Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[jammonius]

Well, I think they CAN exist to the extent of a boost-phase missile killer.

But a BIRD impact can kill a boost-phase missile, so the energy imparted to target is nowhere near what you would need to blast a building from orbit.

And if you will see the posting I made in the other thread about atmospheric windows, you will see that there are significant issues with doing that from orbit EVEN if you could make a laser with that kind of output.

You might want to search "high energy laser (hel) giga" and, based on the results, you'll be able to conduct a more refined search, based on your intuition and what strikes you as important.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Andrew Johnson collaborates with Judy Wood. His website is Checktheevidence.com

You can see from his style that it is him.

Thanks. I'll take a look.

 

[jammonius]

Statement of equivalent authority. Kindly support this claim by citing your relevant credentials. (I have an undergraduate degree in physics, a master's degrees in electrical engineering and another in system engineering, and over a decade and a half as a professional aerospace engineer working on civil, military, and commercial space projects.)

Everyone here knows (or should know) that DEWs exist. That is not the question. The question is whether such a weapon could have destroyed the WTC buildings.


Straw man. What DEW systems are deployed in Earth orbit? Exactly what is your evidence for this claim?


But they are capable of neatly vaporizing skyscrapers, without any sign of their existence or operation? What exactly is your definition of "impracticable"?

and the US military is resisting their use...]
Factually incorrect. The military is actively funding and developing microwave weapons for crowd control (the "pain ray", already tested) and for damaging or disabling enemy systems. They are also actively funding and developing laser weapons for anti-missile and anti-aircraft use (like the already-demonstrated THEL) as well as airborne weapons like the Advanced Tactical Laser, and, of course, the Airborne Laser system you frequently reference.

Only electromagnetic instruments. Particle beams do not travel at the speed of light.

Exactly what type of weapon do you claim did this?
Exactly what is your evidence for its existence?

I have already demonstrated the energy required to vaporize even one percent of one of the towers was more than five orders of magnitude greater than the energy deliverable by the ABL you are so fond of displaying as support for your claim. The theoretical beam power necessary is comparable to the combined output of every nuclear power plant on Earth. What is your evidence for the existence of such a weapon? Exactly what type of beam did it generate? Where do you assert it was operated?

You have yet to answer any of the questions that have been posed to you in response to your claim, including myriad's analysis of the energy required. Or R. Mackey's analysis of the system needed to deliver the same energy as imparted by the impacting aircraft. Three quantitative analyses, and a host of specific questions specifically on this topic, have been presented to you. Start by answering them.

sts

I mean no disrespect, but what part of "NO" I am not going to play 20 questions with you" do you fail to grasp?

I have not got any obligation to answer your or anyone else's questions. You've got your degrees, so put the darn things to use and do your own research. If you want to make certain "power requirement" assumptions and take that route, do so.

This is a collaborative approach as far as I am concerned, but that doesn't mean you won't find others who'll take on the role you've got designated for them. But as for me, no, I respectfully decline to do that.

Look, it's old hat. Everyone knows Dr. Judy Wood asserts DEW destroyed the WTC. That issue has been debated in several forums and I've participated in a few myself. It always ends up the same way, with name-calling as the predominant outcome. Why bother?

Please consider joining me in a different approach this time.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Statement of equivalent authority. Kindly support this claim by citing your relevant credentials. (I have an undergraduate degree in physics, a master's degrees in electrical engineering and another in system engineering, and over a decade and a half as a professional aerospace engineer working on civil, military, and commercial space projects.)

Everyone here knows (or should know) that DEWs exist. That is not the question. The question is whether such a weapon could have destroyed the WTC buildings.


Straw man. What DEW systems are deployed in Earth orbit? Exactly what is your evidence for this claim?


But they are capable of neatly vaporizing skyscrapers, without any sign of their existence or operation? What exactly is your definition of "impracticable"?


sts

I mean no disrespect, but what part of "NO" I am not going to play 20 questions with you" do you fail to grasp?

I have not got any obligation to answer your or anyone else's questions. You've got your degrees, so put the darn things to use and do your own research. If you want to make certain "power requirement" assumptions and take that route, do so.

This is a collaborative approach as far as I am concerned, but that doesn't mean you won't find others who'll take on the role you've got designated for them. But as for me, no, I respectfully decline to do that.

Look, it's old hat. Everyone knows Dr. Judy Wood asserts DEW destroyed the WTC. That issue has been debated in several forums and I've participated in a few myself. It always ends up the same way, with name-calling as the predominant outcome. Why bother?

Please consider joining me in a different approach this time.

*Plonk*

 

[Sparky]

I mean no disrespect, but what part of "NO" I am not going to play 20 questions with you" do you fail to grasp?

I have not got any obligation to answer your or anyone else's questions. You've got your degrees, so put the darn things to use and do your own research. If you want to make certain "power requirement" assumptions and take that route, do so.

This is a collaborative approach as far as I am concerned, but that doesn't mean you won't find others who'll take on the role you've got designated for them. But as for me, no, I respectfully decline to do that.

