face value without JAQing off? If so, I give you to much credit.

Once again thank you for confirming all of my previous statements, and showing once again your cowardice to engage in real conversation.

Asking Jammonius to support his claims is "seeking to impose a number of assumptions [...] without proving them"?

Wow. Just... wow.

 

[djlunacee]

I find it is logical for someone who can look at a jet engine parts and claims they are Plymouth wheel-covers (including the year) to be a prime candidate to grasp Judy's moronic insanity of a Beam weapon and claim it is the weapon which destroyed, dustified, the WTC towers.

How do you rank the various nut case ideas on what destroyed the WTC towers? Is DEW dumber than Nukes, or the same?

Depends on the lunatic weaving his tale.....

 

[djlunacee]

Asking Jammonius to support his claims is "seeking to impose a number of assumptions [...] without proving them"?

Wow. Just... wow.

I know it is a fruitless task, call me a glutton for punishment.

 

[jammonius]

Readers, here is the prime example. Jammonious, these are questions you need to answer in support of your claim, not me.

Earth to Djulnacee. You have no standing to tell me how I wish to prove my claims. I take responsibility for the claims I make and for the manner in which I go about proving them. If you disagree with my claims, say so, say why, say how, say something. And, above all else, answer your own questions.

They are direct questions in which the answers need to be met by you.

Your quoted statement is absurd on its face. You haven't got any standing to say what answers are needed for a claim I might make. Instead, you could make a claim yourself if you've got a claim to make. You could attempt to refute claims I have made, but you do not do so. That is why my claims stand as unrefuted. You do not refute. Questions are not refutation. Questions, as you pose them, are rhetorical. You are seeking a cheap substitution for the rigors of refutation.

I will not ever let you get away that trickery. Not now, not ever.

You are not fooling anyone Jammonious, not for a single second.

You, on the other hand, do fool people, including yourself, with rhetorical tricks. Stop it.

I do applaud you for trying to shift the burden of proof, but alas your aversion to questions is noted, and filed. You call it a game, you may be right, unfortunately for you it is a game you can not win until you or any other no-planer answers these simple questions.

In the above may the signs, ever so slight they may be, of dawning recognition. Good luck in making further progress towards proper dialogue. Hint: Don't ask questions, make claims that refute.

See, I know why you refuse to answer the questions put forth. The answers that flow across your computer screen and on to this forum would lead to more questions, and those to more.

Never ending, never satisfactory and that is precisely why rhetorical questioning is a 'gotcha game' that adds nothing of substance to the dialogue.

I knew you were getting close to a point of recognition.

That you could post the above, on the one hand, and still express exasperation that I do not play such games, on the other, stands, then, as a bit of a contradiction. Deal with it.

Do you really expect me to take your theory at face value without JAQing off? If so, I give you to much credit.

Once again thank you for confirming all of my previous statements, and showing once again your cowardice to engage in real conversation.

Your ending rhetorical flourish is a bit silly when considered in light of the dawning recognition that preceded it.

Ok, you asked for it:

Do better

 

[jammonius]

Jammers -

I CLAIM that Boeing 767's, heavily laden with jet fuel, crashed into the twin towers of WTC on 9/11/01.

Your theory is a bit weak. For starters, you have used generalization, coupled with non-specific quantification. Can you consider doing better and posting up a more specific claim?

They jet fuel ignited uncontrollable and unfightable fires that weakened the steel supports of the buildings.

Boy, the above contradicts what little investigation was conducted on the matter. Permit me to suggest you at least review the NIST NCSTAR 1 report in order to get a better handle on the basic facts concerning observed data at the Twin Towers in the interlude between the pyrotechnical display and the utter annihilation of the buildings. You can google NIST NCSTAR 1. Or, you can take a look a prior threads in this forum where the issue of destruction of the Twin Towers by DEW has been proven.

Once the fires caused enough failure in the structure, the towers collapsed which ultimately killed nearly 3000 innocent people, fireman, policeman, and passengers.

