Was the Windsor Tower destroyed with high powered laser beams?

Unfit4Command

Muse
U
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
730
I'm having trouble finding any of the rubble from the collapsed floors. I've mainly been looking for the floor slabs, but haven't had much luck.

Just in case you don’t know what floor slabs are, I’ll take a picture and point arrows to them:
Floors2.jpg


Now that you know what we’re looking for…
Since the building collapsed without explosives according to the official story, the floor slabs should all be right below where they collapse from, since there’s not enough energy to eject the floor slabs beyond the footprint of the building. think this model does a great job showing what the debris pile should look like where the top portion of the building collapsed:

pancake.jpg

Gotta love those laser beam theorists for giving us great graphics like these.

There should be a neat pile of the floors on top of the standing portion of the building. But when you look at pictures, nothing is there:

Floors.jpg


untitled.jpg


Windsorcollapse.jpg




After realizing that the floors disappeared into dust, or “dustified.” I looked into the collapse and found a few “fizzies.” Fizzies are pieces of debris from a building collapse that have a trail of dust and debris behind them.

fizzy.jpg


Why would this occur from just a normal building collapse? The only explanation for the disappearing floors and steel is a high-powered laser beam from outer space destroyed the top floors of the Windsor Tower.

What do you all think? Official story, or laser beams?
 
NobbyNobbs said:
Man, do I hope this is a spoof.
Click to expand...

There is no distinguishing between a reduction ad absurdem argument, and an absurd argument. I've been caught out like that before. The first time someone suggested that the WTC was blown up, we were in the realm of obviously silly theories. Now it is simply impossible to propose anything that someone won't take seriously, and either agree with or argue with.
 
Great high-detail pics of the building post-fire. I seriously don't know how someone could look at them and claim skyscrapers can't collapse due to fire alone.

-Gumboot
 
from wiki...

Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost parts of the upper floors; firefighters needed almost 24 hours to extinguish it. While seven firefighters were injured, nobody was killed in the fire, which was arguably the worst in Madrid's history.

The town council of Madrid covered the cost of demolishing the remains of the building, thought to be some €22 million (USD $28.5 million). Demolition was completed in August 2005, and as of 2006 the site awaits redevelopment. The tower's owners are expected to build a replacement tower of similar size.
 
gumboot said:
Great high-detail pics of the building post-fire. I seriously don't know how someone could look at them and claim skyscrapers can't collapse due to fire alone.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


Is this place in a parallel universe of something?

you don´t know how someone could look at this, (a building ravaged by fire, which needed to be brought down with controlled demolision) and claim that skyscraper can´t collapse due to fire alone?

wtf?

"dustified" lol.
 
einsteen said:
Did that tower collapse ?

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/collapse
Click to expand...

The Windsor Tower's steel sections did fail. The concrete core remained standing. The World Trade Centers did not have a concrete core.

Simple really.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.
Click to expand...

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower's concrete columns and core prevented total building collapse.
Click to expand...

If the Windsor Tower had a steel core it would have collapsed.
 
To answer the questions in the title of the op, yes, the tower was destroyed by a high power laser beam.
 
Liszt said:
Is this place in a parallel universe of something?

you don´t know how someone could look at this, (a building ravaged by fire, which needed to be brought down with controlled demolision) and claim that skyscraper can´t collapse due to fire alone?

wtf?
Click to expand...



Yes. I don't know how someone can look at photos in which it is clearly evident the entire steel frame of the building has totally and completely collapsed into a pile of twisted burnt fragments, and think that fire cannot weaken steel enough to cause a collapse.

-Gumboot
 
NeoRicen said:
Laser beams...? Wh...? Why..? h...? ...

:eye-poppi
Click to expand...
By using reducto ad absurdum, Unfit4Command is showing that the logic and evidence used by people such as Ace Baker and Judy Woods to substantiate their claims of a beam weapon being used on the WTC towers is faulty.

Since the cause of the fires in the Windsor Tower and the subsequent damage is know, it is being demonstrated that the Woods' Beam Weapon idea is an insufficient hypothesis as it describes nothing that is not accounted for by the existing understanding.

Put more simply, an existing scientific theory X is used to describe elements A, B, & C. A hypothesis is put forward (Y) that claims that X is wrong. However, it is shown that Y only describes A, B, & C; it does not describe new element D or show that X fails to describe elements A, B, or C. Therefore, the new hypothesis Y is bunk.

The short, short version: a new hypothesis must account for everything an existing theory does plus either explain something the existing theory does not, or show the existing theory to be flawed in its explanation of something.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Put more simply, an existing scientific theory X is used to describe elements A, B, & C. A hypothesis is put forward (Y) that claims that X is wrong. However, it is shown that Y only describes A, B, & C; it does not describe new element D or show that X fails to describe elements A, B, or C. Therefore, the new hypothesis Y is bunk.

The short, short version: a new hypothesis must account for everything an existing theory does plus either explain something the existing theory does not, or show the existing theory to be flawed in its explanation of something.
Click to expand...

I think your test of a new theory is slightly too harsh. If we have a theory X that explains A, B and C, and a theory Y that explains A, B and C, neither should be considered invalid on the basis that the other has historical precedence. In the very narrowly defined example you give, in the absence of other differentiators I would say theories X and Y are equally valid.

In the specific case of the Judy Wood theory, the actual case is more like: theory X explains A, B and C, whereas theory Y claims to explain A, partially explains B, fails dismally to explain C and is flatly contradicted by D to Z. In that case I would tentatively claim that theory X may be somewhat superior.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think your test of a new theory is slightly too harsh. If we have a theory X that explains A, B and C, and a theory Y that explains A, B and C, neither should be considered invalid on the basis that the other has historical precedence. In the very narrowly defined example you give, in the absence of other differentiators I would say theories X and Y are equally valid.
Click to expand...
The kicker is, and I failed to word this in a manner that is intelligible (5:30 AM here, been awake for an hour, and no caffeine yet) is that theory X in my example is a well established, accepted theory by the majority of the professionals in the relevant field. And I agree that it is not reasonable to completely dismiss Y, however the onus usually falls on Y to do the extra legwork and differentiate itself from X.
 
Yes, the Windsor Tower was absolutely and unquestionably destroyed by nano-frequency laser beams designed by Zionist NWO elements within the Mexican government.

Also, I have it on good authority that the Landmark Tower was destroyed by means of strategically-placed Diet Pepsi bottles that were actually built into the load-bearing support columns. Jewish Mexican Neo-Cons sent their children into the structure to drop fistfulls of Mentos candies into the Pepsi bottles while nobody was looking, and this was the result. Just ask Rosie.
 
I'm pretty sure the Windsor building was destroyed by a stray missile fired by an American F-15. Nothing else could weaken the steel like that. I read about that in the Journal of Papers Written by Batcrap Crazy People Who Have a Lot of Time on Their Hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom