Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

[TjW]

Acknowledged. Agreed. Energy requirements, big problem.

I'd sleep a whole lot better if I could just find plausible answers for these observations.

That's hard to believe, since when you're offered plausible explanations, you reject them in favor of fantasy.
You apparently don't like mundane explanations, so you fantasize.

Lasers, or masers, or even neutral particle beams all existed at smaller sizes before anyone even attempted to scale them up to weapons status.
Their effects are well understood. They don't do what you're fantasizing at any power level.

I don't know of any effect that turns steel to dust, short of hitting it with a grinder.

Maybe you should turn off Lintilla's pseudo-emergency generator.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Did you know that you can boil water in a paper cup, over fire, without the cup catching fire? It doesn't happen quickly, I can tell you that.

Yeah, we did that in boy scouts. It's because water boils at 212 degrees F and paper burns at 451 F.

Cars are not made of water.

 

[ihaunter]

Yeah, we did that in boy scouts. It's because water boils at 212 degrees F and paper burns at 451 F.

Cars are not made of water.

However, if the flames is actually in contact with the cup, it will burn a hole into the cup. The point being, if the flames are not actually in contact with the paper, it won't necessarily burn. The picture that was shown earlier shows not only the car burning, but things immedaitely around the car (paper, perhaps?) burning. The paper that is not burning is not that close to the flames.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

However, if the flames is actually in contact with the cup, it will burn a hole into the cup. The point being, if the flames are not actually in contact with the paper, it won't necessarily burn. The picture that was shown earlier shows not only the car burning, but things immedaitely around the car (paper, perhaps?) burning. The paper that is not burning is not that close to the flames.

You miss the point. What made the cars blow up? What made the firetrucks explode from the inside? What burned a whole parking lot full of cars, where there was no rubble? What happened to the tires that left steel belts behind, but no trace of the rubber? Etc. Just give me a plausible scenario and I'll sleep.

 

[ihaunter]

You miss the point. What made the cars blow up? What made the firetrucks explode from the inside? What burned a whole parking lot full of cars, where there was no rubble? What happened to the tires that left steel belts behind, but no trace of the rubber? Etc. Just give me a plausible scenario and I'll sleep.

The point was that you were making a big deal about the paper not burning. As for the rest, fire seems to be able to explain all of that. No rubble in the parking lot? You got a picture of that, as you have been blind to large piles of rubble left by the towers, I'm going to have to see that for myself.

 

[gumboot]

You miss the point. What made the cars blow up? What made the firetrucks explode from the inside? What burned a whole parking lot full of cars, where there was no rubble? What happened to the tires that left steel belts behind, but no trace of the rubber? Etc. Just give me a plausible scenario and I'll sleep.

I've seen no evidence of cars or fire trucks that had "exploded". Perhaps you will provide some?

All it takes is one car in a parking lot to catch fire and, unattended, many more will. Have you been NEAR a car fire? The heat is INTENSE. It wouldn't surprise me if one car fire set off another in the car next to it. And so forth.

Tyres leaving belts behind? What is that not surprising? I'd be a little surprised if a tyre burned and totally destroyed the steel belts! I'd be even more amazed at a burning tyre that destroyed the belts and left the rubber behind!

-Gumboot

 

[apathoid]

What made the cars blow up? What made the firetrucks explode from the inside?

Fuel ?

What burned a whole parking lot full of cars, where there was no rubble?

Your evidence for this is..........?

What happened to the tires that left steel belts behind, but no trace of the rubber?

Easy. Fire doesnt melt steel; have you learned nothing from your fellow 9/11 Trooooof researchers?

 

[Anti-sophist]

Drywall? From the ends of these columns? Why the ends?

Turbulence. The same reason that vorticies form behind a plane.

 

[uk_dave]

Yes and Yes.

And thrice YES!

Jeez truthy, you've got a very weird view of the world.

Tons of steel, concrete, plasterboard (drywall), suspended ceiling tiles etc is crashing down as the building fails. And you think there would be no dust?

What do you imagine the internal face of the outer walls looked like?

Think it was just bare steel inside those buildings? Can you not grasp the concept that possibly the external columns were clad internally with plasterboard to provide a nice clean paintable surface, just as they were clad externally with aluminium to provide a nice silver grey appearance?

