• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Directed Energy Weapons ??

Directed energy weapons? Hell, they've been around since the late 1950s/early 1960s. Sheesh, have none of you ever seen a Godzilla movie?
 
DontAskMe said:
OK, thanks...now I see, since it cant be proven they dont exist, they must exist for their purpose
Click to expand...

No Beam Weapon could make the WTC collapse on 9/11.

Judy Wood is insane. You can tell by her interview she has not even run the numbers.

Yes we have shot down missiles with a laser. The best we could do is burn a window made of the correct material with a laser lab in a plane.

So is a window going to destry the WTC?

But Judy Wood's ideas on the beam weapon prove her a nut. She can not even get momentum correct how can she get a beam weapon right; she will not even do the energy required to do her story.

If you believe in beam weapons being used on 9/11 to bring down the WTC, you have may have mental problems. See a doctor now.
 
beachnut said:
Judy Wood is insane. You can tell by her interview she has not even run the numbers.
Click to expand...

But... she had that diagram... billiard balls... Keebler Elves... trees... towers fell... trees don't fall... billiard balls... diagram... Keebler tree... but... but...

She seems so rational before you hear her talk, read her writing, or know anything about her or any of her theories, beliefs, or role in the Truth Movement!
 
the latest No significant debris pile means bldgs brought down by dew, plus all the cylindrical holes in the debris

are these people serious? how do I respond to something like that
 
DontAskMe said:
the latest No significant debris pile means bldgs brought down by dew, plus all the cylindrical holes in the debris

are these people serious? how do I respond to something like that
Click to expand...
Sigh....It's been done. There are pictures everywhere of the huge debris piles (manyof them here--use the search function)
There was even a discussion/rant on the "round holes" some where around here.
 
DontAskMe said:
the latest No significant debris pile means bldgs brought down by dew, plus all the cylindrical holes in the debris

are these people serious? how do I respond to something like that
Click to expand...
With the international "cuckoo" sign, of course.
 
I thought that this was going to be about those people who think that some nebulous conspirators are causing them physical pain/sickness or beaming thoughts into thier heads, etc with directed microwave ray beams.

Though this isn't any less crazy, by any measure.

The US has several types of Directed energy weapons, mostly in development. Just recently, a nonleathal microwave weapon for mounting on humvees, etc was declared ready. Lockeed-Martin has opened a factory for producing solid-state lasers for testing.

None of them output more than the single digit megawatts, which is of course quite a bit, but certainly not the building smashing GDI ion cannon ray gun that these loons seem to be imagining. They could certainly ruin a missile or mortar shell's day though.
 
Raytheon Company in the US recently made public a new 'heat' weapon for use in the 'battlefield' (any kind of enforcement), called the 'Silent Guardian', it directs an 'energy beam' (hahaha love that loose term usage) in the form of heat.
For the people over the hill getting zapped by it, its like being exposed to an oven.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/silent_guardian/

Edit: I think lynx was referring to this
 
IIRC, R.Mackey did some calculations and came up with figures for the amount of energy that would be needed to power such a weapon. This exceeded the power available from various sources (he listed them) by a factor of a million or so.

R. Mackey is my hero. I wonder if he could hook me up with Lisa Nowak.

ETA: For Christ's sake, I'm kidding about the Nowak thing.
 
jhunter1163 said:
IIRC, R.Mackey did some calculations and came up with figures for the amount of energy that would be needed to power such a weapon. This exceeded the power available from various sources (he listed them) by a factor of a million or so.

R. Mackey is my hero. I wonder if he could hook me up with Lisa Nowak.

ETA: For Christ's sake, I'm kidding about the Nowak thing.
Click to expand...

This is the post:

R.Mackey said:
A mathematician will be quick to point out that any arbitrary surface can be described by a collection of "circles" ("balls," we used to call them) of arbitrary diameter. Unless you can find a single size that fits perfectly, which you can't, you've proven nothing that geometrists haven't known for centuries.

Anyway -- seems we're still thinking about those pesky beam weapons, despite having shown you much less sinister mechanisms that provide the same "round holes," and are in fact completely consistent with the expected building performance. We've also shown you how your Star Wars weapon actually doesn't fit the "evidence" that you (and only you) see.

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 1.6o 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.
Click to expand...

The whole thread covers pretty much every aspect of the beam weapon hypothesis, it's quite an entertaining read (although it is 23 pages long).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66444
 
That response by Rmackey is such a melting of the dumbest theory. It rules.
 
DontAskMe said:
I have been advised that these absolutely do exist, I have never heard of them, google isnt any help...

Can someone explain what this is, or more accurately, do they exist and if not how do I explain that with credible links, etc. ??
Click to expand...

maccy beat me to my "WTC Killing Beam Weapon of Doom" post. (Thanks for being on top of things!) What that derivation shows is that no matter what technology goes into the beam itself -- lasers, masers, neutral particle, Wave Motion Gun, whatever -- it is simply impossible to destroy the WTC Towers from orbit. Using the most generous estimates I could imagine, you need two satellites of minimum mass 40 tons each, assuming the beam weapon itself doesn't add any weight at all. This would require four Space Shuttle flights, and even then the satellites would be seen firing in broad daylight... and every major government in the world would be instantly alerted to high altitude explosives.

In other words, the Beam Weapon Hypothesis is absolutely impossible. I don't care what technology you think we're hiding, it simpy can't be done.

There are real "directed energy weapons" being researched, but they are not designed to destroy buildings. Instead, they go after much softer targets, like rockets. The two most "real" energy weapons are the Boeing ABL, and its follow-on, the HELLADS.

Obviously, neither of these can be scaled to Sept. 11th proportions. The ABL is roughly one one-thousandth the power used in my conservative Beam Weapon of Doom, and it won't fit in anything smaller than a 747 Cargo. The HELLADS performance goal of 1 kW per 5 kg of laser means that, if scaled up to the size we need, the laser itself would weigh almost 4,000 tons, or eight times the size of the International Space Station.
 
How else do you explain the spire completely disintegrating?
Image42.jpg
 
Last edited:
HereticHulk said:
How else do you explain the spire completely disintegrating?
[qimg]http_://drjudywood.com_/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image42.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


The core section did not “completely disintegrate” (or at least not in the way I suspect you mean). It merely fell leaving dust and debris in its wake.
 
Par said:
The core section did not “completely disintegrate” (or at least not in the way I suspect you mean). It merely fell leaving dust and debris in its wake.
Click to expand...

Nooo! The astrojews in the ISS saw that bit of the core still standing and thought it smarter to disintegrate as well. The astrojews are such dedicated workers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom