Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[A W Smith]

Perhaps jammonius can show us examples of steel that was partially "vaporised" in the 350,000 tons of steel recovered from GZ?

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for Rule 0. Do not change a member's name to insult.

 

[Oystein]

Really? What kind of directed-energy weapon was it? And where do you claim it was?

To exactly which kind of directed-energy weapon are you referring? You're claiming all sorts of specific effects, so certainly you must have a specific cause in mind, right?

Once we have established the relevant cause-effects of our DEW, we need to estimate how much energy it would have required to actually cause the effects on a scale sufficient to bring down the towers.

And when that has been established, we need to estimate how efficiently our DEW could have Directed that Energy at the 3 towers. Which gives us a lower bound on how much energy must have been available to the DEW device, whereever it was at the time.

Then we can discuss how such a DEW device could have been implemented, and how it could not have been implemented.

Once we know the kind of Directed Energy, and its intended effects, and the energy density at which it operated, we can look at any side effects that a use of such a DEW on the towers would have had in addition to just bringing the structures down. This would be a good point in a DEW theorie that would make it falsifiable.


I believe much of this has been done already, right?


I understand that, per jammonius, a DEW was activated at least 5 times in NYC on 9/11:
- The event that is commonly described as "AA11 hitting WTC1"
- The event that is commonly described as "UA175 hitting WTC2"
- The disintegration of WTC2
- The disintegration of WTC1
- The disintegration of WTC7
Is my understanding correct?

So this might restrict the location of a DEW if it was positioned in space, or we would have to have several DEW devices. This might give rise another set of predictions made from the theory, that would make it testable.

 

[TSR]

.
And yet, you claim that the "range of lethality" of such weapons were responsible for Ms. Cintron's behaviour on That Day.

I have asked you to describe this range of lethality and you have completely ignored that request.

Funny, that...
.

.
Maybe I'm on ignore?

Could someone please quote me so Jamm sees this?
.

 

[sylvan8798]

No use, TSR. jamm's ignore function is in his head. If he has no answer, he will dodge the question with a word salad or ignore it all together. That becomes your answer.

 

[sts60]

Once we have established the relevant cause-effects of our DEW, we need to estimate how much energy it would have required to actually cause the effects on a scale sufficient to bring down the towers.

And when that has been established, we need to estimate how efficiently our DEW could have Directed that Energy at the 3 towers. Which gives us a lower bound on how much energy must have been available to the DEW device, whereever it was at the time.

Then we can discuss how such a DEW device could have been implemented, and how it could not have been implemented.

Once we know the kind of Directed Energy, and its intended effects, and the energy density at which it operated, we can look at any side effects that a use of such a DEW on the towers would have had in addition to just bringing the structures down. This would be a good point in a DEW theorie that would make it falsifiable.

This claim has been quantitatively analyzed by four separate posters - myself, myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch. Each analysis has shown how unphysical is the silly notion that directed-energy weapons "dustified" the WTC structures.

And that's not even considering the fact that the vast majority of the structural steel was recovered - falsifying the premise anyway.

I believe much of this has been done already, right?

Except for the part where jammonius actually defines his claim. He can't, because his heroine, poor deluded Judy Wood, can't, and all he can do is parrot her ravings. (I do hope that she gets proper mental health care, though. Seriously.)

So this might restrict the location of a DEW if it was positioned in space, or we would have to have several DEW devices. This might give rise another set of predictions made from the theory, that would make it testable.

The only time jammonius came close to offering testable claims was something about "perpendicular" holes of certain sizes. Unfortunately, the photographs he offered as support actually contradicted his own observations. (See a few pages (and couple of years) back in this thread.) So much for that.

I wasted enough time back then doing all of jammonius' work and trying to get him to define his claim. I don't see any point in doing it again and enduring the subsequent clue-free verbal diarrhea, so I'm through indulging him unless he decides to actually define his claim:

What kind of directed-energy weapon was it supposed to be? And where?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

jammonius;5815194]

Multiple posts have been moved to this thread as off-topic in the Dick Oliver thread

Posted By: LashL

Have a look see:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/th_wtc1demobelow.gif[/qimg]

They say seeing is believing; and, that is true to a certain degree.

Problem is, the eye sees what the mind wants to see; so, there we have it, back to square one, no matter what.

Why do you think that dust is steel? There were thousands of tons of thin concrete floors, thousands of tons of drywall all off which would give of huge qualities of dust as it gets pulverized in the collapse. Watch the demolition of any building and you get the same kind of dust.....why would you expect the WTC to be any different?

 

[Macgyver1968]

Jam,

Wanna discuss DEWs?....just waiting for you.

Here's a question to start...what kind of energy can turn steel to dust?

 

[sylvan8798]

How about a giant belt sander?

Now, where's that photoshop expert?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

How about a giant belt sander?

Now, where's that photoshop expert?

I was thinking giant angle grinder......quicker.......

