Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

[defaultdotxbe]

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

except weve already determined

1: the power required for what woods wants is well beyond what could be put into a portable weapon, it pretty much needs its own dedicated nuclear reactor

2: given the huge size of the power source for such a weapon, it would be completely useless to the military, so why would they have even built it?

3: the application of this energy is entirely inconsistant with what we see at the WTC (no glowing steel vaporizing, etc)

 

[maccy]

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

The microwave weapons I linked to work on flesh. How would increasing the power make them work on buildings?

 

[Oliver]

The microwave weapons I linked to work on flesh. How would increasing the power make them work on buildings?

Wouldn´t it be the same effect like metal within a microwave-oven?

 

[maccy]

Wouldn´t it be the same effect like metal within a microwave-oven?

I'd have thought so - the steel would build up an electric charge which would then earth itself. At a guess I'd say it would earth directly through to the foundations. But I suppose you could see sparks perhaps.

I don't think the steel would get very hot.

Concrete and drywall wouldn't be affected at all.

 

[Spins]

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/occppr05.htm

These space based lasers are designed to destroy ICBM's not buildings.

The key factor in designing a cost effective weapon architecture is determining the exact amount of laser energy required to destroy a missile. In order for a laser weapon to destroy a ballistic missile, the missile skin must be heated, melted, or vaporized. For a laser to disable a missile, it must concentrate its energy on certain parts of the missile and hold the beam steady for a long enough time to heat the material to the failure point. The effectiveness of the laser depends on the beam power, pulse duration, wavelength, air pressure, missile material, missile velocity, and the thickness of the missile's skin. If the laser could specifically target the electronic circuits, which are used for guidance control, it would render the missile incapable of staying on course. These circuits are relatively easy to destroy but difficult to target precisely. Another kill mechanism is to melt a section of the material surrounding the missile's fuel tank and detonate the fuel. A third and more realistic approach is to heat the missile skin until internal forces cause a failure of the skin around the fuel tank. This type of failure produces a rupture of the missile given the enormous internal pressure in the fuel tank. It also requires the least amount laser energy to destroy the missile.

How much energy is required to rupture the skin of a missile depends on the material and thickness of the missile skin. Table 6 presents a list of different ballistic missiles with their range, burn time, skin material, and skin thickness. The energy from the laser must be focused on the target long enough for the skin material to absorb the radiation and cause the missile fuel tank to rupture before the heat dissipates. A general value for this energy (called "lethal fluence") is one kilojoule per square centimeter, although the exact fluence value varies slightly for each missile.

All this system is designed to do is burn a tiny hole into or heat up the material surrounding the missile's fuel tank thus igniting the propellants and destroying the missile. This is from a satellite weighing 35,000kg, more than three times as much as the Hubble Space Telescope.

So essentially what TS is saying is that this system (which itself doesn't even exist) has been scaled up to the point were it is capable of destroying the WTC, and all this back in 2001.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Just delving into this thread for the first time (and wading slowly forth). I must ask: Is TS for real?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Just delving into this thread for the first time (and wading slowly forth). I must ask: Is TS for real?

I am a real person. I suggest you read the paper which is the subject of this thread. It is an hypothesis. Drs. Wood and Reynolds have formulated this hypothesis in order to attempt to explain observations which, taken together, are difficult to reconcile otherwise.

I do not know if this hypothesis is correct, nor do I know if Steve Jones' thermate + high explosives hypothesis is correct.

What we do know, loud JREF assertions to the contrary, is that some large source of energy was present at the world trade center on 9/11, far in excess of the energy available due to an elevated mass.

 

[sackett]

I am a real person....

Evidence?

 

[DavidJames]

IWhat we do know, loud JREF assertions to the contrary, is that some large source of energy was present at the world trade center on 9/11, far in excess of the energy available due to an elevated mass.

Just to be clear here. Not one expert in the field agrees with BS1234 and his ilk and not one shred of evidence supports his comment. His conclusion is based solely on his uneducated interpretation of pictures and videos.

 

[Oliver]

Evidence?

Yeah, Truthseeker. Would you please post a picture
of you with todays newspaper and a banana?

 

[sackett]

Yeah, Truthseeker. Would you please post a picture
of you with todays newspaper and a banana?

No, no! Please, no! I take it back!

 

[Horatius]

So, TS, how do you explain the behaviour of the various items in this video? Clearly there isn't nearly enough KE in the bullets to explain things disintegrating, and expanding into clouds of vapour hundreds of times the size of the original item, right?



I particularly want an explanation of the physics behind the girl in the bikini. For Science, you know

 

[defaultdotxbe]

What we do know, loud JREF assertions to the contrary, is that some large source of energy was present at the world trade center on 9/11, far in excess of the energy available due to an elevated mass.

you continue to say this, yet you have no evidence to back it up

as far as a star wars beam, if you think thats the only way to explain it, why does it have to be a US govt inside job? maybe space aliens did it, that would certainly solve the problem of technology and a power source, seems to wrap everything up quite nicely, doesnt it?