Waste of time. He's going to take his toys, go home and pout.

 

[A W Smith]

It is clear DEW 9/11 theory is indefensible

Evasion noted. Not surprisingly you use the same tactic Judy Wood used in the Jenkins interview when asked to define what type of energy weapon was allegedly used.

transcript
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/interview-with-dr-judy-wood-and-dr-greg.html#_edn17

GJ: Well, thank you. I guess the first question is: you have come up with some ideas regarding space-based weapons and the demolition of the World Trade Center Towers, and I was wondering if you could give us an overview of the proposed types of weapons that could be used for such a thing.
JW: Uh… We haven’t got into listing them yet—Just Energy Weapons.
GJ: In what form?
JW: I don’t think we even need to define it.
JW[continuing]:What we did was assemble all the pictures—evidence that we trusted, and just going through the evidence—just looking at it. At that point what motivated this paper was…wait—we’ve been told this story, that story—let’s wipe the slate clean and start over. Let’s see what evidence we do believe instead of relying on this rumor mill. We’re told about molten metal that nobody has ever seen pictures of—these rumors of molten metal
JW [continuing]:Let’s see if we can find any pictures of it. Let’s see what we can see. And so I started looking through [many] pictures. What were they telling us—what’s the evidence? And what categories of information? And you start putting these categories of information together and it turns the building in one direction and eliminating various other possibilities.
GJ: No matter what the beam that is used in this situation, will involve—I guess the term you use is ‘dustification’ of metal…
JW: I thought I’d invent a new word.
GJ: Might as well, right?
JW: Poof!
GJ: …or the vaporization of the metal in the towers, one or the other. Have you had, do you have any energy calculations at all to get a scale for what is involved for doing that?
JW: Yea, but [stuttering] we don’t need to get distracted by those values.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017&q=source:006201444710501546945&hl=en

 

[BenBurch]

Jammonius asked about qualifications: Other than my engineering degree and a basic understanding of physics, I'm only slightly more qualified in that I'm a safety engineer (and by default, the Laser Safety Officer) for a laboratory that has over 300 Class IIIB and Class IV lasers, ranging in power from 0.5 milliwat to over 100 kilowatts and covering about every type (Gas, Chemical Dye, Continuous Wave, Pulsed, Gaussian, Flat-top, etc.)

I'm no laser expert, but I think I understand them better than the average person.

And I have about the same qualifications with particle beams. I was a Fermilabber, and I worked doing magnet test and accelerator control software and data acquisition software. I think I understand particle accelerators better than any of these "truthers" and I know that you could not get a particle accelerator to work from orbit. I also know that any particle accelerator that could deliver that sort of energy would be the size of a small planetoid.

"That's no moon."

 

[LashL]

"Judy, Judy, Judy."

Plonk, indeed.

 

[sts60]

sts

I mean no disrespect, but what part of "NO" I am not going to play 20 questions with you" do you fail to grasp?

You said you would "engage in the discussion". I am merely taking you up on your offer.

I have not got any obligation to answer your or anyone else's questions.

Yes, you have. You have made an extraordinary claim: you said that directed-energy weapons destroyed the Twin Towers. You have been repeatedly asked to support this claim. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, then you are asking us to accept your claims based on nothing more than your personal authority, but you have declined to cite your relevant credentials despite repeated requests to do so, and citation by several others of their own.

You've got your degrees, so put the darn things to use and do your own research.

I have. You have failed to address my quantitative assessment, which clearly demonstrates the infeasibility of your claim. Nor have you addressed quantitative assessments by myriad and R. Mackey, both of which also rebutted your claim.

If you want to make certain "power requirement" assumptions and take that route, do so.

My assumptions were clearly stated. Do you have any specific challenges to my assessment?


What type of directed-energy weapon do you claim was used to destroy the Twin Towers?

 

[X]

I have not got any obligation to answer your or anyone else's questions. You've got your degrees, so put the darn things to use and do your own research. If you want to make certain "power requirement" assumptions and take that route, do so.

Not even when the question is merely a request for evidence of the things you claim?


I'm going to add my voice to the clamour requesting you provide evidence for what you claim.
Specifically, that DEWs are already in orbit around the Earth and can be used for demolishing buildings.

 

[Klimax]

You might want to search "high energy laser (hel) giga" and, based on the results, you'll be able to conduct a more refined search, based on your intuition and what strikes you as important.

I happen to watch some military and defense servers.I even saw reports on high-energy laser.There are still no lasers capable of seriously damaging building ,so destroing building by laser is so far out.They are glad that it will be powerfull enough to take down ballistic missile...

And those most powerfull lasers bit nearer to your need are land-based and certainly require so much of energy that it is nearly imposible to get it to orbit...

 

[Klimax]

Everyone here knows (or should know) that DEWs exist. That is not the question. The question is whether such a weapon could have destroyed the WTC buildings.

What is exactly DEW and then we may contionue about possibility of existance.

