Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

[R.Mackey]

Good question. Would breaking so many chemical bonds necessarily emit visible light? Don't know.

Extremely likely. I don't know any rapid way to dissociate steel, aside from a carefully controlled chemical bath or sandblasting, that doesn't involve a lot of heat. Hot steel glows, as I'm sure you know.

I might remind you, again, that the mass of steel recovered from the debris pile matches the expected amount. You can't figure it out because what you're trying to figure out didn't happen.

 

[maccy]

This is the scientific explanation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

TS if you're trying to convince us of a hypothesis here then I suggest you out it forward.

Trying to pick holes in the official stroy based on your analysis of a few photographs proves nothing.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Good question. Would breaking so many chemical bonds necessarily emit visible light? Don't know.

think about it, you are envisioning a high energy laser or maser weapon, somethign liek this will effectively damage the steel by heating it, so yet, any steel "evaporated" by such a process will be glowing white hot

the only way to destroy the steel in a way that doesnt evolve heat would be an endothermic chemical reaction, but to pose that theory youd have to give up your notions of a fancy laser

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

think about it, you are envisioning a high energy laser or maser weapon, somethign liek this will effectively damage the steel by heating it, so yet, any steel "evaporated" by such a process will be glowing white hot

the only way to destroy the steel in a way that doesnt evolve heat would be an endothermic chemical reaction, but to pose that theory youd have to give up your notions of a fancy laser

Laser, or possibly microwave. Something with slightly longer wavelength than visible light. We know they have microwave weapons. Maybe it's possible to break the chemical bonds of steel by exciting the molecules at their resonant frequency. I wonder if there is a technology wherein two beams intersect, creating patterns of constructive and destructive interference.

 

[rwguinn]

Laser, or possibly microwave. Something with slightly longer wavelength than visible light. We know they have microwave weapons. Maybe it's possible to break the chemical bonds of steel by exciting the molecules at their resonant frequency. I wonder if there is a technology wherein two beams intersect, creating patterns of constructive and destructive interference.

Ah, yes--
The Forerunner's mining beam, made famous by Andre Norton,I believe...
Or was a Larry Niven concept?

 

[R.Mackey]

Laser, or possibly microwave. Something with slightly longer wavelength than visible light. We know they have microwave weapons. Maybe it's possible to break the chemical bonds of steel by exciting the molecules at their resonant frequency. I wonder if there is a technology wherein two beams intersect, creating patterns of constructive and destructive interference.

No.

It Doesn't Matter. I already showed you that the energy required is simply not available, regardless of the underlying technology involved in the mythical beam weapon.

You are insisting on technology that does not exist. Stop it.

 

[maccy]

R. Mackey is absolutley right, where would you get the enrgy from to do this?

But I'd like to see you expand on your hypothesis, anyway.

Laser, or possibly microwave. Something with slightly longer wavelength than visible light.

Why that wavelength?

We know they have microwave weapons.

How do these weapons work?

Maybe it's possible to break the chemical bonds of steel by exciting the molecules at their resonant frequency.

What is the resonant frequency is a steel molecule? How is it calculated? Is the frequncy an elctromagnetic wave frequency or a kinetic compression wave frequency? What is the composition of a steel molecule? Is there even such a thing a steel molecule? How are the elements that make up steel bonded together? What happens if those bonds are broken? How does a microwave interact with those bonds?

If it is simpler, you could start by explaining how the process would work with iron. Or gold. Or lead.

I wonder if there is a technology wherein two beams intersect, creating patterns of constructive and destructive interference.

As you would know as a musician if you overlap two sine waves they either augement each other or cancel each other out. Explain how this traslates into patterns of construcive and destructive interference.

 

[TjW]

Yabbut, other than trivial things like:

No known underlying mechanism.
No possible way of generating the power.
No platform to mount it on.

