Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[ktesibios]

I have one question for jammonius.

How did a DEW start the collapse of each building (WTC 1 & 2) at the impact area, and yet destroy the entire building?

Indeed. I would also ask: if you postulate a DEW operating from overhead, which does appear to be part of Jammonius' belief system, then how is it that the tops of the towers, which would be the first part of the buildings that the beam encountered, were essentially intact as the collapses initiated?

[sts60]

Another thing about the magic beams: a few pages ago I calculated (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3774427&postcount=132) that a hypothetical 100% efficient (100% conversion, no losses or attenuation, etc. at all) system capable of vaporizing even one percent of the steel in one of the Towers had to deliver about 300 gigawatts on target (also assuming 100% conversion of impinging beam energy into heating). That, of course, is unphysical, but it gives the absolute maximum theoretical lower bound for the energy this magic weapon would have to generated. Spread over a circle equal in diameter to the width of one of the Towers, that beam would have an irradiance of about 100 MW/m2. Over an area of about one meter as jammonius alleges, we're up to over 300*109 W/m2. Imagine that... beams delivering hundreds of gigawatts per square meter lancing through the skies, and lancing through all that dust and smoke. That would have been the lightning storm and light show of all time; it would have blinded people for miles and miles around. Those beams probably would have done that in clear air, let alone the smoke and dust laden air of that morning. It's simply another facet of the utterly delusional nature of the DEW/WTC premise.

[BenBurch]

Hmmm... Well, watts is not a good measure of a bomb's output. Kilowatt Hours is.

The Hiroshima bomb was 11,600,000 KWH.

Now if this was expended over 1 second, is 41,760,000,000 Kilowatt Seconds.

So the time element is critical to determining intensity and energy delivered to target.

[sts60]

I came up with about 1.7*106 kWh to vaporize a little over one percent of the steel in one of the Twin Towers. If you want to make 90% of the steel go away, that's 1.5*108 kWh - 150,000,000 kWh.

But I don't understand your "expended over 1 second" associated with your conversion from kWh to KWs. The energy is the same no matter how fast it's expended. Did you mean to say, "the power, if this was expended over 1 second, is 41,760,000,000 Kilowatts"?

[jammonius]

sts60:
I don't know Jack about lasers but beams 24' to 36' wide. I thought high powers lasers are more along the lines of fractions of an inch.

What kind of beam widths could be considered realistic?

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image149.jpg

The diameter of various circular hits seen here and in other overhead images of GZ on and shortly after 9/11 is a basis for the 24' and 36' estimates. One approach to asessing DEW is to assess the forensic evidence found in the visual information of the event.

Based on experience had in the thread on the flatness of the debris pile, I know that almost no one is able to agree on how to interpret photographic information. So, for starters, what I am asserting are circular holes, perpendicularly cut, as though they were bullet holes, will likely be denied by some. But, that is ok, all I can do is say what I see.

[SDC]

The eye is a liar. What you "see" means nothing. How about some math?

[jammonius]

Irrelevant. I am analyzing the energy required to eliminate a certain amount of the steel. In fact, I'm giving a lower bound for it which addresses directly your belief that most of the steel was vaporized.

Irrelevant. There are a great many other threads discussing the energy of the aircraft impacts, the energy of the fuel, the potential energy of the structures themselves, and the energy of the contents fires. (At least you've come closer to accurately representing the scenario you're disclaiming; you only left out one major item.) Feel free to discuss this in one of the other threads. This is a thread about directed-energy weapons.

That is a very generous estimate, mind you, and does not include minimum interval possible between shots (I don't know that figure).

The Airborne Laser is not operational. The COIL has not even been integrated into the aircraft yet. What exactly is your evidence for even one operational ABL, let alone an "array"? Especially when each one of these alleged systems could deliver (given the most optimistic values for power and duty cycle, using 100% efficiency figures for everything) far less than one-tenth of one percent of the energy needed to destroy one percent of one of the towers? There's not enough airspace over Manhattan Island to put all your imaginary ABLs flying wingtip-to-wingtip! Utter fantasy.

Hey! A quantifiable claim! Now all you have to do is identify holes which can only be produced by beams produced by some of the tens of thousands of ABLs, operating simultaneously, your scenario requires. You can start by determining the ABL's actual beam width on target. After all, you said classified information is irrelevant, and you had all the information you need, so specific evidence for your beam width claim should be easy to provide.

Yes, I have shown that your scenario requires tens of thousands of your imagined weapons. And that's just the start of the problems with your scenario.

When you do, feel free to offer any specific objections to the analysis itself, not irrelevant issues. Perhaps you'd like to provide a quantitative estimate of the energy you think is necessary to vaporize almost all of the steel in the towers.

sts60

In the above you demonstrate reliance upon one of the techniques frequently used to thwart valid science. It is a technique used in a competitive setting where points are sought to be proven, without regard for truth. You carefully prepare a construct so that what you contend may be correct, technically understood, but it has nothing to do with anything other than that which is subssumed within the defined task or issue.

You're constructing your own set of parameters, or "box" if you will, and then you exclude all else from that which you say is under examination. OK, if that is what you are doing on the one hand, then it is inappropriate, in my view, for you to claim that what you are doing has reference to the theory that DEW destroyed the WTC, on the other. Note, too, that you have also denied that your construct is even required to confirm the validity of the official explanation that presupposes that kerosene, a little damage to .05% of the floors of a 110 storey building and gravity could mount the energy necessary to disintegrate the steel, concrete, rebar etc.

That is a mighty tight box you've created and I submit it is a useless one.

You frequesntly use the one word response of "irrelevant" to dispense with that which you disagree with. That works for purposes of your own comfort, perhaps, but your reply is not an answer; rather it is in the form of an excuse for not dealing with a stated concern.

I have stated that your methodology here does not address the forensic inforation available with respect to the event itself -- the destruction of the WTC and what can be seen resulting therefrom -- and that, accordingly, your hypothetical construct is useless.

I think this observation stands. Certainly, as I continue in this discussion, I will offer up forensic information, as I have begun to do in the post above, noting that there are circular 'bullet' holes seen in that forensic information that I contend are consistent with DEW.

[BenBurch]

I came up with about 1.7*106 kWh to vaporize a little over one percent of the steel in one of the Twin Towers. If you want to make 90% of the steel go away, that's 1.5*108 kWh - 150,000,000 kWh.

But I don't understand your "expended over 1 second" associated with your conversion from kWh to KWs. The energy is the same no matter how fast it's expended. Did you mean to say, "the power, if this was expended over 1 second, is 41,760,000,000 Kilowatts"?

A certain number of kWh expended over one second is 3600 times as many kWs. So the INTENSITY is 3600 times more than the same energy expended over an hour. Energy is intensity times duration.

[Dog Town]

What was this roof top corner, made of? The death-star could not "disappear" it! Hmmmm...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10923485eafcbc93eb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12695)

[jammonius]

The eye is a liar. What you "see" means nothing. How about some math?

I recognize the epistemological dispute we have here. I abide in the folk wisdom "seeing is believing" because, for amongst other reasons, sight is the most highly developed organ of perception available to human beings. Next after sight, is sound.

Of course, in epistemological terms -- how do you know what you think you know? -- there is room for discounting what is seen and heard. We know, too, that visual imagery can be manipulated, very easily at that, and that what people think they see, let alone hear, can be misleading.

I have no objection to your desire to discount everything I post that relies on visual information. That is your choice.

Mathematics, in its pure form, is ridigdly logical and has good validity in the right context. However, the ability to manipulate mathematical results at least equals the ability to manipulate visual data and such results are generally less trustworthy overall than what one can actually see, in my opinion. You can differ, if you like.

Certainly, the mathematical models presented in this thread are purposefully rigged so as not to even deal with the energy contradiction presented by assuming that lowly, gritty, nonflammable kerosene could have had anything whatever to do with the seen massive destructive event taking place at the WTC on 9/11/01.

[jammonius]

What was this roof top corner, made of? The death-star could not "disappear" it! Hmmmm...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10923485eafcbc93eb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12695)

No, it is more likely that beam attenuation occurred as a result of either being split by the 'corner' effect or, perhaps, by the materials used. Beam weapons have quirks like that.

In fact, I think the photo you reposted may serve as a real clue to those who are charged with knowing the lethality effects of DEW. I consider the photo to be, as it were, a smoking gun (pun intended).

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10923485eafcbc93eb.jpg

Thanks for your post.

[twinstead]

Certainly, the mathematical models presented in this thread are purposefully rigged so as not to even deal with the energy contradiction presented by assuming that lowly, gritty, nonflammable kerosene could have had anything whatever to do with the seen massive destructive event taking place at the WTC on 9/11/01.

Of course they are. I mean, how else could they contradict your obviously correct theory?

[Dog Town]

I consider the photo to be, as it were, a smoking gun (pun intended).

Thanks for your post.

Too bad you can't prove your fictional tale. Hell... I'd like to see you just explain it.
Your arms must get tired, hand waving so much.:D

Oh', and you're welcome.

[Mr.D]

2--There is already an officially assumed causal factor consisting in a smack from a presumed jetliner, a quantity of unburned and burned kerosene that, in the aggregate, would fill an average size swimming pool, and there is the factor of gravity.

As that is the presumed energy source

(bolding mine)

Woah there.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you suggesting that the energy for the DEW that destroyed the WTC came from

1) The kinetic energy of the airplanes, which hit ~= half an hour before the DEW fired?
2) The chemical PE of the jet fuel (including the already burned fuel?!?)
3) The gravitational PE of the target itself?

That's one amazing system you propose.

[DGM]

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image149.jpg

The diameter of various circular hits seen here and in other overhead images of GZ on and shortly after 9/11 is a basis for the 24' and 36' estimates. One approach to asessing DEW is to assess the forensic evidence found in the visual information of the event.

Based on experience had in the thread on the flatness of the debris pile, I know that almost no one is able to agree on how to interpret photographic information. So, for starters, what I am asserting are circular holes, perpendicularly cut, as though they were bullet holes, will likely be denied by some. But, that is ok, all I can do is say what I see.
What are you talking about? I have as much proof as you do (for your fantasy) that they are Godzilla's foot prints. Look at the old Japanese documentary's on him. Notice the similarities to what he did to Tokyo?

[Grizzly Bear]

No, it is more likely that beam attenuation occurred as a result of either being split by the 'corner' effect or, perhaps, by the materials used. Beam weapons have quirks like that.

In fact, I think the photo you reposted may serve as a real clue to those who are charged with knowing the lethality effects of DEW. I consider the photo to be, as it were, a smoking gun (pun intended).

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10923485eafcbc93eb.jpg

Thanks for your post.

Wait, a direct hit from you laser beams vaporizes the WTC, but it only punches a hole through the top of that building?
I sense your numbers must be flexing wildly.

