Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[sts60]

jammonius brought up multiple claims regarding an alleged directed-energy weapon [DEW] used to vaporize most of WTC 1 and 2, but then balked at actually answering those questions in that thread. So here is a thread just for her:

You claimed that directed-energy weapons are currently deployed in orbit. What is your specific evidence for such a claim?

You claimed that the aftermath at Ground Zero was "consistent with use of DEW". What effects, exactly, are expected from such a weapon? How, specifically, would you distinguish them from the effects of the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires and collapse?

You also claimed that the aftermath at Ground Zero were "not a normal effect of a hydrocarbon fire". Have you any firefighting experience? (I have.) Can you even explain exactly why you described the scene as a "hydrocarbon fire", given the enormous amounts of Class I combustibles present?

In the "Debris Pile" thread, I presented a numerical estimate, with supporting assumptions stated and calculations shown, which clearly demonstrate the infeasibility of your claim that such a weapon could have vaporized most of the Twin Towers. Do you, or do you not, intend to challenge my analysis? Or myriad's? Or R. Mackey's?

And, finally, the simplest and most fundamental question of all:

Exactly what kind of directed-energy weapon do you propose was used?

 

[RedIbis]

A call-out thread on DEW should be illegal. Talk about cherry picking.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

A call-out thread on DEW should be illegal. Talk about cherry picking.

Jammonius invited people to start a separate thread if they wanted to discuss his DEW claims. sts60 accepted the invitation.

And what do you mean, "cherry picking"

 

[~enigma~]

A call-out thread on DEW should be illegal. Talk about cherry picking.

Want to show me what exactly the cherry picked quote in the OP is otherwise please restate your accusation and/or give another reason.

 

[RedIbis]

Jammonius invited people to start a separate thread if they wanted to discuss his DEW claims. sts60 accepted the invitation.

And what do you mean, "cherry picking"

Fair enough. I didn't see the thread. I don't mean cherry picking as far as picking a selective quote to prove a point, just in a more casual sense that forcing a debate on DEW is easy pickens, an easy argument to knock down.

 

[twinstead]

So perhaps it's a strawthread?

ETA: well, not a strawthread because the person in question actually believes this DEW stuff...easy pickin's it is.

 

[~enigma~]

Fair enough. I didn't see the thread. I don't mean cherry picking as far as picking a selective quote to prove a point, just in a more casual sense that forcing a debate on DEW is easy pickens, an easy argument to knock down.

So it isn't a valid theory of the bowel movement?

 

[RedIbis]

So perhaps it's a strawthread?

Not exactly because I don't think the theory is being misrepresented.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Fair enough. I didn't see the thread. I don't mean cherry picking as far as picking a selective quote to prove a point, just in a more casual sense that forcing a debate on DEW is easy pickens, an easy argument to knock down.

It may or may not be an easy argument to knock down. Depends on the evidence presented.

If, as I suspect, no real evidence for jammonius' DEW theory is presented, then the natural question to ask him is "How did you come to the conclusion that it was DEW if you don't have good evidence".

Really, Red, go read the other thread and decide if you want to come down on the jammonius side of that argument. I predict you'll steer clear. In fact, I doubt I'll even participate in this thread unless some real DEW evidence is presented.

 

[RedIbis]

So it isn't a valid theory of the bowel movement?

Way to bring some class into the discussion.

 

[RedIbis]

It may or may not be an easy argument to knock down. Depends on the evidence presented.

If, as I suspect, no real evidence for jammonius' DEW theory is presented, then the natural question to ask him is "How did you come to the conclusion that it was DEW if you don't have good evidence".

Really, Red, go read the other thread and decide if you want to come down on the jammonius side of that argument. I predict you'll steer clear. In fact, I doubt I'll even participate in this thread unless some real DEW evidence is presented.

I did read the thread. You're correct, I do steer clear of a DEW hypothesis, which I think is a more precise word since a theory already has some evidence for it.

 

[BenBurch]

jammonius says she won't show anyway.

 

[~enigma~]

Way to bring some class into the discussion.

Didn't know it was my job to bring class into a discussion of the most vile subhuman cretins on the planet.

 

[BenBurch]

I did read the thread. You're correct, I do steer clear of a DEW hypothesis, which I think is a more precise word since a theory already has some evidence for it.

Good call.

 

[BenBurch]

Didn't know it was my job to bring class into a discussion of the most vile subhuman cretins on the planet.

SECOND most vile.

Holocaust Deniers are first.

 

[~enigma~]

SECOND most vile.

Holocaust Deniers are first.

There is a distinct overlap...

 

[DGM]

jammonius says she won't show anyway.

I don't think jammonius is Dr. Wood. theauther said his name once and claims he's an associate of hers. (it was in response to hot linking)

 

[OldTigerCub]

A call-out thread on DEW should be illegal. Talk about cherry picking.

Translation: "How dare you challenge someone to back up their claims with facts?"

 

[Alferd_Packer]

OK, back to the subject.

On DEW. What form of energy are we talking about? What wavelength?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

2) How does a DEW affect matter?