BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
See my post in the other thread about atmospheric windows where I consider RF weapons. Ruled out by the survival of the many electronic cameras looking at the event.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Directed-energy weapons and the WTC
- Thread starter sts60
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dew judy wood space beams
See my post in the other thread about atmospheric windows where I consider RF weapons. Ruled out by the survival of the many electronic cameras looking at the event.
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
So, you have no doubts whatsoever that her analysis is wrong? Does the fact that you have been presented with a raft of evidence that not only do these DEWs not exist, they can't exist.
You're obviously smart. So why do these analyses not give you pause for thought? Now, I know you're read them. I know you've understood them, at least the basics. And I know you're rejected them out of hand.
What are your reasons for doing so? You must have rationalised these facts in line with your (or Dr. Woods'?) opinions - so let's hear that rationalisation.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Yes, since high-power weapons depend on high directability and high energy density, they must necessarily use light wavelengths. Not necessarily in the visible spectrum, but ... light, which means lasers.
Also, longer wavelenghts (micowaves), would cause heating, localized in conductive substances, which is not what was observed, whereas shorter wavelengths would be ionizing radiation, which would cause residual radioactivity, which was also not observed.
Unfortunately, for the DEW hypothesis, laser beams, even if outside the visible spectrum, will cause visible phenomenon at high energy levels, which ws ALSO not observed.
Hans
Hans
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Hans,
One nit to pick, X and gamma rays do not induce radiation. Neutrons or Protons as cosmic rays can, but those are very different; X and gamma are just photons.
One nit to pick, X and gamma rays do not induce radiation. Neutrons or Protons as cosmic rays can, but those are very different; X and gamma are just photons.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
jammonius, you brought the claims up here; presumably that means you understand Dr. Wood's claims. What type of directed-energy weapon is claimed to have vaporized the Twin Towers?
If you understand her claims, but she cannot specify what type of weapon she thinks was used, then the claim is too vague to merit further discussion.
If she specifies what type of weapon was used, but you do not understand her claims well enough to tell us, there you are not yet equipped to engage in productive discussion - however...
If you would like to learn about the topic, there a number of posters with relevant physics and engineering backgrounds who have already presented a significant amount of information, and can teach you more about the topic. Are you willing to learn?
By the way, the last course would require you to abandon your earlier claim that "no one who posts here should be deemed to know any more or any less than anyone else." Because, clearly, several people here do know more about the topic. Do you, or do you not, abandon your appeal to equivalent knowledge? If so, kindly state your relevant credentials, as have several other posters (including myself).
Three separate posters (R. Mackey, myriad, and myself ) have already addressed energy/power and other operational aspects quantitatively. Each of the three analyses demonstrates the infeasibility of the DEW/WTC claim. Do you have any specific objections to these analyses?
Jammonius, you stated in the "debris pile" thread:-
Please can you explain why you think a different DEW was used to destroy WTC7?
BV
Please can you explain why you think a different DEW was used to destroy WTC7?
BV
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
I dunno, more than three or four Dews in an afternoon and I get all jittery.
And I have to go to the bathroom all the time, too.
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
Of course it was a DEW!
There is ample evidence that the Towers and WTC7 were destroyed by a diffuse, ambient, radially aligned gravity beam, directed upward from the center of the earth.
So devastating is this weapon that physicists have concluded that no shielding is possible. Instead, every structure we build anywhere within a few miles of earth's surface must be equipped with gravity countermeasures to supply the necessary gravity-canceling force vectors or else suffer immediate destruction.
This was clearly demonstrated on 9/11, when extensive damage to the gravity countermeasures in three large buildings led to their total loss.
So far, all attempts to send expeditionary forces to the earth's core to neutralize this threat at the source have failed. (Also, though there are many ongoing and very expensive efforts to reduce the threat by removing some of the higher-gravity substances, such as gold and uranium, from the interior of the earth, their effect on the gravity beam has so far been negligible.) So instead, engineers are learning what they can from the disaster about how to improve the gravity countermeasures in existing and future buildings.
Respectfully,
Myriad
There is ample evidence that the Towers and WTC7 were destroyed by a diffuse, ambient, radially aligned gravity beam, directed upward from the center of the earth.
So devastating is this weapon that physicists have concluded that no shielding is possible. Instead, every structure we build anywhere within a few miles of earth's surface must be equipped with gravity countermeasures to supply the necessary gravity-canceling force vectors or else suffer immediate destruction.