[R.Mackey]

No, it is more likely that beam attenuation occurred as a result of either being split by the 'corner' effect or, perhaps, by the materials used. Beam weapons have quirks like that.

In fact, I think the photo you reposted may serve as a real clue to those who are charged with knowing the lethality effects of DEW. I consider the photo to be, as it were, a smoking gun (pun intended).

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10923485eafcbc93eb.jpg

Thanks for your post.

You are a bad rerun of Ace Baker. The shapes in the debris happen to match the structural design of the buildings (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2080456#post2080456). Load-bearing elements are more resistant to direct impacts of falling building pieces than spans of relatively unsupported roofs. Oooh, what a mystery.

There is no "corner effect."

A beam weapon that could punch through the WTC Towers would make mincemeat of the lower structures.

If the beam had a "quirk" that produced these shapes, it would be due to a reflection. So where did that energy go..?

If the beam was eight meters wide or more, as you've proposed, that means your emitter has roughly a 32-meter wide main reflector, unless you have such an absurd excess of power that diffraction doesn't bother you at all. Presuming near-optical frequencies, this means a main reflector over twenty times larger than anything ever proposed, and about 100 times larger than anything ever flown. If you attempted to do this in microwave frequencies, you'd wind up assembling something like this (http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/features/dsnbuilt1.html)... in space. Somehow invisible from the ground.

And we still have the problem of powering this device. As I've shown before, it could take thousands of tons just to store the energy.

As I've argued before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2446470), if the New World Order is this powerful, then I for one am eager to sign up. Clearly there's nothing else with even a fraction of its power or technological sophistication anywhere on earth. They would be our future as a species.

[jammonius]

Greetings R. Mackey,

Thank you for your post. Unfortunately, your invective adds next to nothing to the quality of the thread and merely exposes you as opinionated. The subtext of your post is clear and apparent: You want us to know that you have some engineering expertise.

OK, R. Mackey, in your next post, why don't you write 50 times that:

"I am an ___________________[whatever your specific craft is]

That way, we'll know, for sure, who you think you are.

Meanwhile, the perpendicular holes and the circular cuts seen through GZ, by those who care to look, speak for themselves:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc6craterwestair.jpg

What is the diameter of the circular holes in WTC 6?

[jammonius]

Wait, a direct hit from you laser beams vaporizes the WTC, but it only punches a hole through the top of that building?
I sense your numbers must be flexing wildly.

Cute. Are you willing to engage in serious thought about this matter or not?

[twinstead]

What is the diameter of the circular holes in WTC 6?

Should I measure the shadows, or just the 'holes'?

[jammonius]

(bolding mine)

Woah there.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you suggesting that the energy for the DEW that destroyed the WTC came from

1) The kinetic energy of the airplanes, which hit ~= half an hour before the DEW fired?
2) The chemical PE of the jet fuel (including the already burned fuel?!?)
3) The gravitational PE of the target itself?

That's one amazing system you propose.

No, I thought I was clear. The statement I made indicated that those who undertook assumptions about the amount of energy needed for destruction by DEW needed, as a preliminary calculation, to assess how much energy the three factors presumed by the official story could have generated.

The point here is this: Kerosene, a combustible product that is safe to transport on roads and highways (because it is nonflammable), gravity and the amount of damage a hollow aluminum tube can cause to structural steel designed to make stable the tallest building in the world (when it was built) cannot possibly have resulted in the complete and total annhilation of that strutucture, let alone the companion structures like WTC3 that also disappreared.

I hope this clarifies.

[R.Mackey]

Greetings R. Mackey,

Thank you for your post. Unfortunately, your invective adds next to nothing to the quality of the thread and merely exposes you as opinionated. The subtext of your post is clear and apparent: You want us to know that you have some engineering expertise.

OK, R. Mackey, in your next post, why don't you write 50 times that:

"I am an ___________________[whatever your specific craft is]

That way, we'll know, for sure, who you think you are.

Scientific facts are never opinionated. Read my post, please. Unless you can respond with facts of your own, your claims are utterly mad.

I'm also amused by your request for me to argue from authority. I don't do that, although I could. My CV is on the web if you really care that much.

[Mr.D]

[quote=jammonius;3797091]No, I thought I was clear. The statement I made indicated that those who undertook assumptions about the amount of energy needed for destruction by DEW needed, as a preliminary calculation, to assess how much energy the three factors presumed by the official story could have generated.
[quote]

Done to the satisfaction to nearly everyone, but unacceptable to you for reasons you've made clear in this thread and others.

Gotcha.

Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to go shutdown the grill in the backyard by smothering the coals with a bucket full of jet fuel.

[pomeroo]

No, I thought I was clear. The statement I made indicated that those who undertook assumptions about the amount of energy needed for destruction by DEW needed, as a preliminary calculation, to assess how much energy the three factors presumed by the official story could have generated.

The point here is this: Kerosene, a combustible product that is safe to transport on roads and highways (because it is nonflammable), gravity and the amount of damage a hollow aluminum tube can cause to structural steel designed to make stable the tallest building in the world (when it was built) cannot possibly have resulted in the complete and total annhilation of that strutucture, let alone the companion structures like WTC3 that also disappreared.

I hope this clarifies.


How is your insane deception supposed to work if everyone here understands perfectly well that the Twin Towers were not, in any coherent sense, "annihilated"? All of the structural steel was recovered--it was not "dustified"--and the gypsum was as pulverized as a sane person would expect it to be.

You may be the one person here who doesn't realize that Ryan Mackey is a NASA engineer, someone extremely well-qualified to expose the preposterous pseudo-science underpinning your fantasy.

[phunk]

Meanwhile, the perpendicular holes and the circular cuts seen through GZ, by those who care to look, speak for themselves:



Yeah, they're saying "This building was hit by thousands of tons of debris that fell 1000 feet."

In your DEW theory, how did they get the falling debris from WTC1 and WTC2 to land right in the bottom of those holes?

[jammonius]

phunk,

Foul!

You can't do this:

"In your DEW theory, how did they get the falling debris from WTC1 and WTC2 to land right in the bottom of those holes?"

That's cheating.

You presuppose there was debris at the bottom of the holes in WTC 6 and 5. Prove it.

Or, I can save you some time. You won't be able to do so. There was none.

But the larger point here is simply in the ease with which supporters of the official myth get to state suppositions about debris without having to prove it. Yet, werever and whenever I or others supporting the DEW theory have mentioned debris, no amount of proof has ever been sufficient; the denial mechanism continues on and on and on.

Not this time.

Since you claim there was debris there, you find evidence of it. You won't.

[TheRedWorm]

Please, if you would J, tell us everything you know about these DEWs. Every specification that you can think of, we would like to hear. Specifications such as: Type? Power? Power generation? Location? Locomotion (unless specified by location i.e. fixed to earth or in geosynchronous orbit)? Characteristics of after effects? You know, stuff like that.

You are supremely confident that these weapons took down myriad buildings, so tell us all you know about them. Thank you.

[jammonius]

redworm,

With due respect, I must decline to do the research you requested for you. I consider such requests to be cheap tricks, to put it plainly. This is a dialogue. If there are questions about DEW that you have, then look them up and post your results.

Requests such as yours are a invitation to allow you to sit back and do next to nothing.

No thanks.

[sts60]

The diameter of various circular hits seen here and in other overhead images of GZ on and shortly after 9/11 is a basis for the 24' and 36' estimates. One approach to asessing DEW is to assess the forensic evidence found in the visual information of the event.

Based on experience had in the thread on the flatness of the debris pile, I know that almost no one is able to agree on how to interpret photographic information. So, for starters, what I am asserting are circular holes, perpendicularly cut, as though they were bullet holes, will likely be denied by some. But, that is ok, all I can do is say what I see.
There are some vaguely circular holes. Also holes with square edges, holes with part curved edge and part straight edge. The holes in the picture you show also vary in relative size by ratios of 3:1 or greater.

Your observed claims of 24' and 36' circular holes are demonstrably incorrect, by the very photograph you showed. Do you have any evidence for your claim?

[TheRedWorm]

redworm,

With due respect, I must decline to do the research you requested for you. I consider such requests to be cheap tricks, to put it plainly. This is a dialogue. If there are questions about DEW that you have, then look them up and post your results.

Requests such as yours are a invitation to allow you to sit back and do next to nothing.

No thanks.

How am I to look up DEWs of which I know nothing? If you can't even give me plausible estimates to look up, what exactly am I to search for?

[sts60]

sts60

In the above you demonstrate reliance upon one of the techniques frequently used to thwart valid science. It is a technique used in a competitive setting where points are sought to be proven, without regard for truth. You carefully prepare a construct so that what you contend may be correct, technically understood, but it has nothing to do with anything other than that which is subssumed within the defined task or issue.
I ask again, do you have any specific objections to the analysis, or have you only an endless series of vague complaints?
You're constructing your own set of parameters, or "box" if you will, and then you exclude all else from that which you say is under examination. OK, if that is what you are doing on the one hand, then it is inappropriate, in my view, for you to claim that what you are doing has reference to the theory that DEW destroyed the WTC, on the other.
My analysis relied on only the effect you claim - the vaporization of the steel - and the relevant properties of the material itself, as clearly explained. Do you have any specific objections, or only an endless series of vague complaints?
Note, too, that you have also denied that your construct is even required to confirm the validity of the official explanation that presupposes that kerosene, a little damage to .05% of the floors of a 110 storey building and gravity could mount the energy necessary to disintegrate the steel, concrete, rebar etc.
No. I said no such thing, and once again I would like to ask you to stop misrepresentation of my statements. Are you incapable of doing so, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?

If you want to talk about impact damage, jet fuel fires, and building content fires, feel free to discuss the topic on one of the many appropriate threads already existing, or start one. This thread, I remind you yet again, is for discussing your premise of directed-energy weapons used to destroy WTC 1 and 2 (and apparently, you believe, several other buildings). I created this thread because you said you would engage in such a discussion; is it really too much to ask for you to stick to the topic?
You frequesntly use the one word response of "irrelevant" to dispense with that which you disagree with. That works for purposes of your own comfort, perhaps, but your reply is not an answer; rather it is in the form of an excuse for not dealing with a stated concern.
Tell you what: I will stop saying "irrelevant" when you stop saying irrelevant things.
I have stated that your methodology here does not address the forensic inforation available with respect to the event itself -- the destruction of the WTC and what can be seen resulting therefrom -- and that, accordingly, your hypothetical construct is useless.
Honestly, do you get paid by the word?

My analysis investigates the fundamental physics at the core of your vague premise, and finds it ludicrously unrealistic. Do you have any specific objections to it, or merely an endless series of vague complaints?
I think this observation stands. Certainly, as I continue in this discussion, I will offer up forensic information, as I have begun to do in the post above, noting that there are circular 'bullet' holes seen in that forensic information that I contend are consistent with DEW.
The holes have straight, irregular, and circular sides, and vary in size by a range of at least 3:1; the only two specific observations you have made about them are demonstrably invalid. Do you have anything else you'd like to try?

But, since you claim that they are "perpendicular", clearly that suggests to you the origin of the beam. Where do you think the weapon or weapons were? In aircraft? In low orbit? In high orbit?

[jammonius]

How am I to look up DEWs of which I know nothing? If you can't even give me plausible estimates to look up, what exactly am I to search for?

For starters, just use wikipedia for "directed energy weapons." Another good source is deps.org See, especially, their publications entitled WAVE FRONT.

After that, you should have a plethora of google search terms to use.

If you're particularly interested in DEW as it relates to the destruction of the WTC complex, I can think of no better source than

drjudywood.uk.com

[jammonius]

sts,

If #281 merits further reply I will do so a bit later, probably tomorrow. The main weakness I see is your candid admission that "My analysis relied on only the effect you claim - the vaporization of the steel - and the relevant properties of the material itself, as clearly explained. Do you have any specific objections, or only an endless series of vague complaints?"

Yes, I have a specific objection and I have named it. You have improperly narrowed the scope of your assessment so as to deny the reality of the event. Your construct is hopelessly flawed. Do please understand this. I have told you that you have too narrowly tailored the scope of your undertaking and have ignord both the forensic elements of the event itself, misstated the work done by Dr. Wood, whose work you say you are assessing, and created an outcome that leaves us with the conclusion that the buildings must still be standing.

This is not difficult to grasp. To the extent that you continue to assert there's some validity in what you did, then, to that extent, you and I have a disagreement. Do you grasp this?

[TheRedWorm]

It is your claim, you back it with a probability analysis, or retract it. If you, personally, cannot; invite Dr. Wood here, so she offer said probability analysis.

[sts60]

Greetings R. Mackey,

Thank you for your post. Unfortunately, your invective adds next to nothing to the quality of the thread and merely exposes you as opinionated. The subtext of your post is clear and apparent: You want us to know that you have some engineering expertise.

OK, R. Mackey, in your next post, why don't you write 50 times that:

"I am an ___________________[whatever your specific craft is]
This argument against relevant authority makes it incumbent on you to cite your relevant authority. What is it? I have a bachelor's in physics, a master's in electrical engineering, and another master's in system engineering, and over fifteen years' experience in aerospace engineering.

What is your relevant experience? No handwaving, please - you brought this topic up.

[jammonius]

It is your claim, you back it with a probability analysis, or retract it. If you, personally, cannot; invite Dr. Wood here, so she offer said probability analysis.

No

[TheRedWorm]

Why not?

[sts60]

A certain number of kWh expended over one second is 3600 times as many kWs. So the INTENSITY is 3600 times more than the same energy expended over an hour. Energy is intensity times duration.
Ben, we're in violent agreement here; I'm just saying "power" where you're saying "intensity". And of course the intensity of any real beam weapon is too small by many orders of magnitude to do what jammonius claims, as is the total energy available to an real system such as the (not yet operational!) ABL. As I said before, jammonius might as well post a picture of a flashlight as a picture of the ABL; it would be equally convincing as a WTC-vaporizing weapon.

[volatile]

I have a question: how did the DEW destroy the Towers? That's the very, very basis of Jammonius' claim, as far as I can tell.

[beachnut]

...
You presuppose there was debris at the bottom of the holes in WTC 6 and 5. Prove it.

...
Since you claim there was debris there, you find evidence of it. You won't.
Oops, WTC 1 and 2 did the damage to 5 and 6! Proven on 9/11! Sad you should have been there, you could have seen it. You continue to prove your ideas are pure fantasy with each post.

This takes care of you and Judy Wood. She was fired for making up fantasy; what reason did they give her? Sad when an engineer is not rational and makes up pure lies. What is your excuse for spewing the false information about DEW?

The proof you ask for was done on 9/11. You are over 6 years too late. Why are you short on knowledge about 9/11 and skills to help you understand? I am interested in how you can be short on knowledge and make up a fantasy that grows more fantastic as you go on.

[WildCat]

Please, if you would J, tell us everything you know about these DEWs. Every specification that you can think of, we would like to hear. Specifications such as: Type? Power? Power generation? Location? Locomotion (unless specified by location i.e. fixed to earth or in geosynchronous orbit)? Characteristics of after effects? You know, stuff like that.

You are supremely confident that these weapons took down myriad buildings, so tell us all you know about them. Thank you.
He/she already has RedWorm - and the answer is absoultely nothing.

Why not?
He/she can't. Neither can his/her hero Judy Wood.

And for some reason the phrase "mad as a hatter" comes to mind.

[phunk]

phunk,

Foul!

You can't do this:

"In your DEW theory, how did they get the falling debris from WTC1 and WTC2 to land right in the bottom of those holes?"

That's cheating.

You presuppose there was debris at the bottom of the holes in WTC 6 and 5. Prove it.

Or, I can save you some time. You won't be able to do so. There was none.

But the larger point here is simply in the ease with which supporters of the official myth get to state suppositions about debris without having to prove it. Yet, werever and whenever I or others supporting the DEW theory have mentioned debris, no amount of proof has ever been sufficient; the denial mechanism continues on and on and on.

Not this time.

Since you claim there was debris there, you find evidence of it. You won't.

Foul yourself, I presuppose nothing. It's like you haven't even looked at the pictures of GZ before.

http://phunkadelic.org/debris-hole.jpg

So, in your DEW theory, did they make that hole prior to the collase of WTC1 & 2?

[beachnut]

Foul yourself, I presuppose nothing. It's like you haven't even looked at the pictures of GZ before.
So, in your DEW theory, did they make that hole prior to the collase of WTC1 & 2? Parts of the towers did the damage. And you can see it.

[Slayhamlet]

Foul yourself, I presuppose nothing. It's like you haven't even looked at the pictures of GZ before.

http://phunkadelic.org/debris-hole.jpg

So, in your DEW theory, did they make that hole prior to the collase of WTC1 & 2?

Get ready for an idiosyncratic and utterly ridiculous ad hoc redefinition of the word 'debris'. She's not even trying to sound reasonable.

Why are you people attempting to argue with this dishonest charlatan, anyway? What's the point? Only a minuscule fraction of the already marginalized and risible Twoof Movement takes this crap seriously. Better to just let the paranoids in it maintain their fantasy of her being a "disinfo" agent. It's much funnier that way.

[pomeroo]

redworm,

With due respect, I must decline to do the research you requested for you. I consider such requests to be cheap tricks, to put it plainly. This is a dialogue. If there are questions about DEW that you have, then look them up and post your results.

Requests such as yours are a invitation to allow you to sit back and do next to nothing.

No thanks.


In the same spirit, I decline to post my airtight proof of the Unified Field Theory. You dummies are just going to have to work it out for yourselves!

[pomeroo]

He/she already has RedWorm - and the answer is absoultely nothing.


He/she can't. Neither can his/her hero Judy Wood.

And for some reason the phrase "mad as a hatter" comes to mind.\


That's funny--the phrase "mad as Judy Wood" comes to my mind.

[sts60]

sts,

If #281 merits further reply I will do so a bit later, probably tomorrow. The main weakness I see is your candid admission that "My analysis relied on only the effect you claim - the vaporization of the steel - and the relevant properties of the material itself, as clearly explained. Do you have any specific objections, or only an endless series of vague complaints?"

Yes, I have a specific objection and I have named it. You have improperly narrowed the scope of your assessment so as to deny the reality of the event.
Incorrect - in fact, you have it exactly backward. I have focused on the most fundamental aspect of your premise - is it physically possible? I have only used data which is intrinsic to your claim - the nature of the material you claim was destroyed, your claim that the buildings were "pulverized, turned to dust and utterly destroyed", and the ~10 second time frame in which you claim this was accomplished.

In fact, posters such as myself (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762857&postcount=311), myriad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354) , R. Mackey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102), and BenBurch (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3756906&postcount=208) are the only ones to evaluate your claim in specific terms - not you. Beyond your bizarre and failed attempt to claim "24' and 36' round holes" and some subsequent backpedaling, you have failed to do any of the work in this thread, and have failed to even specify your claim. That's very disappointing given your previous pledge that you would "engage" in a DEW-specific thread.
Your construct is hopelessly flawed. Do please understand this. I have told you that you have too narrowly tailored the scope of your undertaking
Do you have a specific objection to my analysis, or are you merely unhappy that I actually evaluated the few details you have bothered to provide?
and have ignord both the forensic elements of the event itself,
Incorrect. Along with several other posters, I've already pointed out how your own "evidence" contradicted your own observations.

But since at least some of the holes were sorta "perpendicular", are you ready to tell us what this directionality means as far as the location of your alleged weapons? Or is this a case where you do not want us to follow your "forensic elements"?
misstated the work done by Dr. Wood, whose work you say you are assessing,
What exactly have I misstated? Shall I take your concern for this as a pledge that you will discontinue misrepresenting my statements?
and created an outcome that leaves us with the conclusion that the buildings must still be standing.
Bizarrely incorrect. I have merely evaluated your claims, such as they are, and quantitatively and in appropriate detail shown them to be unphysical, unsupported, and often self-contradictory.
This is not difficult to grasp. To the extent that you continue to assert there's some validity in what you did, then, to that extent, you and I have a disagreement. Do you grasp this?
I really think you must get paid by the word. Do you have any specific rebuttals, or merely an endless stream of handwaving and vague complaints?

[tsig]

I for one welcome our new chocolate-egg laying overlords.

I for one am leading the revolt against the chocolate-egg lying ducks. They hate our freedoms!!! The eggs aren't even chocolate.

[TjW]

Look, don't blame me when they find your body entirely encapsulated in Peeps. You don't mess with the Soul Cake Duck.

[tsig]

You are a bad rerun of Ace Baker. The shapes in the debris happen to match the structural design of the buildings (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2080456#post2080456). Load-bearing elements are more resistant to direct impacts of falling building pieces than spans of relatively unsupported roofs. Oooh, what a mystery.

There is no "corner effect."

A beam weapon that could punch through the WTC Towers would make mincemeat of the lower structures.

If the beam had a "quirk" that produced these shapes, it would be due to a reflection. So where did that energy go..?

If the beam was eight meters wide or more, as you've proposed, that means your emitter has roughly a 32-meter wide main reflector, unless you have such an absurd excess of power that diffraction doesn't bother you at all. Presuming near-optical frequencies, this means a main reflector over twenty times larger than anything ever proposed, and about 100 times larger than anything ever flown. If you attempted to do this in microwave frequencies, you'd wind up assembling something like this (http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/features/dsnbuilt1.html)... in space. Somehow invisible from the ground.

And we still have the problem of powering this device. As I've shown before, it could take thousands of tons just to store the energy.

As I've argued before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2446470), if the New World Order is this powerful, then I for one am eager to sign up. Clearly there's nothing else with even a fraction of its power or technological sophistication anywhere on earth. They would be our future as a species.

Yeh if the unknown planners have these kind of weapons then just take over the world. Who could stop them?

World domination achieved. Maybe it's some kind of superman secret identity thing.

[tsig]

Greetings R. Mackey,

Thank you for your post. Unfortunately, your invective adds next to nothing to the quality of the thread and merely exposes you as opinionated. The subtext of your post is clear and apparent: You want us to know that you have some engineering expertise.

OK, R. Mackey, in your next post, why don't you write 50 times that:

"I am an ___________________[whatever your specific craft is]

That way, we'll know, for sure, who you think you are.

Meanwhile, the perpendicular holes and the circular cuts seen through GZ, by those who care to look, speak for themselves:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc6craterwestair.jpg

What is the diameter of the circular holes in WTC 6?

I'm listening to those holes speak right now and they are the voices of the dead groaning in agony because of the lies being told by you.

[Alt+F4]

redworm,

With due respect, I must decline to do the research you requested for you. I consider such requests to be cheap tricks, to put it plainly. This is a dialogue. If there are questions about DEW that you have, then look them up and post your results.

Requests such as yours are a invitation to allow you to sit back and do next to nothing.

No thanks.

How did a DEW destroy the WTC? Why is this simple question a "cheap trick"? Either you don't know the answer to the question or you know the entire DEW theory is a bunch of bull.

Now on the other hand, if you do know how a DEW destroyed the WTC why not just tell us in simple-to-understand English? If you are holding back information regarding the murders of 2,600 people just to partake in a exercise of "dialogue" or Internet debate, then your behavior is beyond immoral, it borders on the criminal.

So which is it?

P.S. - Please don't suggest Dr. Judy's website. I've been there and she does not explain how a DEW could have destroyed the WTC. Dr. Judy can't even explain how a microwave oven works.

[BenBurch]

I ask again, where do they hide something capable of making a laser beam dozens of feet wide in space?

I certify to you, were it there, I could point you right to it because every observational astronomer on the planet would have had problems with it already.

Since it us YOU who claim it is there, YOU need to tell us how it is concealed, and how it was launched and how it is maintained, because all of those things would appear to be impossible to all engineers who have reviewed the problem.

YOU are the only person here who does not think that this whole line of argument isn't the product of a diseased mind, repeated by a simpleton.

-Ben

[jammonius]

This is my final post in this thread. An end point has been satisfactorily reached, in my view, with all that can usefully be posted having been completed.

I understand posters are not convinced of DEW causal theory and "want more proof" but are reluctant to look for it themselves. Further, no amount of proof presented has been sufficient. There are those who initially said they did not believe DEW existed, but those posts have thinned out.

There are a variety of posts indicating what are claimed to be technical limitations, but those are based on faulty analysis. They treat DEW in a vacuum and do not have, as their reference point, an explanation of what caused this:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/dirt/dirtpics/poof_1539.jpg

The query process isfurther confounded because the event of 9/11 has, for some reason, caused many, many people to relinquish their own thought process, especially as it relates to what they can see. Many people, in looking at the above photo, are unwilling to acknowledge that it depicts steel being turned to dust almost instantaneously. Many others are willing to attribute the conditions seen to the destructive power of gravity, a plane smack and kerosene. When challenged on this they assert there were "other combustibles" available, but the available materials -- carpets and desks -- are less combustible than even lowly kerosene; and, paper didn't even burn.

This leads to inclusion of the outcome of the "Debris" thread which also reached an end point. There, we saw that GZ was flat. Those who initially doubted the claim ended up hanging their hat on the few exceptions to the overall flatness that were always acknowledged to be there because they were plainly visible all along. The point there was whether the overall and general condition applicable to the vast majority of the site would be the determining way to define the site's elevation or whether the occassional exception would be given emphasis.

However, the overall point of the flatness issue is simply that of showing how thorough the annihilation of GZ actually was. Again, the issue here is that the energy available through kerosene, etc. is grossly insufficient to have created that flat landscape.

This leads to the further inclusion of the altered "NIST" thread.

Posters have been shown that NIST "did not investigate the actual collapses." Thus, in actuality, all of the discussion we've had here on DEW and on the flatness of GZ literally is our own work because NIST did not investigate those factors. NIST offers no guidance whatsoever on what is going on in the picture posted above because they did not investigate that destruction. NIST cannot provide any guidance on why GZ was flat and can offer no help to anyone on whether there was any debris underground (there was none) because they did not investigate that either.

That's why they and their contractors are being challenged.

All of the back and forth in these three threads can literally be said to stem from the fact that NIST committed fraud by pretending to investigate the event, but not actually doing so.

Notice, in the DEW and the Debris thread, there's no way to cite NIST as an authority by anyone because NIST offers nothing whatever that would respond to those two threads. Granted, DEW theory is, of course, startling. But, NIST should have been able to determine whether there was debris underground or not, had they but investigated the event, but they didn't.

Only DEW could have turned that steel to dust instantaneously in the manner seen to have occurred. One thing is for absolutely certain: NIST cannot contradict that claim.

Thanks to all for their participation.

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEWcon/DEWconpics/12541.jpg

[Dave Rogers]

Thanks to all for their participation.


You're welcome. And thanks, in return, for one of the most outstanding excursions from reality ever to be seen on this forum. The style of argument you habitually employ, of making a claim, presenting evidence that unambiguously refutes your claim, repeatedly claiming that the evidence supports your claim, and then claiming that your claim is thus proven, is quite literally unanswerable.

Dave

[Furi]

WOW!

(ETA that was related to Jammonius, not Dave Rogers,

Not that Dave Rogers doesn't Desrve a WOW!)

[JimBenArm]

Yep, this has been another Realistice thread, from a ChristopherA wannabe.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue...

[MRC_Hans]

:rolleyes:

This is my final post in this thread.

Our heartfelt thanks.

An end point has been satisfactorily reached, in my view, with all that can usefully be posted having been completed.

You are probably right, except it can't be termed an endpoint, but rather a starting point. It was evident from post one that nothing useful could be gained by debating with you.

I understand posters are not convinced of DEW causal theory and "want more proof" but are reluctant to look for it themselves.

Well, people tend to be reluctant to search for too long in obviously empty spaces.


Further, no amount of proof presented has been sufficient.


In fact, no amount of proof has been presented.


There are those who initially said they did not believe DEW existed, but those posts have thinned out.


Yes, since people naturally assumed that by DEW you meant devices capable of destroying large buildings. As it expired that your definition for 'existing DEW' included shouting "BOO!", most had to agree that, yes DEW exist.

There are a variety of posts indicating what are claimed to be technical limitations, but those are based on faulty analysis.

No. [TM]



They treat DEW in a vacuum and do not have, as their reference point, an explanation of what caused this:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/dirt/dirtpics/poof_1539.jpg



Neither did they have some other, equally relevant picture, say, one of Mickey Mouse, as reference point.


The query process is further confounded because the event of 9/11 has, for some reason, caused many, many people to relinquish their own thought process, especially as it relates to what they can see.


Yes, we have seen that demonstrated repeatedly. :D


Many people, in looking at the above photo, are unwilling to acknowledge that it depicts steel being turned to dust almost instantaneously.


Perhaps because it shows not the slightest sign of steel being turned to dust. Have you ever seen steel being turned to dust? I have, and I can assure you that it is extremely spectacular.


Many others are willing to attribute the conditions seen to the destructive power of gravity, a plane smack and kerosene.


Let's see: Something falls down, and we attribute it to gravity. Yes, I see the grave errors in this. So sorry.

When challenged on this they assert there were "other combustibles" available, but the available materials -- carpets and desks -- are less combustible than even lowly kerosene; and, paper didn't even burn.

No. [TM]


This leads to inclusion of the outcome of the "Debris" thread which also reached an end point. There, we saw that GZ was flat.


No. [TM]


Those who initially doubted the claim ended up hanging their hat on the few exceptions to the overall flatness that were always acknowledged to be there because they were plainly visible all along.


In other words, they were hanging their hat on the well established fact that GZ was, in fact, not flat. Yes.


*snip*
However, the overall point of the flatness issue is simply that of showing how thorough the annihilation of GZ actually was. Again, the issue here is that the energy available through kerosene, etc. is grossly insufficient to have created that flat landscape.


And, let us see, who claimed that the energy should come from kerosene?
Right! Nobody did.
The basic source of the energy creating the relatively flat landscape (flat as compared to a 110 story building) was something entirely different: Meet Mr. Gravity.

Posters have been shown that NIST "did not investigate the actual collapses."

Basically correct. And very elementary.


Thus, in actuality, all of the discussion we've had here on DEW and on the flatness of GZ literally is our own work because NIST did not investigate those factors. NIST offers no guidance whatsoever on what is going on in the picture posted above because they did not investigate that destruction. NIST cannot provide any guidance on why GZ was flat and can offer no help to anyone on whether there was any debris underground (there was none) because they did not investigate that either.


Wrong. Although NIST did not investigate the details of the collapse, they do indeed provide those answers. And the claim that there was no debris underground is, as we all know, a lie.


That's why they and their contractors are being challenged.


No. [TM]

All of the back and forth in these three threads can literally be said to stem from the fact that NIST committed fraud by pretending to investigate the event, but not actually doing so.

No. [TM]


*snip*
Granted, DEW theory is, of course, startling.


Startling in its absurdity, yes.


But, NIST should have been able to determine whether there was debris underground or not, had they but investigated the event, but they didn't.


Ehr, if there was no debris underground, why did it take them nearly a year to excavate the "bathtub" structure?


Only DEW could have turned that steel to dust instantaneously in the manner seen to have occurred.


No. [TM]


One thing is for absolutely certain: NIST cannot contradict that claim.


Yes, they can. Dude, my grandmother can contradict that claim, and make sense.


Thanks to all for their participation.


You are welcome. If only you had participated as well.


Hans :dio:

[~enigma~]

I think all the idiots that follow Dr. Insano Judy and her death ray bs be lined up and dustified by her beam. Since it doesn't exist, I didn't promote violence and shouldn't get a yellow card.

[Alt+F4]

This is my final post in this thread.

BenBurch hit the nail on the head, and it is worth repeating:

YOU are the only person here who does not think that this whole line of argument isn't the product of a diseased mind, repeated by a simpleton.