But they produce iron filings not dust and DR Jones "peer reviewed) paper found a little iron oxide but not the massive quantities of either free iron filings or the massive amounts of iron oxide that would have been produced by turning them into the only kind of "dust" possible when you have steel beams in air. Its not dustifying....it would be "rustifying"

 

[Thunder]

I have re-read this thread that raged for a couple of weeks in June, '08. Looked at from a "glass half full" perspective,

in other words, you are going to simply ignore then fact that 350,000 tons of steel were recovered from GZ.

surprise...surprise.

folks who ignore evidence are not worth debating with.

 

[Bell]

Riiight Thunder. You're going to convince Jamm about that 350,000 tons of steel, how exactly?

Even if you could produce all the recovered steel, he would still claim you can't proof it actually came from the WTC.

 

[Thunder]

Riiight Thunder. You're going to convince Jamm about that 350,000 tons of steel, how exactly?

Even if you could produce all the recovered steel, he would still claim you can't proof it actually came from the WTC.

of course not. ideologues are not driven by facts, rationality, or logic.

they are driven by ideology and politics....100%.

that is why its pointless to debate them.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Riiight Thunder. You're going to convince Jamm about that 350,000 tons of steel, how exactly?

Even if you could produce all the recovered steel, he would still claim you can't proof it actually came from the WTC.

He could look at a picture of that ship ....

http://nygoe.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/uss-new-york.jpg

 

[beachnut]

.
And yet, you claim that the "range of lethality" of such weapons were responsible for Ms. Cintron's behaviour on That Day.

I have asked you to describe this range of lethality and you have completely ignored that request. ....

He does not do science, he does delusional fantasy; and he does it so good.

 

[dudalb]

No Planers Are Bat Crap Crazy. This whole discussion in a nutshell.

 

[LashL]

jammonius - 4 times now you have ignored the question below. Does it scare you to confront evidence that destroys your beliefs ? Let me repeat once more:

In this and the 'GZ debris' threads I posted a photo of one very small section of GZ. It shows a great number of steel columns. Did you see it? If so, how can you continue to claim that the steel was 'turned to dust' ?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/groundzeromassivedetail.jpg

Would you like to see some more photos of steel members at GZ ?

Dust hanging from the front of 90 West Street.

View attachment 17558

Indeed, and just look at all the steel "dust" here:

 

[W.D.Clinger]

From the April and May 1998 issues of The mini-Annals of Improbable Research (mini-AIR):

Investigator David Smith writes to notify us of a startlingly powerful new technology:

The March 16th issue of "Aviation Week and Space Technology" (p.13) reports that passengers at San Francisco International Airport will be asked to submit carry-on luggage for examination by a machine called the "Carry-on Luggage Profiler." Av Week reports that this remarkable device makes use of "3-megawatt average power" top- and side-mounted lasers to derive precise bag height and width data. The article goes on to say that initial trials at Des Moines International Airport have 'significantly increased the amount of luggage that was checked.'

The editors of mini-AIR asked how much power it takes to vaporize a piece of luggage.

Investigator Dave Thomson:

You may want to check out an article I published in Applied Optics some years ago, Vol 32, No 33, Page 6818, 20 Nov 1993. In any case, I'll attempt a quick first approximation to your question. I'll make the following gross approximations: A typical 10 micron diameter particle may require a fluence of 100 J/cm to completely vaporize. This implies an energy deposition of about 8 x 10^-5 Joules. Assuming a density of 1.7 (which may be low for luggage), the particle would have a mass of about 5 x 10^-10 g. Putting this together shows that one would need about 1.5 x 10^5 J/g, or 150 MJ/Kg to vaporize a macroscopic object. Even with a 3 MW laser (impressive as that is), a small piece of luggage of several Kg would require several minutes to be vaporized.

 

[Bell]

Indeed, and just look at all the steel "dust" here:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_111034bc5036df19bb.jpg[/qimg]

Do you also notice how flat the pile is?

 

[Oystein]

Do you also notice how flat the pile is?

Wow - nearly indistinguishable from the Rockefeller Center ice-skating rink! So flat and smooth!

 

[Scott Sommers]

The amazing thing that just struck me is...no, it's not that Truthers talk like they got dropped on their heads at a young age...it's the amazing lengths scientist go through to hide the development of their technology. Jammi and his friends tell us there are orbiting space station with ray guns that can destroy buildings on the Earth. Reading through the information provided by the Directed Energy Professional Society, you'd never get the feeling technology was so advanced. It seems there is nowhere you'd come to understand there was such power. It is a secret, not just never talked about, but hidden behind a discourse that makes it look like nothing much is happening in the world of Star Trek pahser technology. It takes mavericks like Judy Wood and her familiars, Jammi and Act Baker, for even the most highly trained among us mere mortals to learn of such thing.

So think about it...it's not just that there are ray guns in space. In The World According to Jammi, amazing perversion of science are common place. There's a whole world of literature that appears to be scientific writing, but is really just an illusion cast to leave you and me thinking science is still only in the 21st century. Universities and their journals are being set up to make it look like we have nowhere near the technology to put ray guns in space and dustify buildings. But as Jammi has demonstrated to us all, there is no doubt such thing occur.

The implications of this are endless and I am deeeply bothered by them. Jammi, thanks for letting me know what's really going on.