This was clearly demonstrated on 9/11, when extensive damage to the gravity countermeasures in three large buildings led to their total loss.
So far, all attempts to send expeditionary forces to the earth's core to neutralize this threat at the source have failed. (Also, though there are many ongoing and very expensive efforts to reduce the threat by removing some of the higher-gravity substances, such as gold and uranium, from the interior of the earth, their effect on the gravity beam has so far been negligible.) So instead, engineers are learning what they can from the disaster about how to improve the gravity countermeasures in existing and future buildings.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
sts,
You know, on a certain level, your and my viewpoint on DEW might not be that different. In this thread, however, I am not going to take on the burden of proving anything. I consider that a thankless task.
However, there's an equally valid way for those participating here to become knowledgable about DEW, their possibilities, limitations, likelihood of having been used on 9/11 and so on.
Frankly, now that you know that people like BenBurch have engineering/physics backgrounds, why don't you pose your questions to them?
My suggestion is that we just continue doing what we're doing. In fact, I have a question.
Are there any publicly available information sources that describe in at least some detail the lethality effects of the various gradations of DEW?
Now, I think at this point I'd like to mention that I have encountere what might or might not be disinformation in connection with DEW. My working assumption is that the overall thrust of disinformation in the realm of DEW is toward understating both their lethality and their current state of development.
However, one can sometimes have the impression that DEW literature does the opposite; namely, overstate the state of the art of DEW development.
Would anyone be willing to discuss this issue?
Last edited:
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
By "disinformation", I assume you mean information known to be false but presented as true by those involved in the conspiracy in order to act as a cover-up?
Do you, perchance, have any evidence that the maths, physics and engineering tracts which show DEWs of the magnitudes your theory requires are, indeed, "disinformation"? It strikes me that to ake this case, you need to make a positive case to the contrary.
Neither you, nor Dr. Wood, has done so yet, as far as I can see. Which is why we keep asking you the questions you urgently need to answer; namely: what was this weapon, how much energy did it produce, and how did it work? In other words, what underpins this "working assumption"? What ever gives you the impression that there is the understatement you describe? Do you have positive evidence of a DEW more lethal than the maths and physics in this thread suggest is possible?
Only by answering those can we begin to have even the nebulous type of conversation you've requested.
Last edited:
Thank you for your post Myriad. You know, in some ways what you posted does bear some resemblance to an actual description given by one of the First Responders who was actually there and who witnessed the event of destruction. Here's what EMS Karin Deshore had to say:
"My last recollection was of them going towards the building. I asked at that time -- everybody else was with me still and I kept pushing them back and back and back, because I said what is this, a subway at the end of the overpass, because there is fire coming out of the ground. I didn't realize that that was a car already on fire over there."
…
" I had no clue what was going on. I never turned around because a sound came from somewhere that I never heard before. Some people compared it with an airplane. It was the worst sound of a rolling sound, not a thunder. I can't explain it, what it was. All I know is -- and a force started to come hit me in my back. I can't explain it. You had to be there. All I know is I had to run because I thought there was an explosion.
I ran about 10, 12 feet up this little grassy hill and by then this force and this sound caught up with me already. I threw myself behind the last support column of the pedestrian overpass. It became pitch dark. The sound got worse, the force just kept passing me. At times I thought it was like an orange light maybe, coming past me.
I was unaware what was happening. I thought it was just a major explosion. I didn't know the building was collapsing. I was sitting with my left side towards the support beam, total darkness, total noise. I felt beyond
alone. I felt desolated. I felt like, all I could say was people think about their families and whatever. All I kept saying to myself within me I don't want to die, I don't want to die, I don't want to die.
I can't tell you how long it was before it died down. I just felt like the darkness the loneliness and being alone was the worst thing I ever experienced in my life and not being able to breathe. There was no air.
Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met
I assert that the effects described by EMS Deshore provide a basis for the claim that DEW or some form of exotic weaponry was involved. I further assert that descriptions of the effects that those present experienced consititute a rich source of information that will help pin down what destroyed the WTC.
For those interested, I've said several times that the 503 Task Force Witness Statements are a vital source of clues and of information that will enable America and the world to figure out that DEW destroyed the WTC.
EMS Deshore is only one of many witnesses who described events that are inconsistent with any other destructive mechanism except DEW, in my opinion.
Deshore's statement is worthy of close scrutiny and analysis, in my opinion.