[sts60]

This is my final post in this thread. An end point has been satisfactorily reached, in my view, with all that can usefully be posted having been completed.
You didn't support your claim. You didn't even define your claim. But nobody can make you do that.
I understand posters are not convinced of DEW causal theory
It's not a theory. You haven't even defined it.
and "want more proof"
No. We want you to define your claim and provide evidence for it. The closest you came to this was to show some pictures of holes, but your own photographs flatly contradicted your observations.
but are reluctant to look for it themselves.
No. We've looked at in considerable detail, and quantitatively; we've done all the work for you, but you didn't bother to address any of it.
Further, no amount of proof presented has been sufficient.
You didn't offer any proof.
There are those who initially said they did not believe DEW existed, but those posts have thinned out.
A flat lie. I have challenged you previously to identify one poster here who does not believe that directed-energy weapons exist, at least in the developmental stages.
There are a variety of posts indicating what are claimed to be technical limitations, but those are based on faulty analysis. They treat DEW in a vacuum and do not have, as their reference point, an explanation of what caused this:
Do you have any specific objections, or merely an endless stream of vague complaints?
The query process isfurther confounded because the event of 9/11 has, for some reason, caused many, many people to relinquish their own thought process, especially as it relates to what they can see. Many people, in looking at the above photo, are unwilling to acknowledge that it depicts steel being turned to dust almost instantaneously.
Begging the question. This claim is contradicted by the fact that the vast majority of the steel was recovered from Ground Zero.
Many others are willing to attribute the conditions seen to the destructive power of gravity, a plane smack and kerosene. When challenged on this they assert there were "other combustibles" available, but the available materials -- carpets and desks -- are less combustible than even lowly kerosene; and, paper didn't even burn.
Not only is this flatly incorrect - paper certainly did burn on the fire floors - but you have managed again to contradict your own claim. One would expect a significant amount of unburned debris in a building collapse triggered by structural failure as seen at WTC. Your magic ray guns which you claim vaporized the steel would necessarily have burned up all the paper!

As a firefighter, I am amused by your ignorant pronouncements on the effects of high-rise structure fires; but that pales in comparison to watching you so neatly debunk your own claim.
This leads to inclusion of the outcome of the "Debris" thread which also reached an end point. ...
This leads to the further inclusion of the altered "NIST" thread. ...
Since you're pronouncing victory and leaving, I guess we'll never get an answer to the question as to whether you are simply incapable of staying on topic, or really do get paid by the word.
That's why they and their contractors are being challenged.
Large high-technology concerns are routinely accosted by mentally ill persons. What's both sad and funny is that poor Ms. Wood can't even figure out which companies actually make directed-energy weapons. I hope she receives compassionate mental health care.
All of the back and forth in these three threads can literally be said to stem from the fact that NIST committed fraud by pretending to investigate the event, but not actually doing so.
I think it's really that you are incapable of staying on topic.
Only DEW could have turned that steel to dust instantaneously in the manner seen to have occurred. One thing is for absolutely certain: NIST cannot contradict that claim.
Begging the question, and once again flatly contradicted by the recovery of the vast majority of the steel from Ground Zero.
Thanks to all for their participation.
You're welcome. I only wish you had decided to actually participate in a real discussion - specifying your claim and addressing the analyses we provided - and to address the many self-contradictions, misrepresentations, and errors of fact identified in your posts. But I don't think you can bring yourself to address such challenges; I recommend you seek professional help with that.
<picture of ABL>
That system is not operational yet, and can deliver neither the power nor the total energy to do what you claimed - not by many orders of magnitude.

[Dog Town]

This is my final post in this thread. An end point has been satisfactorily reached, in my view, with all that can usefully be posted having been completed.



http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEWcon/DEWconpics/12541.jpg


Well, I must admit, this thread turned out exactly as I thought it would.
Jamm'n Judy flees after a Christophera like production.

Brilliant!

Good try sts60.

[BenBurch]

BenBurch hit the nail on the head, and it is worth repeating:

YOU are the only person here who does not think that this whole line of argument isn't the product of a diseased mind, repeated by a simpleton.


And she slinked off in embarrassing defeat!

[sts60]

Thanks, dogtown (and pomeroo and LashL from previous posts). I almost thought for a minute there that jammonius would actually try to challenge something directly - you know, something like saying the value for heat of vaporization was 100x too high, or that "dustification" required 1,000,000X less energy, or whatever - but that was a vain hope.

Quite evident was her inability to face anything that threatened her world-construct - hence the endless bloviating about "exploring the DEW scenario", but running like a scalded cat from actually doing so, under cover of a thick smokescreen about how "exclusionary" was looking at the elementary physics of the premise. And she never even came that close to the posts by R. Mackey, Myriad, and BenBurch.

I may have come across as a bit repetitious and didactic, but despite the false alarm described above, I had little hope of getting an honest discussion from her. I was interested not only in examining the claim itself, but also getting in a workout on dealing with the numerous fallacies and dodges typical of a conspiracist. That's one reason I picked her posts apart so thoroughly and was unwilling to let slide the same bogus statements no matter how many times they were repeated.

And, boy, did jammonius work the CT playbook. Begging the question, diversion after diversion, poisoning the well, non sequitirs, innuendo, appeals to authority, appeals to equal authority, appeals against authority, out-and-out fabrications, "presenting" information already brought up by other posters, ignoring rebuttals, etc., etc. Most pernicious, in my opinion, were the numerous times she misrepresented what I or other posters said. Many were obvious, some not so much, but they were so consistent I am forced to conclude that these were instances of deliberate dishonesty. And then, of course, there were the multiple times she simply contradicted herself. Some were simply opportunistic - saying whatever might work at a given point - but some seemed to simply be the result of her inability to keep a grasp on her own arguments.

Sad to say, though, such is not unique behavior for most conspiracists. jammonius simply "kicked it up a notch" to an unusually disingenuous and delusional level.

But at least, as usual when arguing with CTs, I learned something (from both other posters, not including jammonius, and my own Googling). I learned a bit more about high-power lasers and more about the water-deluge system at LC39 - I've been there a number of times but didn't know a number of the details.

ETA: No, I still take no position on whether jammonius = Judy Wood or equally delusional fan. "Her" can be considered a generic pronoun in this case.

[jhunter1163]

I for one am leading the revolt against the chocolate-egg lying ducks. They hate our freedoms!!! The eggs aren't even chocolate.

Well of course yours aren't chocolate. That's what you get for dissing the Soul Cake Duck.

[TjW]

I would like to thank Jammonius for fully endorsing my Soul Cake Duck hypothesis.

[sts60]

And she slinked off in embarrassing defeat!
So you blinkered defenders of the powers that be would like to think. She advanced to the rear at doubletime after declaring victory! With one last bit of evidence to challenge your denial of DEWs:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3116/2608643379_dec902d13e.jpg?v=0

[Mr. Skinny]

I would like to thank sts60 for engaging jammonius, who I plonked on page two of this thread.

[TheRedWorm]

I would also like to thank STS60. I knew J was full of false information, but I haven't the brains or experience to articulate why. With STS's patience, knowledge, experience, and math, he/she was able to expose J for the fraud that J (and by extension, Wood) is.

ETA:

I would also like to add thanks to Ryan, Ben, and everyone else that eviscerated the arguments with math. As is often said, even if the arguments have no effect on those that espouse the "theories," however,I am sure that they have an effect on the lurkers.

[Mr. Skinny]

I would also like to thank STS60. I knew J was full of false information, but I haven't the brains or experience to articulate why. With STS's patience, knowledge, experience, and math, he/she was able to expose J for the fraud that J (and by extension, Wood) is.
Eh? Not sure how to take your post. How did you form your opinion if you don't have the brains or experience and you can't articulate it?

You got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy!

[Mr. Skinny]

I would also like to thank STS60. I knew J was full of false information, but I haven't the brains or experience to articulate why. With STS's patience, knowledge, experience, and math, he/she was able to expose J for the fraud that J (and by extension, Wood) is.

ETA:

I would also like to add thanks to Ryan, Ben, and everyone else that eviscerated the arguments with math. As is often said, even if the arguments have no effect on those that espouse the "theories," however,I am sure that they have an effect on the lurkers.
Only if it's good math.

[TheRedWorm]

Eh? Not sure how to take your post. How did you form your opinion if you don't have the brains or experience and you can't articulate it?

You got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy!

Well, when 99% of even the truthers call someone disinfo, you know that they are crazy!:D Also, I don't like to take credit for someone else's work, and it was mostly the responses (or lack their of) to they more...math heavy posts of those mentioned that convinced me that J didn't know what he/she was talking about. If you supply no evidence for your theory, not can you even plausibly speculate, then chances are you are...not in the right area.

[Mr. Skinny]

Well, when 99% of even the truthers call someone disinfo, you know that they are crazy!:D Also, I don't like to take credit for someone else's work, and it was mostly the responses (or lack their of) to they more...math heavy posts of those mentioned that convinced me that J didn't know what he/she was talking about. If you supply no evidence for your theory, not can you even plausibly speculate, then chances are you are...not in the right area.
OK. I read your post a few times.

I'll just say: trust but verify.

[LashL]

Well, I must admit, this thread turned out exactly as I thought it would.
Jamm'n Judy flees after a Christophera like production.

Brilliant!

Good try sts60.

I would like to thank sts60 for engaging jammonius, who I plonked on page two of this thread.


I concur and add my thanks, sts60, for your exceptional patience and your excellent, educational posts. Additional thanks, also, to Myriad, R.Mackey, and BenBurch for your educational posts on the subject matter. Much appreciated.

[sts60]

Thanks, again. The funny thing is that my quantitative analysis didn't even require any specialized knowledge - just a general familiarity with the topic that facilitated a little Web-searching. (Like I said, I'm not a laser guy, nor for that matter a materials scientist.) I just took the picture of the ABL that jammonius was so fond of posting and estimated how much energy it would carry vs. how much energy it would take to vaporize a fraction of the steel in one of the Towers. Ironically, everything I needed was public and needed no effort beyond moving a mouse and working a keyboard.

The other numerical analyses certainly did deserve your accolades.

R. Mackey (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2086102&postcount=393) looked at the problems with such a device being in orbit, and looked at the beam energy and energy storage necessary to deliver approximately twice the kinetic energy delivered by one of the hijacked aircraft. He then went on to look at launch and other problems with this scenario. In every case, he showed clearly why it was unfeasible.

Myriad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354) looked specifically at the energy needed to literally "dustify" the Towers, based on his own experimental data - thus earning him membership in the Jr. Crazy Chainsaw Fan Club. I was going to point this out to jammonius if she claimed that "dustification" was entirely different from vaporization. Interestingly, Myriad came up with a power requirement roughly twice mine, but his analysis was more realistic in terms of delivered energy than mine.