The above doesn't even sound like a proper finding; and, instead, sounds like (and is) pure propaganda, worthy of a psyop and a victim of a psyop. I wish you a speedy recovery, where the time marker is from this post forward. Wake up!

MY PROOF lies within the documented records, eye-witnesses, ear-witnesses, flight records, radar data, seismic records, and general physics.

I'm glad you know where your proof lies. (pun intended) I hope you will find it within yourself to post up your proofs. If you rely on dumb debunker websites as your sources, you are going to be in for a rude awakening with respect to each and every post you might make as I will refute those claims handily. Debunker websites are utterly unconvincing and universally poorly constructed.

I CONTEND that your theory of no-planes and the existance of large scale DEW's has no merit.

Your contention is so noted. Please post up your specific rebuttal and I will gladly engage with you, post for post, as and when I can.

MY PROOF lies within the lack of any documented physical capability to produce such a DEW.

The above claim is not supportable. For starters, the DEW claim starts with the observed destructive interlude. As you may know, that destructive interlude has never been analyzed with published findings, submitted to the proper governmental authorities, by anyone at all, other than by Dr. Judy Wood.

You cannot prove the lack of physical capability to produce such a DEW on the one hand in light of the actual destruction that was documented on the other. Your claim puts you in a distinctly disadvantaged position. Were I you, I'd rethink the nature of the claim you seek to make and the manner in which you intend to prove it.

Good luck.

I ASK, politely, that you explain how you have come to the conclusion that a DEW was used on 9/11/01...

I answer politely that this has been done six ways to Sunday. It is no secret that I have asserted, posted, linked and stated that Dr. Judy Wood has proven that DEW destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11 and I have shown where the proof is to be found, namely, the NIST website.

one that could produce the energy necessary to completely destroy two large buildings...one that, to date, has never been known to exist.

You are making an illogical assertion. Two large buildings WERE completely destroyed, each in a matter of approximately 11 seconds, plus or minus a few seconds, depending upon how one looks at the observed data. Because the buildings were thusly destroyed, it follows the energy to destroy them existed in conjunction with the weaponry used.

The most likely explanation as to why people tend to become confused about the energy issue, and then emotionally caught up in the conundrum of their own making, is that people simply do not wish to acknowledge DEW destroyed the WTC.

 

[leftysergeant]

The most likely explanation as to why people to become confused about the energy issue is that people simply do not wish to acknowledge DEW destroyed the WTC.

No. It is because the only person of any stature who says that there is evidence of DEW is a crazy old bat whose expertise is in another field.

There just isn't any evidence to make DEW more likely than two kamikaze strikes and a fire with resultant thermal creep of steel structures.

The supposed "evidence" that the psychopath thinks shows something wioerd going on looks utterly normal, to anyone with fire fighting experience. (Or good sense, really.)

(Yeah, someone who enjoyed walking into five thousand gallons of burning jet fuel with a charged foam line just for drill is lecturing you about common sense.)

 

[ElMondoHummus]

*Sigh*

This link was mentioned only a single page ago, and it still seems to have made zero impact. Guess it's time to quote this post and quote it again as often as necessary to get the point across.

Anyway -- seems we're still thinking about those pesky beam weapons...

... 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.

Until any and all of the points are either accounted for (unlikely) or openly refuted (yeah, right, good luck!), then there's nothing to discuss, beam weapons use on the Twin Towers is a complete fantasy. Dodging or handwaving any of those points away is insufficient. They must be addressed. To date (and that means "for the past 4 years"), no one has come even close.

 

[triforcharity]

This link was mentioned only a single page ago, and it still seems to have made zero impact. Guess it's time to quote this post and quote it again as often as necessary to get the point across.

​

Until any and all of the points are either accounted for (unlikely) or openly refuted (yeah, right, good luck!), then there's nothing to discuss, beam weapons use on the Twin Towers is a complete fantasy. Dodging or handwaving any of those points away is insufficient. They must be addressed. To date (and that means "for the past 4 years"), no one has come even close.

Oh damn, that is quite the smackdown of Judy Woods!! Thanks for sharing that.