Last edited:
The destructive effects differed somewhat, but not by that big a factor or margin. As you look closely at the remnant pile of debris for WTC 7 you do see that there was a remarkable degree of pulverization of the buildings innards, but the shell of the building -- exterior walls -- were not destroyed to nearly the same extent as was the case in WTC 1,2.
Of course another obvious difference is that WTC 7 appeared to be destroyed bottom up, not top down like WTC 1,2.
So, basically, by virtue of their having been some differences in the destructive effects seen, I hypothesize a different weapon.
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
Take a step back - your theories are ludicrous. Seriously, listen to yourself - you're actually claiming, with a straight face, that two skyscrapers which were hit by fully-laden jetliners and burned for hours, collapsed not because of these impacts and the subsequent damage, but because of some magic, unidentified death ray from space.
A death ray. From space.
You're living in cloud-cuckoo land, Jammonius. Your theories are laughable. They are ridiculous. Were they to be dreamed up by Hollywood, audiences would think them too absurd for words. You're clearly not stupid. You clearly have some grasp of reality. Just think about what you're really arguing for a microsecond.
A death ray. From space. A death ray that requires more power than all the nuclear power stations on earth. A death ray that is silent, invisible and undetectable. In fact, given the physics of orbit, TWO death rays, both funded by some invisible budget, designed, assembled, launched and fired by teams of hundreds of people who have thus far remained silent. Two death rays, in space, put into orbit by invisible black-ops rocket teams.
It's stupid. From beginning to end. We can talk about "DEWs" and energy potentials and dustification all day long, but the fact remains that the very premise of your "argument", such that it is, is that death rays from space destroyed the WTC complex. Which is just a monstrously infantile idea.
A death ray. From space.
You're living in cloud-cuckoo land, Jammonius. Your theories are laughable. They are ridiculous. Were they to be dreamed up by Hollywood, audiences would think them too absurd for words. You're clearly not stupid. You clearly have some grasp of reality. Just think about what you're really arguing for a microsecond.
A death ray. From space. A death ray that requires more power than all the nuclear power stations on earth. A death ray that is silent, invisible and undetectable. In fact, given the physics of orbit, TWO death rays, both funded by some invisible budget, designed, assembled, launched and fired by teams of hundreds of people who have thus far remained silent. Two death rays, in space, put into orbit by invisible black-ops rocket teams.
It's stupid. From beginning to end. We can talk about "DEWs" and energy potentials and dustification all day long, but the fact remains that the very premise of your "argument", such that it is, is that death rays from space destroyed the WTC complex. Which is just a monstrously infantile idea.
Last edited:
Those aren't the only clues. Notice that EMS Deshore said she "...didn't know the building was collapsing..." which attests to the fact that this was not a gravity driven event. Indeed, the destructive interval was too fast for mere gravity as the time was about the same as would be required for an object to hit ground from the height of the Twin Towers -- 1360+/- ft -- IF dropped in a vacuum. Here, you not only did not have a vacuum, you had the entire structure to contend with that, in effect, put up no resistance whatsoever.
Do posters acknowledge that the Twin Towers were destroyed in approximately 10 seconds each? Do posters agree that the time required for an object to hit ground from a height of 1360ft would be over 9 seconds, if dropped in a vacuum?
The fact EMS Deshore did not know the building was being destroyed also attests to the assertion that the building was being pulverized in midair, with literally the steel/concrete/rebar/you name it being instantaneously (or nearly so) turned to dust. It made no noise consistent with a huge, steel on steel, concrete on concrete crash, tumble, collapse. That was totally lacking.
Other witnesses described the event as being QUIET. See statement of Zachary Goldfarb
See: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met
Last edited:
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 844
How exactly does that attest to gravity not being a factor? I always took that to mean that with all the crashing and the dust and the confusion, she was saying that at the time, she didn't know what was going on.
The towers did not fall unrealistically fast. This has been debunked more times than I care to count.
That is one possible interpretation; and, the assertion that she didn't hear anything because the building was being all but instantaneously pulverized is another possible interpretation -- and it is the one that I assert comports more accurately with the reality. You can disagree, I don't question that one bit.
This certainly is not one of them.
Moreover, I tend to shy away from self-proclamations about who has debunked whom. I note a very, very high correlation as between the identity of the person making the declaration that such and such is debunked and what postion that declaring person opposes in the first place.
Has that not been your experience?
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Stop lying to people.