BenBurch (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3756906&postcount=208) used the physics of the atmosphere and terrestrial magnetic field, as well as the physics of beam generation, and limited the possible invisible-magic-death-ray choices to a narrow range in the infrared; he also specified various show-stopping problems with each possible type of beam. His approach rather elegantly addressed (and answered) the most fundamental aspect of the DEW scenario: what kind of weapon was it? In other words, he did all of jammonius' work for her, in explicit detail, and she still couldn't answer the question!

Their excellent work, tackling the issue from multiple directions, is exactly what I meant when I said the problem had been quantitatively bounded. Well done indeed to all of them!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3116/2608643379_dec902d13e.jpg?v=0

[BenBurch]

I concur and add my thanks, sts60, for your exceptional patience and your excellent, educational posts. Additional thanks, also, to Myriad, R.Mackey, and BenBurch for your educational posts on the subject matter. Much appreciated.

Well, you are very welcome!

[pomeroo]

I think we've learned why the deranged, America-hating Judy Wood avoids debates with well-prepared rationalists.

[jammonius]

Multiple posts have been moved to this thread as off-topic in the Dick Oliver thread

Your 1,000,037th dirt dumb delusion is the steel was turned to dust? You can't explain how steel is turned to dust; that is an insane idea. You are posting lies and delusions as expected.


There is no way to describe how stupid that statement is.

Have a look see:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/th_wtc1demobelow.gif

They say seeing is believing; and, that is true to a certain degree.

Problem is, the eye sees what the mind wants to see; so, there we have it, back to square one, no matter what.

ps
Back to Rashomon, right Elmondo? :cool:

[beachnut]

... video as information that falsifies the common storyline of 9/11 ...
You proved your ideas are delusional, why do you keep repeating the proof?

Have a look see:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/th_wtc1demobelow.gif

... :cool: Where do you come up with insane ideas of steel turning to dust. Please explain how steel turns to dust. How did you become knowledge free on so many topics?


The steel columns are covered by fire insulation, tons of wallboard which is spewing gypsum dust as the columns buckle and rupture the wallboard and releasing dust. You are bad at this and may be the worse source for information on 911; you prove it with idiotic posts exposing your ignorance like this.

[sheeplesnshills]

Conclusive proof that Texas stadium was Dustified by a DEW:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8614188.stm

Conclusive proof that the union road bridge was dustified by a DEW :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8591402.stm

[jammonius]

Most likely a VTR in WNYW's tape room. It's pretty common to do a clean recording of location hits for possible later re-use (say if the reporter's interviewing someone of note) in which case you don't want font over the viz. Portable memory recording wasn't available in 2001.



Not at all unlikely. In major cities, there are microwave receivers all over the place for live hits such as this one. The higher and clearer line-of-sight they have, the more likely they are to be used as such. Hence, my comment earlier in the thread that the glitch represented the moment of impact as the microwave receiver would've been taken momentarily off-signal from the location van.



Another possibility.



Not usually. If they're recording in the tape room, that would typically eliminate any need for an additional recording. An exception might be made for a high-profile live hit but that would be about the only time.



The interference was electronic whether WTC impact interference with the microwave receiver or because of a power spike from the same impact.

And, don't forget the possibility of unconventional weaponry, like, say, DEW.

[fitzgibbon]

And, don't forget the possibility of unconventional weaponry, like, say, DEW.

:boxedin: Oh sure! :boggled::boggled: That'd be the DEW that's powerful enough to 'dustify' steel and concrete but not powerful enough to significantly interfere with a microwave signal. :boggled::boggled:

How considerate! :rolleyes:

[Bell]

:boxedin: Oh sure! :boggled::boggled: That'd be the DEW that's powerful enough to 'dustify' steel and concrete but not powerful enough to significantly interfere with a microwave signal. :boggled::boggled:

How considerate! :rolleyes:

Those DEWs have a dial, you know, ranging from "Bunnies & Kittens" to "Concrete & Steel"

[BigAl]

And, don't forget the possibility of unconventional weaponry, like, say, DEW.


Every time you use "DEW", a brain cell dies.

[Oystein]

And, don't forget the possibility of unconventional weaponry, like, say, DEW.

Ah yes of course, and don't forget alien spaceships, they have some nifty technology!
And don't forget Chuck Norris, and what a roundhouse could do to a microwave antenna!
And don't forget any run of the mill psychic with their evil stare!

I, however, prefer the explanation "plane hit tower", because we happen to know that one actually hit the tower in question - I mean, we can hear it until it crashes, right? Somehow, this plane thingie seems to move along best with good ole Occam.

[alienentity]

And, don't forget the possibility of unconventional weaponry, like, say, DEW.

Or something more plausible like an attack by Mothra or an alien spaceship. ETA Oystein you beat me to it!!

Like some LSD with your Wheatchex?;)

[fitzgibbon]

Those DEWs have a dial, you know, ranging from "Bunnies & Kittens" to "Concrete & Steel"

Ah! Silly me! :blush:

Shoulda known they were down closer to the B&K setting. Lateral shot too!

[jammonius]

Those DEWs have a dial, you know, ranging from "Bunnies & Kittens" to "Concrete & Steel"

You ain't just whislin' dixie either.

[tsig]

Every time you use "DEW", a brain cell dies.

Maybe he means this:

"Mountain Dew, currently stylized as Mtn Dew, is a soft drink manufactured and distributed by PepsiCo."


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

[jammonius]

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

The Marriot hotel (WTC3) was only 22 storeys high and stood between the north tower and the church. given the height of the first impact, debris would have no problem clearing it to land beside the church. A little personal story. my family and I were booked to stay there a couple of weeks after 911 for our first visit to NYC. We choose it specifically because of its proximity to the WTC Towers which may parents had visited a few years before and we planned to go up on our trip. We still went to NYC on that weekend but the Towers and the Marriot were gone we ended up in the almost empty the Marriot on Times square and the city smelt like an oven on self clean.

Well I'll be a blue nose gopher! You are a witness to something that is of interest to me: The smell in the aftermath of the annihilation of the WTC complex. I have sought out people who lived nearby and discussed the smell on occassion.

The problem, of course, is that human beings, unlike, say, dogs and sharks, do not have a very good sense of smell. People generally thought the smell was weird and not like the smell of an ordinary fire, kerosene based or otherwise, but they couldn't really describe the smell very specifically. One typical response was "electrical" fire.

As you know, I am a proponent of unconventional weaponry (DEW) as the cause. The lethality effects of DEW are hard to get publicly available information on.

But, bottomline here, thanks for your information. It adds to the thread.

So, lurkers, any of you out there have a sense of smell you can report on?

[sts60]

As you know, I am a proponent of unconventional weaponry (DEW) as the cause.

Really? What kind of directed-energy weapon was it? And where do you claim it was?

The lethality effects of DEW are hard to get publicly available information on.

To exactly which kind of directed-energy weapon are you referring? You're claiming all sorts of specific effects, so certainly you must have a specific cause in mind, right?

[sylvan8798]

[B][SIZE="5"][COLOR="Blue"]

So, lurkers, any of you out there have a sense of smell you can report on?

I can smell BS when I read it on the internet.....:)

[beachnut]

...
you know, I am a proponent of unconventional weaponry (DEW) as the cause. The lethality effects of DEW are hard to get publicly available information on.
...
So, lurkers, any of you out there have a sense of smell you can report on?
The completely insane DEW junk complement your idiotic horse-trailer wheel-cover delusions and your delusions stated in the OP.

[DGM]

But, bottomline here, thanks for your information. It adds to the thread.How so? :confused:

So, lurkers, any of you out there have a sense of smell you can report on?
I was in NYC about 6 weeks after 9/11. The area had a smell that I could only describe as a "dump fire"(In other word, a huge collection of a lot of different things burning). What should it smell like if the "official story" was true as opposed to your DEW?

[sheeplesnshills]

The problem, of course, is that human beings, unlike, say, dogs and sharks, do not have a very good sense of smell. People generally thought the smell was weird and not like the smell of an ordinary fire, kerosene based or otherwise, but they couldn't really describe the smell very specifically. One typical response was "electrical" fire.

When I was there, any "ordinary" fire was long out but the huge mounds of debris were still smoking a lot and it smelt like a dirty self cleaning oven being cleaned. a kind of high temp metallic acrid smell. I did not find the smell as unexpected or in any way strange given what had happened.:(

As you know, I am a proponent of unconventional weaponry (DEW) as the cause. The lethality effects of DEW are hard to get publicly available information on.

I know, but what would that have to do with the smell of the fire two weeks later?:confused:

[sylvan8798]

When I was there, any "ordinary" fire was long out but the huge mounds of debris were still smoking a lot and it smelt like a dirty self cleaning oven being cleaned. a kind of high temp metallic acrid smell. I did not find the smell as unexpected or in any way strange given what had happened.:(



I know, but what would that have to do with the smell of the fire two weeks later?:confused:

I was there January 9, 2002. There was a smell then, particularly in the shops and stores near ground zero that I would describe as most like old musty dry-wall dust. I had an almost subliminal sense that it permeated everything in lower Manhattan. I felt badly for the people trying to clean that up from their stores and apartments. :(

jammonius: I will get to the calcs later, when time permits.

[BigAl]

I was there January 9, 2002. There was a smell then, particularly in the shops and stores near ground zero that I would describe as most like old musty dry-wall dust. I had an almost subliminal sense that it permeated everything in lower Manhattan. I felt badly for the people trying to clean that up from their stores and apartments. :(

jammonius: I will get to the calcs later, when time permits.


As one who was in downtown Manhattan essentially every day after 9/13, the people I was with began to refer to that smell and smoke as coming from the crematorium that took people we knew away.

[jammonius]

When I was there, any "ordinary" fire was long out but the huge mounds of debris were still smoking a lot and it smelt like a dirty self cleaning oven being cleaned. a kind of high temp metallic acrid smell. I did not find the smell as unexpected or in any way strange given what had happened.:(

One clue of the unconventional nature of the destruction was that what was thought of as being smoke continued for several, not days, not weeks, not months, but years. The same hosing process that characterized the GZ cleanup continued until at least 2008.

The so-called fires were not even declared to be so-called out until sometime in 2002, if memory serves me correctly; and, if it doesn't, I'm sure a poster here will post it up -- especially if the so-called fires were declared out prior to 2002. If not, then, posters might just let it go.

In any event, I would like to check for understanding of what you've posted above as follows:

"When I was there,..." When were you there?


any "ordinary" fire was long out Why did you put "ordinary" in quotes; and, who determined the fire was out; and what date did that occur on, if you know or recall?

but the huge mounds of debris were still smoking a lot Were these so-called mounds the ones you had to look down upon from the observation points that were fenced off, showing nothing above the fence except an extended fire ladder with a hose pointing downward?


thanks

[TSR]

As you know, I am a proponent of unconventional weaponry (DEW) as the cause. The lethality effects of DEW are hard to get publicly available information on.