 

[beachnut]

I am a real person. I suggest you read the paper which is the subject of this thread. It is an hypothesis. Drs. Wood and Reynolds have formulated this hypothesis in order to attempt to explain observations which, taken together, are difficult to reconcile otherwise.

I do not know if this hypothesis is correct, nor do I know if Steve Jones' thermate + high explosives hypothesis is correct.

What we do know, loud JREF assertions to the contrary, is that some large source of energy was present at the world trade center on 9/11, far in excess of the energy available due to an elevated mass.

There is no beam weapon.

All the damage at the WTC can be explained by the energy in the aircraft impact, fires, and failure of the Towers. Ask any physics teacher to help you.

The energy of the two towers falling was about 500 tons of TNT, just the energy stored in the towers due to gravity. You have no clue if you are unable to understand this simple fact. You can experiment on your own about gravity. Jump off a 2 foot tall ladder, and you feel okay. Jump of a 6 foot latter, you may break a leg. Jump of a 10 foot ladder, oops you could break two legs. Now jump of a 1300 foot ladder, oops you punched a hole through a car roof, you seem kind of smashed. How much energy is that? PE= height x mass x gravity, Just simple physics and you have zero clue.

You need help and when you picked the beam weapon you have shown your inability to comprehend reality or simple physics.

 

[Belz...]

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.

No it's not. You're greatly underestimating the amount of energy available to gravity.

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.

No, that's not the question, because microwaves don't evaporate steel. Your theory defies the laws of physics, and that's not a matter of technology.

How much more obvious could it be than this?

How, exactly, would you expect a 110-storey steel-core building to collapse ?

Those weapons are not capable of destroying the WTC. The idea is that maybe they have developed stuff that is classified.

"Maybe" isn't good enough with reality.

 

[Dubito]

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that the evidence is overwhelming. Clearly, the government has a giant, variable-shape, variable-diameter beam weapon in orbit around the Earth.

The problem is, why haven't we noticed? I mean, to cause that sort of damage, the weapon would have to be huge, like the size of a...a MOON!

Of course! Why didn't we think of it before? The Moon isn't a rocky satellite orbiting the Earth, it's a giant laser-carrying space station! This means that the space program, and thus the technology for space travel, has existed for far longer than THEY want us to believe. There is significant evidence to suggest that George Washington crossed the Delaware in order to personally oversee the construction of the first American spacecraft from alien parts. The space station "moon" project obviously began under Jefferson's term; when he said that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots," he meant "from space." Any references to the existence of the moon before that time were forged, to complete the illusion that it's been there all along--it's all a government cover-up! Obviously, this has to be the case; I mean, it'd be ridiculous if space travel and the moon weapon had existed before that, the aliens didn't land until 1759!

The moon landings in 1969 weren't fake, they were the finishing touches! The last mission calibrated the laser! And the first one was to stake America's claim and let everyone know, when they were having fire rained down upon them from the sky, just who did it.

And each of the satellites currently orbiting the earth has a lens on it, which can further focus and redirect the giant moon destruction beam, since the period of the moon's revolution is so slow. After all, it takes a lot of power to move something of that size around independent of its orbit; the government's better off bouncing the beam off several smaller satellites than trying to position the moon directly above the target.

You know this to be true! Look up, at the man in the "moon," the next time you see America's mightiest weapon in the sky--it's a watermark, like on your money!!! It shows you the face of the man who designed it, whose name remains top secret!

So be careful next time you go out at night...some moonbeams are deadly.



TF

 

[bourgeois_rage]

The moon, eh? What phase was the moon in on 9/11?

 

[maccy]

Welcome to the forums Dubito and bourgeois_rage! You sure picked a crazy thread for an early post!

Although it could have been worse, you could ahve picked Christopehera's concrete core realistice thread.

 

[Horatius]

the weapon would have to be huge, like the size of a...a MOON!

Someone beat you to it.

But don't despair. Most Cts fail in their first year. Give it another shot, but this time with more crazy.

 

[JamesB]

I am a real person. I suggest you read the paper which is the subject of this thread. It is an hypothesis. Drs. Wood and Reynolds have formulated this hypothesis in order to attempt to explain observations which, taken together, are difficult to reconcile otherwise.

I do not know if this hypothesis is correct, nor do I know if Steve Jones' thermate + high explosives hypothesis is correct.

What we do know, loud JREF assertions to the contrary, is that some large source of energy was present at the world trade center on 9/11, far in excess of the energy available due to an elevated mass.

Merely labeling something a hypothesis does not excuse making really stupid claims. I hypothesis it was aliens from the planet Zorg. There prove that wrong. It is as reasonable as Wood's theory. Even more so.