I have not got any obligation to answer your or anyone else's questions. You've got your degrees, so put the darn things to use and do your own research. If you want to make certain "power requirement" assumptions and take that route, do so.

YOU are claiming an really extraordinary thing exists.(for today techology)You have to provide evidence or at least pointers.Or discussion is going to end very quicly.

Look, it's old hat. Everyone knows Dr. Judy Wood asserts DEW destroyed the WTC. That issue has been debated in several forums and I've participated in a few myself. It always ends up the same way, with name-calling as the predominant outcome. Why bother?

Please consider joining me in a different approach this time.

Unless there is something to debate,your request shall not be met,since you refuse to provide what is being requested.

SO,PROVIDE SOURCES OR EVIDENCE OR EXPECT NOTHING.
(I am not shouting,just want the not-bolded way to emphasis.It is sort of friendly warning )

 

[Sparky]

What is exactly DEW and then we may contionue about possibility of existance.

Directed Energy Weapons. As I understand them, they include such crowd control devices as high-output focused acoustical cannon and microwave projectors on up the scale to lasers, masers and particle beam weapons. Not my area of expertise but I'm sure that others here will expand upon this.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Kilmax: Hmm, point. Maybe we should start sweeping the sky for Minerva....

jammoios: You make the claim, you proof it, the majority of us have more important things to do than back up YOUR assertion...

 

[volatile]

I subscribed to this thread because I hoped Jammonius, who can at least string a sentence together, would have a go at substantiating his claims.

It's such a shame he didn't.

 

[jammonius]

volatile,

Sorry to disappoint. I'd be more inclined to participate based on a collaborative approach to understanding DEW. I rely on Dr. Wood's analysis of why and how the WTC was destroyed and that information is already set out in detail at her website.

drjudywood.uk.com

By the way, for some of you who are interested in the "power or energy requirement" issue, I commend the section of her website dealing with the coincidence of Hurricane Erin being present on 9/10-9/11 offshore the NE coast. It's the section entitled "Weather Anamolies..."

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'd be more inclined to participate based on a collaborative approach to understanding DEW.

Fine, so let's.

You claim that DEW could be instrumental in destroying WTC 1, 2, and 7.

I claim that no DEW existed in 2001 (or exist now) that can direct power at a level required to impart serious structural damage to a large building, within a short period of time.

Clairifications: By large building I mean skyscraper class, but not necessarily WTC class. By serious structural damage, I mean sufficient to bring the building within risk of collapse.

Your turn now.

Hans

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have a doctorate in physics in a discipline unrelated to DEW.

Existing terrestrial DEW, as I understand it, are all some type of laser; indeed it's hard to imagine any other kind of DEW that would be effective in the atmosphere over any significant range, as any particle beam would simply be scattered. Therefore, the operating principle of any DEW used to create structural damage to the WTC towers would have to operate thermally, by delivering energy to the target as photons which would then be converted to heat on absorption. Jammonius, have you calculated the energy requirements for vapourisation of the structure of the towers to the degree you believe occurred on 9-11? That would give a minimum amount of energy required to be delivered by your hypothetical DEW.

Judy Wood has repeatedly asserted that vertical circular holes in buildings around GZ are evidence of DEW directed from above. However, it is abundantly clear from all the videos of the collapses of the Twin Towers that the collapse initiation occurred at a lower floor than roof level, and that failure was observed to occur throughout the building at the collapse initiation level before any visible damage occurred to the upper floors. This indicates that any optical beam used to damage the towers' structure cannot have been directed from vertically overhead, unless you can postulate a means by which an optical beam could be induced to pass through 15-25 storeys of building without significant absorption and then to be absorbed entirely in a structurally identical region; can you suggest any such means?

If not, then it would appear that the DEW beam must have been directed horizontally. Have you attempted to determine where the beam could have been located in order to obtain the required line of sight to the collapse initiation regions in both buildings? Since the collapses were initiated on different sides of the two towers, with horizontal progression in different directions, that implies that at least two DEW installations were required. Have you studied the geography of the region, identified possible locations, and visited them to look for signs of the installation?

Let me make it clear that at this point I think your hypothesis is unfounded in reality and could only be espoused by someone utterly ignorant of the laws of physics. If you can come up with satisfactory answers to the questions posed, then I'm prepared to reconsider that position. If you repeat your refusal to answer specific questions about your claims, refusing in effect even to defend your claims, then neither I nor anyone else will have any reason to take you seriously. It's your choice.

Dave

 

[Disbelief]

Gee, why am I not shocked by the dodging. Different thread, same result (or would SSDT work?).

 

[Spud1k]

Existing terrestrial DEW, as I understand it, are all some type of laser; indeed it's hard to imagine any other kind of DEW that would be effective in the atmosphere over any significant range, as any particle beam would simply be scattered.

Technically, ADS doesn't use a laser but then again, its energy density is much, much, lower (being a nondestructive weapon) so it bears thinking about even less.