Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

[Pardalis]

Could you take a look to the video an tell me what
you think about it, Pardalis?

It's a bunch of interviews with people who have no idea of what happened, and theories about weapons that are still in the early stages of development.

So?

 

[rwguinn]

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.

[Locy of "Peanuts" mode]
That's IT!
[/lucy mode]

 

[maccy]

Could you take a look to the video an tell me what
you think about it, Pardalis?

It´s 25 minutes long and about secret laser- and
microwave-weapons. Also used in iraq. (they claim)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8361811662480560988&q=2+star+general

These aren't fired from space and we're not talking about destroying buildings here.

The comment on the video says the lasers are used to blow up minefields.

The microwave weapons make people feel uncomfortably hot and are public knowledge:

If anybody's interested, here are some actual microwave weapons:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1470
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725095.600

None of this is anything like what Reynolds and Wood are claiming.

 

[Oliver]

It's a bunch of interviews with people who have no idea of what happened, and theories about weapons that are still in the early stages of development.

So?

Well, one guy says he saw such a microwave-device vehicle
down there and 2 doctors interviewed are reporting about
kind of wounds they never saw before and they also have
no explanation for this kind of wounds. Maybe they have
indeed used weapons we don´t know. Neither you nor me
are able to disproof these claims...

 

[Pardalis]

Well, one guy says he saw such a microwave-device vehicle
down there and 2 doctors interviewed are reporting about
kind of wounds they never saw before and they also have
no explanation for this kind of wounds. Maybe they have
indeed used weapons we don´t know. Neither you nor me
are able to disproof these claims...

It doesn't prove that they used unconventional weapons either, much less laser weapons.

 

[rwguinn]

For anyone still reading, this is what happens when a NASA scientist with degrees in mathematics, physics, and engineering (that's me) tries to argue with a Troother who is a professional musician armed only with blind conviction (that's TruthSeeker1234).


Strawman. I say the GPE, equal to 116 tons of TNT per tower, is plenty. I also say that if you're injecting that much energy through any means other than gravity, it would have been immediately obvious.

There is no logical trap. You simply fail to understand. Even after hundreds of corrections. Deliberate or severe learning disability, who can tell?


This is utter speculation, based on absolutely nothing. The US Military has never attempted to develop space-based weapons on this scale. Never. It has absolutely no military mission.

You're arguing my physics background and direct experience with space versus your fantasy.


You have no scientific curiosity. If you had, you'd have learned much more on your own, and you would be able to distinguish an impossible hypothesis (Judy Woods) versus a reasonable one (NIST).

Your curiosity is not for science. It's for fantasy.

Nothing wrong with that so long as it's channeled in the right direction. Unfortunately, you choose to pour it all into paranoia. Poor choice.

Ok, I don't have the math degree, nor the physics. I do have the engineering degree, and have made a career of making sure things either 1) don't break, or, someone having failed to ensure (1), 2) never break again.
At my Alma Mater, those (math and fizicks) were arts and sciences (i.e., liberal arts) degrees, and we engineers didn't have the patience.
But all of what you point out above is why I sit on the sidelines and take the occasional pot-shot. Maybe you liberal arts guys like beating your head against a brick wall, but it is a painful experience, even after you stop!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I seem to remember them denying the existance of stealth technology for a long time, e.g.

yeah, and everyone still knew about it

the military may deny the existance of something, but often that just the "official" word and little more, designed to keep the details covert, the existance is almost always known, area 51 for example

 

[jhunter1163]

I knew just by reading that R. Mackey was a seriously smart dude, but I never realized that he was an actual, living, breathing, rocket scientist.

I'll just go back and sit in the corner now.

 

[Oliver]

It doesn't prove that they used unconventional weapons either, much less laser weapons.

*lol* That´s what i said...

However - war is a great chance to test new
weapons. I strongly believe in this argumentation.

 

[Pardalis]

It's a possibility, nothing more.

 

[Horatius]

*lol* That´s what i said...

However - war is a great chance to test new
weapons. I strongly believe in this argumentation.

Without a doubt, if they have some new weapons, they're likely giving them a field test somewhere out there.

Of course, the fact that they're just now maybe field testing what might be lasers that might be able to burn people, pretty much shows that the WTC destroying beams don't exist. If they had a beam weapon that could do that, the little battlefield lasers would be a walk in the park. They'd be everywhere.

 

[Oliver]

Without a doubt, if they have some new weapons, they're likely giving them a field test somewhere out there.

Of course, the fact that they're just now maybe field testing what might be lasers that might be able to burn people, pretty much shows that the WTC destroying beams don't exist. If they had a beam weapon that could do that, the little battlefield lasers would be a walk in the park. They'd be everywhere.

The question is how any adult person could believe
in Star-Wars-Lasers that brought the buildings down?
This is what i don´t understand. Here in europe you
most probably would walk straight to the lunatic asylum.

 

[Gravy]

The question is how any adult person could believe
in Star-Wars-Lasers that brought the buildings down?
This is what i don´t understand. Here in europe you
most probably would walk straight to the lunatic asylum.

You talk a good game, Oliver, but how do you explain your graphic in this post? You seem to know more about these weapons than you let on!

 

[Horatius]

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

People like to throw around words like "resonant", because resonance behaviours are one of those things that seem to defy common sense. It seems almost magical that things like bridges and buildings can be destroyed by seemingly small inputs of energy. What they miss is that the energy required is still quite large, it's just that by applying it at the correct frequency, the effect accumulates rather than disperses. And it also tends to accumulate over a long time, meaning the average power can be very low.

So even if we could find some resonance frequency of steel, it would still require an amount of energy comparable to just melting it to "break the bonds". After all, that's all melting and evapourating is - Breaking the bonds between atoms or molecules, so they no longer remain in their relatively fixed, solid positions.

Waving your hands and saying "Resonance!" doesn't buy you anything.

 

[Horatius]

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.

...

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.

Precisely right. It's not only a question of available energy, it's also a question of available power. In physics terms, power is energy delivered over time. 1 joule per second is lower power than 1 KJ per second, but if you applied it for 10 000 seconds vs. 1 second, you'd apply more energy.

The GPE stored in the Towers was applied over the course of YEARS, by cranes at first, and then later by elevators. Every scrap of building material and furniture that was lifted added to the GPE. And all of that energy came out in about 10-20 seconds. The average power of the destrution was way beyond that of the construction.

Any theoretical beam weapon, or any other weapon for that matter, not only needs to match the energy, but also the power of the collapse.

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

Seconded!

 

[LashL]

Waving your hands and saying "Resonance!" doesn't buy you anything.

But that and $1.85...

 

[Horatius]

Well, if it was a buck-o-five, you could by some freedom.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

None of this [current declassified beam weapons] is anything like what Reynolds and Wood are claiming.

Seems to me, it's quite a bit like what Wood/Reynolds claim, just less powerful.

 

[Oliver]

You talk a good game, Oliver, but how do you explain your graphic in this post? You seem to know more about these weapons than you let on!

You shouldn´t judge based on some graphics. You almost sound
like the Troofers in your last message. Indeed it was the laser
installed on the planes that cut the exterior beams, but i can´t
tell more about it because Killtown would start 5 Threads about
it... No kidding.

 

[R.Mackey]

Seems to me, it's quite a bit like what Wood/Reynolds claim, just less powerful.

... by about a factor of a million. And that still doesn't explain why nobody saw a Phaser IV bolt piercing the sky.

You may as well conclude that, since aircraft exist that can go 300 meters per second, that the Government has broken the light-speed barrier.

Or that, since I have a dollar in my pocket, I'm probably a millionaire.

Etc.