 

[stateofgrace]

Hey, I don't know if this beam weapon idea is right or not. I do know that beam weapons are theoretically possible, otherwise they wouldn't have been working on them for so long. Whether they actually exist, whether they could actually do damage like this, I don't know. Don't misunderstand. I don't know. I'm just trying to make sense of observations. I see steel turning into dust.

BS You cleary are not grasped what has been said to you, I will summarise it for you.

Nobody used secret beam weapons in the attacks of 911; the very idea that anybody used secret beam weapons is stupid.

You do not see steel, turning to dust, you see large chunks of steel falling to the ground. The steel when it was in its proper and correct position had stuff attached to it, i.e. drywall lining. When steel is violently damaged and starts falling to the floor the plasterboard goes with it.

Secret beam weapons are the stuff of science fiction and if you continue to pretend that you don't understand the very simple and very plausible explanations that have been provided to you, one can only assume you have completely lost the plot.

Equally so I can only assume that you are now engaged in some troothy style form of mockery. In your attempt to poke fun at the people that have actually taken the time to address you, you are actually poking fun at this event. Please stop it.

 

[maccy]

Acknowledged. Agreed. Energy requirements, big problem.

I'd sleep a whole lot better if I could just find plausible answers for these observations.

You've been given plausible answers for the observations.

The fact that you don't find them convincing says more about you than about us.

The vast bulk of the population doesn't see anything odd here.

The scientific consensus is that there is nothing odd here.

The consensus among the MIHOP part of the Truth movement is Controlled Demoltion. They think that Reynolds and Wood are discrediting the movent - some think that they are disinfo agents.

Your opening hypothesis that the building is disintegrating is contradicted by evidence that has been shown to you over and over again.

And your hypothesis is not plausible even before testing it against the evidence, the energy required to vapourise steel and cause concrete to explode into fine power (all in the space of a few seconds) is unfeasibly huge. The dust cloud resulting from this would have been significantly larger than the cloud that did occur and would have been so hot that it would have killed everyone who was caught in it.

A high powered vapourising ray would not have caused half a car to set alight, leaving the other half unburnt it would have vapourised half of the car.

Reynolds and Woods assertions are unconvincing in the extreme. To fight a campaign you have to have a theory that's convincing, and then convince people of this.

You have convinced nobody here. It doesn't matter if you are convince or not, you are in a tiny minority.

 

[Belz...]

If you want to proceed scientifically, you must consider all of the evidence in total. Viewed in isolation, many if not most of the phenomena seem reasonable. Taken together though, the picture changes.

No, it doesn't. All of the evidence must stand on its own.

We have a whole parking lot full of toasted cars. What do you suppose happened there? Flaming rubble?

Huge burning towers fell in the area. You'd expect a few fires here and there, no ?

Where is the rubble? We have cars parked on the street whose engines burst into flames. Why? Flaming rubble again?

See above.

Tell me specifically what event occurs so that car engines burst into flames, car windows explode from the inside out, rubber tires disappear leaving steel belts behind, and paper is unscathed. Just give me the scenario. Imagine the car is parked anywhere you want to imagine.

Since you apparently have no experience with fire, whatsoever, I think you should consult actual firefighters and ask them if it's possible that a highly-flammable object remain intact next to a charred one.

We have dripping, wilted car parts. What caused this? Don't say heat. I know it was heat. Heat from what?

Huge burning towers fell in the area. They were 110-stories tall. Do the math.

 

[Belz...]

When the buildings fell, they failed at the points at which they were bolted or welded together and became once again nice neat little sections, as someone pointed out not too far up this trainwreck of a topic.

The term you're looking for is threadwreck.

 

[Belz...]

Have you seen the pictures in question? There is no evidence of burned or melted rubber tires. The rims are clean as a whistle. With steel belts around them. This is indeed hard for me to understand, and you have provided nothing which clears it up for me.

I'm sure you have nothing that clears it up, either, because a multi-gigawatt beam from space wouldn't melt the tires UNDER the car and leave the rims intact, either.

Have we any other examples of disappearing rubber tires which leave the steel belts behind?

An anti-rubber weapon ?

I specualte here. Waves are tuned to certain frequencies, which excite the natural resonant frequencies of some materials, not others. Like a microwave oven. The beams are tuned to excite steel and/or concrete. Whether by design or accident, "stray beams" with different frequency hit certain cars. These excited the natural frequency of rubber, and leave the metal.

I think you've moved far beyond speculation and squarely into fantasy territory, TS. "Stray beams" ? "resonant frequencies" ? Do they modulate the phase variance, too ?

maybe they did.