.
And yet, you claim that the "range of lethality" of such weapons were responsible for Ms. Cintron's behaviour on That Day.

I have asked you to describe this range of lethality and you have completely ignored that request.

Funny, that...
.

[sts60]

Ahem.

As you know, I am a proponent of unconventional weaponry (DEW) as the cause.Really? What kind of directed-energy weapon was it? And where do you claim it was?

The lethality effects of DEW are hard to get publicly available information on.
To exactly which kind of directed-energy weapon are you referring? You're claiming all sorts of specific effects, so certainly you must have a specific cause in mind, right?

[alienentity]

Ahem.

Really? What kind of directed-energy weapon was it? And where do you claim it was?


To exactly which kind of directed-energy weapon are you referring? You're claiming all sorts of specific effects, so certainly you must have a specific cause in mind, right?

Hey now - this thread is spozed to be about the Dick Oliver/no planes thing.
This DEW WOO (hey, that rhymes) belongs on another thread.

BEsides, I think jammonius has pulled more than enough things out of his butt for one lifetime, let alone one thread...

[BigAl]

One clue of the unconventional nature of the destruction was that what was thought of as being smoke continued for several, not days, not weeks, not months, but years. The same hosing process that characterized the GZ cleanup continued until at least 2008.

The so-called fires were not even declared to be so-called out until sometime in 2002, if memory serves me correctly; and, if it doesn't, I'm sure a poster here will post it up -- especially if the so-called fires were declared out prior to 2002. If not, then, posters might just let it go.

In any event, I would like to check for understanding of what you've posted above as follows:

"When I was there,..." When were you there?



I walked passed "the pile" essentially every weekday from 9/13 on. Your understanding of the smoke and everything else about the pile is wrong.

The pile was a big trash fire.

[aggle-rithm]

Ahem.

Really? What kind of directed-energy weapon was it? And where do you claim it was?


To exactly which kind of directed-energy weapon are you referring? You're claiming all sorts of specific effects, so certainly you must have a specific cause in mind, right?

It must be pretty amazing technology, as it appears to be able to conquer logical impossibilities. If only the gubmint would tell us how it does that!

Must be similar to the infinite improbability drive.

[jammonius]

I walked passed "the pile" essentially every weekday from 9/13 on. Your understanding of the smoke and everything else about the pile is wrong.

The pile was a big trash fire.

Let me see if I can assist in the making of the above statement a bit more accurate:

I walked passed "the pile" essentially every weekday from 9/13 on.

Translation: I walked by an 8ft high fence that totally obscured the GZ site and that had little peak holes here and there that you could look through. If you looked down, you saw the flat debris pile that smoldered, rain or shine, month in and month out until at least February, 2002, by which time enough debris had been removed such that the smoldering effect became less noticeable, but which continued nonetheless.

The only thing visible above the 8ft high fence was a fire ladder that had a spray nozzle at the end of it and, perhaps, a crane or two.

Is that better, BigAl?

Your understanding of the smoke and everything else about the pile is wrong.

Translation: I, BigAl, haven't got anything at all that I can say to refute that which jammonius has said about the length of time the hosing down of GZ took place, in response to puffs of gaseous material that looked like, but obviously was not, smoke; i.e., for several years.

The pile was a big trash fire.

Translation: The flatness of GZ confirms that the structures were annihilated by a destructive process involving secret, unconventional weaponry, about which there is very little public information.

One of the cream of the crop of the Military Industrial Complex companies, APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA) is a manufacturer and developer of the kind of weaponry here talked about -- DEW.

At ARA's website, there was a time when they literally and figuratively can be said to have boasted about capabilites that strongly suggest they were taking credit for the destruction of the WTC complex, which is a fair inference to be drawn from the following photos posted at the following thread and post.

CAUTION: Posters here are strongly urged to take a look, but, before you do so, please be prepared to be shocked beyond your wildest expectations:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3747626&postcount=17

[GlennB]

The flatness of GZ confirms that the structures were annihilated by a destructive process involving secret, unconventional weaponry, about which there is very little public information.


In this and the 'GZ debris' threads I posted a photo of one very small section of GZ. It shows a great number of steel columns. Did you see it? If so, how can you continue to claim that the steel was 'turned to dust' ?

Would you like to see some more photos of steel members at GZ ?

[jammonius]

I play guitar left-handed, other than that everything I do I do right handed!

OK, got it.


So, jammy, seriously, where are you going with all these arguments about the Dick Oliver video? What is intended to be your final solution here? I'm not sure if I get what you're trying to accomplish!

When the thread was started, I think the main objective mught have been to call attention to the ways in which the "no plane" theory (that is, that no Boeing 767 hit the North Tower) was supported by this relatively little known piece of video information. That remains the overriding and key thing that I think this thread stands for.

Since then, I have become interested in seeing whether new eyewitnesses might come forward and that is now a very key objective.

There have to be people out there who saw and heard things, especially in densely populated Manhattan, that haven't been brought to the surface.

Look, I gather you may think this hard to fathom, but let me be clear, very clear:

The reason I say no Boeing 767 hit the North Tower (or the South and there were no 757s at the Pentagon and Shanksville) is that the evidence in support of those claims is woefully inadequate and nonsensical. I here assert and hold it to be true, that no big Boeings crashed at the 9/11 sites.

If any part of the preceding is unclear, let me know, dc1971, and I will try to clarify.


Also, I don't know what you mean by "signs of awakening" I feel I actually woke up several months ago when I figured out that everything involved with the Truther movement is nothing but nonsense. I just don't want to get nasty with Truthers here on JREF!

As I said, your compliments seemed to me to be tentative and grudingly given -- thus lefthanded -- but, they were compliments nonetheless. That is rare in this forum for me, a person who declares no big Boeings crashed on 9/11 at 9/11 sites.

So, that is why I credited you with awakening. As to whether or not you have doubts about whether any big Boeings were involved on 9/11, I will now assume you don't and that you think my claims are ridiculous. I will think that, until you say otherwise.

Now, one request, just because you think my claims are ridiculous, I would request you still consider the information I post on an objective basis.

thanks

[sheeplesnshills]

At ARA's website, there was a time when they literally and figuratively can be said to have boasted about capabilites that strongly suggest they were taking credit for the destruction of the WTC complex, which is a fair inference to be drawn from the following photos posted at the following thread and post.

CAUTION: Posters here are strongly urged to take a look, but, before you do so, please be prepared to be shocked beyond your wildest expectations:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3747626&postcount=17[/QUOTE]

please post to the exact places in ARAs website where you see this.....as far as I can see they make small remotely guided vehicles, nothing that can remotely be descriped as a DEW capable of knocking down the WTC towers.

[jammonius]

Wrong. Most of it was chain link fence or something comparable which didn't obscure anything. You don't have to see a lot to know that the massive amount of reporting agrees with what can be seen through the fence.

It sounds like you're trying to sound like you disagree with what I posted, without really disagreeing.


My daily morning commute was by bus and the route went up Church which is a few yards from WTC2. It was closed for weeks after 9/11 but when it opened, riders had an elevated front-row seat of the pile (to the west) and the rows of big trucks loaded with steel to the east.

I leave it to you to determine whether what you've said above contradicts your first post on when you started seeing GZ. Further, you have yet to acknowledge that by having an elevated seat, you had a better angle from which to LOOK DOWN, thus enabling you to see the flatness of GZ.

Finally, what you want to think were trucks carrying steel was, more likely than not, trucks carrying dirt into GZ to quench the effects of the destructive mechanism.

BigAl. Just be honest with yourself in recalling what you saw. You and I don't need to get into a big bruhaha about what was in the trucks. It was dirt for the most part, but you can disagree if you like. Next to nothing left GZ without first being quenched with dirt. In order to do that, massive amounts of dirt had to be trucked in.

The military industrial complex company that was in charge of that aspect of GZ is, like ARA, a major manufacturer and developer of DEW:

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (SAIC)

BigAl, and posters, once you learn more about ARA and SAIC, you will position yourselves to know more about what happened on 9/11.

In addition to DEW, each company, especially SAIC, are deeply involved in military PSYOPS.

To this very day, SAIC may be in control of GZ and of access to the site.


Everything you believe about 9/11 is wrong.

Do yourself a favor and please consider finding out all you can about ARA and SAIC.


If I knew we'd be arguing with idiots 9 years later, I wold have carried my (then) film camera and kept a diary.


It is a crying shame and a pity you did not do so. :(

Now, however, we are onto a new page, so lurkers, if there are any of you out there who, in fact, did what BigAl wished s/he had done, namely, carried [your] film camera and kept a diary of what you saw and/or heard, then by all means post up, please.

[beachnut]

... The military industrial complex company that was in charge of that aspect of GZ is, like ARA, a major manufacturer and developer of DEW:

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (SAIC)

BigAl, and posters, once you learn more about ARA and SAIC, you will position yourselves to know more about what happened on 9/11.

In addition to DEW, each company, especially SAIC, are deeply involved in military PSYOPS.

To this very day, SAIC may be in control of GZ and of access to the site.




Do yourself a favor and please consider finding out all you can about ARA and SAIC.




It is a crying shame and a pity you did not do so. :(

Now, however, we are onto a new page, so lurkers, if there are any of you out there who, in fact, did what BigAl wished s/he had done, namely, carried [your] film camera and kept a diary of what you saw and/or heard, then by all means post up, please.
Your delusions know no bounds.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1DEWHTPWC.jpg
Judy is insane, what is your excuse?

[dc1971]

OK, got it.



When the thread was started, I think the main objective mught have been to call attention to the ways in which the "no plane" theory (that is, that no Boeing 767 hit the North Tower) was supported by this relatively little known piece of video information. That remains the overriding and key thing that I think this thread stands for.

Since then, I have become interested in seeing whether new eyewitnesses might come forward and that is now a very key objective.

There have to be people out there who saw and heard things, especially in densely populated Manhattan, that haven't been brought to the surface.

Look, I gather you may think this hard to fathom, but let me be clear, very clear:

The reason I say no Boeing 767 hit the North Tower (or the South and there were no 757s at the Pentagon and Shanksville)


You see, this is where I HAVE TO stop you jammy because this is where I usually lose it with Truthers and why I get nasty with them.

There was a plane that crashed in Shanksville and yes there was a plane that hit the Pentagon. There's no doubt about it because there were witnesses and I have talked to such witnesses. Specifically with those in Shanksville.

The DAY OF, I was on a Yahoo Chat room with many people talking about the events that happened that day. Lo and behold, at least 3 people came on saying they were from that area of PA and YES they did see a jet plane making herky jerky movements in the air and it was scary to them to watch this yet they kept watching this jet flying until it crashed into the field (which used to be a strip mine) at what looked like a 90 degree angle!