What's the problem?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Laser, or possibly microwave. Something with slightly longer wavelength than visible light. We know they have microwave weapons. Maybe it's possible to break the chemical bonds of steel by exciting the molecules at their resonant frequency. I wonder if there is a technology wherein two beams intersect, creating patterns of constructive and destructive interference.

thats what a maser is, microwave laser, it would have the same effect of generating head

you dont seem to understand what your saying, you cant just "excite" a particle without it generating heat, youd essentially be making steel plasma, and theyd have seen that all the way across the pond in england

 

[TjW]

Ah, yes--
The Forerunner's mining beam, made famous by Andre Norton,I believe...
Or was a Larry Niven concept?

Niven had the "Slaver digging tool". One beam suppressed the charge on the electron, one suppressed the charge on the proton. The atoms fell apart in each beam, and a huge current flowed between the two.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

No.

It Doesn't Matter. I already showed you that the energy required is simply not available, regardless of the underlying technology involved in the mythical beam weapon.

You are insisting on technology that does not exist. Stop it.

I'm not insisting that. You may be right about the beam weapon. I don't know what the source of energy was, but our observations tell us that there most certainly was a large source of energy present, far beyond GPE.

Mackey, you've fallen into the same logical trap as those who claim CD is impossible because it would require some too-large quantity of explosives. On the one hand, you say GPE alone is sufficient to explain all the work observed, then you turn around and say it is impossible to bring enough energy into the system to explain all the work. It's self-contradictory.

Now, I agree with you that a huge source of energy is needed. Perhpas you are right that it is not feasible to put such a large power supply in orbit. Perhaps the power supply is on the ground, and is aimed at orbiting reflectors. There is no doubt that the US military has been developing just such weapons for many decades. The question is how far along they are.

Perhaps Judy Wood is wrong, and Steven Jones is right after all. Perhaps there are more mundane explanations for the observations, but thusfar I haven't heard any complete theory of 9/11 that satisfies my scientific curiosity.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

thats what a maser is, microwave laser, it would have the same effect of generating head

you dont seem to understand what your saying, you cant just "excite" a particle without it generating heat, youd essentially be making steel plasma, and theyd have seen that all the way across the pond in england

The event did generate a lot of heat, persistant heat, that's one of the observations that needs to be accounted for. Enough heat to expand the dust cloud, melt cars, keep the rubble hot for months, etc.

We were talking about visible light. Perhaps the radiation released is above/below the visible spectrum.

I will concede I don't know. You guys may be right, there may be fundamental impossibilities involved in the Wood/Reynolds hypothesis. I'd like to learn more.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

On the one hand, you say GPE alone is sufficient to explain all the work observed, then you turn around and say it is impossible to bring enough energy into the system to explain all the work. It's self-contradictory.

GPE is sufficient to explain the work observed

its impossible to bring enough energy in to explain the work you claim was done

which leaves two possible explanations:

1: the laws of physics were drasticly and repeatedly violated on 9/11/2001

2: you are wrong in your assertions of 100% pulverzation and evaporated steel

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The event did generate a lot of heat, that's one of the observations that needs to be accounted for. Enough heat to expand the dust cloud, melt cars, keep the rubble hot for months, etc.

you still havent shown any melted cars

the rest can explained quite easily, do you recall the huge fires that were burning? the ones that continued to burn for weeks and months after the collapse?

We were talking about visible light. Perhaps the radiation released is above/below the visible spectrum.

maybe a black hole hit the towers the energy was released through a gam,ma-ray burst

I will concede I don't know. You guys may be right, there may be fundamental impossibilities involved in the Wood/Reynolds hypothesis. I'd like to learn more.

then instead of arguing with us about how we cant explain what you think happened go educate yourself so you can explain it to us

 

[Gravy]

Perhaps there are more mundane explanations for the observations, but thusfar I haven't heard any complete theory of 9/11 that satisfies my scientific curiosity.

And he never will, because he has no understanding – despite being told again and again – that he mistakes his delusions for "observations." He has studied under the master of Christopheraville.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

you still havent shown any melted cars

They are depicted in the paper that is the subject of this thread.

the rest can explained quite easily, do you recall the huge fires that were burning? the ones that continued to burn for weeks and months after the collapse?

I know there are claims of underground fires. I have heard no plausible explanation for either a fuel or an oxygen supply for said fires, nor have I seen any pictures of underground rubble fires. What we do see is rubble that has gray smoke/dust rising from it for months.

 

[TjW]

<snippage by TjW>
Mackey, you've fallen into the same logical trap as those who claim CD is impossible because it would require some too-large quantity of explosives. On the one hand, you say GPE alone is sufficient to explain all the work observed, then you turn around and say it is impossible to bring enough energy into the system to explain all the work. It's self-contradictory.
<other snippage by TjW>

There is enough GPE to explain the building collapsing. What there isn't is enough energy to explain things that didn't happen, such as steel being sublimated.

The leprechaun and fairy hypotheses at least admit that they contravene known physics.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

They are depicted in the paper that is the subject of this thread.

they dont look melted, they simply look like debris fell on them and crushed them, unless you can show a picture of a car that undeniably melted i will not beleive that any cars were melted

I know there are claims of underground fires. I have heard no plausible explanation for either a fuel or an oxygen supply for said fires, nor have I seen any pictures of underground rubble fires. What we do see is rubble that has gray smoke/dust rising from it for months.

fuel? you know those 2 huge towers that collapsed? they had lots of fuel in there, desks, paper, computers, etc

oxygen? subways, but an abundance of oxygen isnt required for a slow, smoldering fire, look up underground coal fires, those can burn for centuries underground

as for the smoke rising from the debris, where do you think it came from if not fires? fog machines?

 

[maccy]

I'm not insisting that. You may be right about the beam weapon. I don't know what the source of energy was, but our observations tell us that there most certainly was a large source of energy present, far beyond GPE.

No. Your observations tell you that. Because your observations are wrong.

The observations of people who understand the wrold tell them that the damage is consistent with collapse.

Maybe you should learn more about the world.

Mackey, you've fallen into the same logical trap as those who claim CD is impossible because it would require some too-large quantity of explosives. On the one hand, you say GPE alone is sufficient to explain all the work observed, then you turn around and say it is impossible to bring enough energy into the system to explain all the work. It's self-contradictory.

The GPE is sufficient to do the work observed. Also the GPE was put into the system over months and months as the tower was built. That energy was then released by a catastrophic structural failure. Transferring that energy into the structure via microwaves in a few seconds is a different matter entirely.

It's impossible for a beam weapon to do that work instead - in other words, for the building to explode in mid air.

Futhermore, to say that the building was entirely turned to dust with the steel being vapourised requires even more energy.

Now, I agree with you that a huge source of energy is needed. Perhpas you are right that it is not feasible to put such a large power supply in orbit. Perhaps the power supply is on the ground, and is aimed at orbiting reflectors.

How do the reflectors reflect the beam? Why doesn't it just destroy them? How do you get the beam angle right?

This is why you started a thread about the penthouses on WTC7 isn't it?

There is no doubt that the US military has been developing just such weapons for many decades. The question is how far along they are.

I doubt this. Any evidence?

Perhaps Judy Wood is wrong, and Steven Jones is right after all.

They're both wrong.

Perhaps there are more mundane explanations for the observations, but thusfar I haven't heard any complete theory of 9/11 that satisfies my scientific curiosity.

Explanation: massive potential energy, held in check by the stuctural energy of the buillding. Plane hits building, damaging structural integrity and removing fireproofing from steel. Fires burn, steel loses strength and warps. Structure fails, massive potential energy is released.

If you really have scientific curiosity, go study some science!

 

[twinstead]

LOL troothydude. "Scientific curiosity"? Is that what you call what you do? Most other people in the world would call it "ideologically-biased preconception", but hey, you say tom-ay-to, and I say tom-ah-to, huh?