Well, maybe they didn't.

Same reason a microwave will cook your food and not heat a paper towel.

Uh-huh. But did you read Mack's explanation as to why such a beam weapon is unfeasible ?

Why did the towers explode?

Easy: they didn't. Please show me how they did.

If you move the beam in a line, it will make a straight-edged cut, ala WTC4. Most of the cuts appear scalloped.

But that's not what you said. You showed "round-ish" holes that were, for a beam weapon, friggin' huge. Now, try to cut something with a beam that large...

I'm starting to think of this like a focused microwave.

I'm starting to think that you'll say anything to stay as far away from the "official story" as possible, reason be damned.

NOt to my satisfaction you can't.

That could be construed as a tacit admission that you CANNOT and WILL NOT be convinced. It's called close-mindedness.

 

[Belz...]

Hey, I don't know if this beam weapon idea is right or not. I do know that beam weapons are theoretically possible,

So are wormholes. What's your point ?

Whether they actually exist, whether they could actually do damage like this, I don't know. Don't misunderstand. I don't know. I'm just trying to make sense of observations. I see steel turning into dust.

Someone who understands that he actually doesn't know would be more open to opposing views instead of admitting he can't be convinced.

Drywall coming off the ends of these beams?

Amongst other things, perhaps.

Drywall? From the ends of these columns?

Sorry. Can't see it.

The dust seems to be coming from the whole assembly.

I'd sleep a whole lot better if I could just find plausible answers for these observations.

Then listen to the people who know better.

 

[Horatius]

Hey, I don't know if this beam weapon idea is right or not. I do know that beam weapons are theoretically possible, otherwise they wouldn't have been working on them for so long. Whether they actually exist, whether they could actually do damage like this, I don't know. Don't misunderstand. I don't know. I'm just trying to make sense of observations. I see steel turning into dust.

Beam weapons in general aren't just theory, they do exist. What doesn't exist is a weapon large enough, and with flexible enough features, to do all the various things you claim must have happened.

You're speculating about a weapon that might exist, using physics that might exist, applied by engineering that might exist, producing effects it might be capable of, used in a way that someone might choose to use it, on targets that might show some effects of such a weapon.

That's at least might^6, right there.

At the same time, you reject the plane impacts that we know happened, the fires that we know happened, the buckling of the perimeter columns that we know happened, the existence of drywall, concrete, and fireproofing in the steel, that we know exists, turning to large amounts of dust, which we know happened, being entrained in a vortex behind a falling piece of wall, which vortex effect we know exists, impacting on buildings below, which we know happened, causing said buildings to be damaged or to collapse, which we know can happen, and impacting on cars and trucks, which we know happened, causing said cars and trucks to be partially crushed, which could lead to fuel leaks and subsequently fires, which we know can happen, which fires, because of their placement, did not burn some paper nearby, which we know can happen, and melted or burned the rubber on the tires, which we know can happen, while not being hot enough to melt the steel belting in said tires, which we also know can happen.

Did I miss anything?

So, what's the scientific explanation for all this? Sh## Happens.

No, Seriously, Sh## Happens.

In such a massive, high-energy, chaotic event, a lot of weird stuff will happen. Random debris will randomly affect one spot, but not another. Some spots will randomly be more likely to catch fire, or explode, or something. Trying to predict which is which, or even to come up with comprehensive explanations after the fact, is basically impossible. Even with perfect knowledge of the day's events, which we know we don't have.

So, what do we have? Might^6, vs. a whole lot of random , but known, effects, that when taken in total simply overwhelms us. And you think your ideas are simply more plausible?

 

[CurtC]

Beam weapons in general aren't just theory, they do exist.

Can you clarify this? What are you calling a beam weapon, and how do you know it exists?

The closest thing to a "beam weapon" that I know exists is a radar jammer, but that's still a long way from these focused energy beams that the CTs always mention, and often mention the name Tesla. In fact, if you see anyone mentioning Tesla nowadays, it's a pretty good kook marker.

 

[TjW]

<snippage by TjW>

An anti-rubber weapon ?

GASP! All these CTs blaming the Joos, and here it was the Catholic Church, all along...

 

[uk_dave]

GASP! All these CTs blaming the Joos, and here it was the Catholic Church, all along...

Oh....
....My....
.......God.....



Nice one!!

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

By request.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam2.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html