I'm guessing you're someone who wasn't anywhere near GZ on 9/11 let alone even know where New York City is? It's almost definite that you probably WOULD NOT be able to locate Somerset County, PA on a map? I can because I live in PA and I'm pretty good with geography let alone the fact that I have family that lives in Somerset County and they have talked to witnesses too about the crash that happened that day! Also, do you think you would be able to locate Washington, DC on a map? Better yet, the actual location of the Pentagon (which happens to be in Arlington, VA)?

Seriously jammy, I will have to agree with the rest of the majority here when they say you're doing nothing but spreading lies! The Truther movement is now at a crossroads where there aren't a lot of people left within the organization and those who are with you are either insane, high school dropouts or paranoid schizophrenic to the point where they feel CIA agents are constantly following them! It's funny that now you're buying into this NO-PLANE theory! Sounds to me like you're pulling theories out from where the sun doesn't shine!

[sylvan8798]

Your delusions know no bounds.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1DEWHTPWC.jpg
Judy is insane, what is your excuse?

Maybe the horse trailer was for carrying dirt. Apparently they needed lots of dirt. Can we get a load of dirt on there?:rolleyes:

[sheeplesnshills]

I leave it to you to determine whether what you've said above contradicts your first post on when you started seeing GZ. Further, you have yet to acknowledge that by having an elevated seat, you had a better angle from which to LOOK DOWN, thus enabling you to see the flatness of GZ.

Surely worthy of a Stundie! how would the view from a bus set make a flat GZ look 6 stories high?

Finally, what you want to think were trucks carrying steel was, more likely than not, trucks carrying dirt into GZ to quench the effects of the destructive mechanism.

You don't quench with dirt, you smother....... and no they would not smother a piece of steel that was not on fire......

BigAl. Just be honest with yourself in recalling what you saw. You and I don't need to get into a big bruhaha about what was in the trucks. It was dirt for the most part, but you can disagree if you like. Next to nothing left GZ without first being quenched with dirt. In order to do that, massive amounts of dirt had to be trucked in.

They used it to try to smother the fire in the debris pile. Shut out the air and the fire might go out....in real life it only works sometimes.

The military industrial complex company that was in charge of that aspect of GZ is, like ARA, a major manufacturer and developer of DEW:

ARA make UVAs not weapons.....next!

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (SAIC)

do much the same as ARA and again do not build weapons. please link to site that shows otherwise.

BigAl, and posters, once you learn more about ARA and SAIC, you will position yourselves to know more about what happened on 9/11.

Nope still none the wiser. please show how, in any way, either company has built a DEW capable of cutting a 2 x 4 far less a WTC tower.

In addition to DEW, each company, especially SAIC, are deeply involved in military PSYOPS.

please show us how you know that and how it was used on 911.

To this very day, SAIC may be in control of GZ and of access to the site.

I MAY be in control of GZ as might miss piggy and kermit...........pigs might fly afterall.




Do yourself a favor and please consider finding out all you can about ARA and SAIC.

You have given us no reason to bother to do so...........



It is a crying shame and a pity you did not do so. :(

why? you have shown us nothing that shows they were even remotely involved in 911.:confused:

[Macgyver1968]

ARA make UVAs not weapons.....next!


Actually, they do: http://www.ara.com/Capabilities/c_weapon_systems.htm

However, neither company seems to be working with anything related to directed energy weapons.

http://www.saic.com/products/list.html

Maybe Jam can give us a link to show us what DEW systems he's talking about...any DEW system.

[sheeplesnshills]

Actually, they do: http://www.ara.com/Capabilities/c_weapon_systems.htm

However, neither company seems to be working with anything related to directed energy weapons.

http://www.saic.com/products/list.html

Maybe Jam can give us a link to show us what DEW systems he's talking about...any DEW system.

Sorry I missed that. Mea Culpa.

[sts60]

One of the cream of the crop of the Military Industrial Complex companies, APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA) is a manufacturer and developer of the kind of weaponry here talked about -- DEW.
No. As was explained at some length in the Directed-energy weapons and the WTC (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115562) thread, ARA does not manufacture directed-energy weapons.

At ARA's website, there was a time when they literally and figuratively can be said to have boasted...
Unsupported personal opinion.


Now, perhaps you would be so kind as to define your claim:

What kind of directed-energy weapon? And where was it supposed to have been?

[Bell]

And where was it supposed to have been?

ISS "just" happened to pass over New York at that time... :rolleyes:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/136306main_iss003e5387_med.jpg

But more serious, must have been chilling to have seen it from this vantage point.

More info (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/iss003e5387_feature_prt.htm).

[Macgyver1968]

Sorry I missed that. Mea Culpa.

You see that Jam? This what normal, rational people do when they state something that is incorrect, and it is pointed out to them. They admit they were wrong. A concept that seems totally lost on you.

[jammonius]

You see that Jam? This what normal, rational people do when they state something that is incorrect, and it is pointed out to them. They admit they were wrong. A concept that seems totally lost on you.

Macgyver,

I'm more than a little bit taken aback by what you have posted above, I really am. I am forced to ask you if everything is alright, with the hope that, perhaps, you have just been, shall we say, busier than normal of late.

Please permit me to beg your pardon as per the following exchange that was not theoretical or involving persons other than you and I, but, rather, a direct exchange:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=522

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=525

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=532

I shall await your reply and apology, which I will expect to receive, in due course.

Meanwhile,

all the best

[jammonius]

please post to the exact places in ARAs website where you see this.....as far as I can see they make small remotely guided vehicles, nothing that can remotely be descriped as a DEW capable of knocking down the WTC towers.

What are you trying to do? The information here under consideration was first posted about 1 month short of 2 years ago. I am not the ARA webmaster. If what you are trying to say is that the images are no longer on ARA's website, then why not say that?

If you cannot determine from ARA's website that they manufacture and develop directed energy weaponry, then why not say that?

As for me, I have a number of research interests that I am currently pursuing; however, rehashing what I have long ago posted about ARA is not among them. Based on your demonstrated posting skills, I am quite certain that if you want to verify what is and what was on ARA's website, you have the capability of doing that.

[Macgyver1968]

Macgyver,

I'm more than a little bit taken aback by what you have posted above, I really am. I am forced to ask you if everything is alright, with the hope that, perhaps, you have just been, shall we say, busier than normal of late.

Please permit me to beg your pardon as per the following exchange that was not theoretical or involving persons other than you and I, but, rather, a direct exchange:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=522

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=525

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=532

I shall await your reply and apology, which I will expect to receive, in due course.

Meanwhile,

all the best

Well..I appreciate the concern for well being...trust me I'm fine. As for an apology...I owe you nothing. You continuously show you are incapable of accepting you are wrong.

Those links are all dead....How about posting links to where ARA develops DEW's?

[jammonius]

Well..I appreciate the concern for well being...trust me I'm fine. As for an apology...I owe you nothing. You continuously show you are incapable of accepting you are wrong.

Those links are all dead....How about posting links to where ARA develops DEW's?

I don't know why the links to posts in this thread should be dead unless there's been some renumbering of posts.

Go to pg 14 and see if you can find what I'm referring to.

As to ARA, I doubt we'll be allowed to develop that in this thread; and, as I said, you guys can find out about ARA if you want to, I'm sure. It is likely that ARA's website has changed since the images I referenced were posted. As nearly as I can tell, they still have the one, but they appear to have changed the caption and description to something far more innocuous than in 2008:

http://www.ara.com/Capabilities/c_forensic.htm

If you really can't find ARA's involvement in DEW, then go to the website of the Directed Energy Professional Society. DEPS.org

[Bell]

jammonius, what would be the point of using NO planes? Who ever perpetrated 9/11 (in your book that is) had the money, power and resources to use a DEW to destroy the WTC. Surely they could remotely fly an airplane into the WTC? That would be the easy part!

So please, explain. Why NO plane(s)?

[sheeplesnshills]

What are you trying to do? The information here under consideration was first posted about 1 month short of 2 years ago. I am not the ARA webmaster. If what you are trying to say is that the images are no longer on ARA's website, then why not say that?

If you cannot determine from ARA's website that they manufacture and develop directed energy weaponry, then why not say that?

As for me, I have a number of research interests that I am currently pursuing; however, rehashing what I have long ago posted about ARA is not among them. Based on your demonstrated posting skills, I am quite certain that if you want to verify what is and what was on ARA's website, you have the capability of doing that.

Sigh........You said ARA had something to do with DEW, I looked at their site and could not find it. All I asked was for you to post links to the stuff you must have found in the past to verify your assertion so That we may all see the evidence and be suitable enlightened. Please post the links to the appropriate sections of their website or to anywhere else that would indicate that ARA were or are now working on DEWs

[sheeplesnshills]

jammonius, what would be the point of using NO planes? Who ever perpetrated 9/11 (in your book that is) had the money, power and resources to use a DEW to destroy the WTC. Surely they could remotely fly an airplane into the WTC? That would be the easy part!

So please, explain. Why NO plane(s)?

I think its because if he admits there were planes, everything else fits the common story line and there is no conspiracy. He KNOWS (due to his mental illness) that there was a conspiracy therefore there were no planes. He really knows there were no planes so the sound cannot be a jet so it has to be something else. he Knows Naudet video has to be staged, because since he knows there was no plane it must have been staged. The nice thing about the DEW theory is that it is since no weapon actually exists or even could exist with known physics they can claim it can do anything and don't have to provide proof because its so secret. A bit like the super nano thermite but better as its impossible to disprove.

Its essentially the same as if he was very religious, he knows his god exists so any evidence or argument to the contrary must be false so can be waved away.

[sheeplesnshills]

As to ARA, I doubt we'll be allowed to develop that in this thread; and, as I said, you guys can find out about ARA if you want to, I'm sure. It is likely that ARA's website has changed since the images I referenced were posted. As nearly as I can tell, they still have the one, but they appear to have changed the caption and description to something far more innocuous than in 2008:

http://www.ara.com/Capabilities/c_forensic.htm


Ah I see why the truthers have it in for ARA, they were involved in the NIST study on WTC7. However how being able to model structural failures translates to being resonsible for them on 911 escapes me.....

If you really can't find ARA's involvement in DEW, then go to the website of the Directed Energy Professional Society. DEPS.org[/QUOTE]

Nope. you are making the assertion....you provide the links to the relevant pages I've better things to do than crawl through a website trying to guess what a truther might think is evidence.

[TSR]

.
And yet, you claim that the "range of lethality" of such weapons were responsible for Ms. Cintron's behaviour on That Day.

I have asked you to describe this range of lethality and you have completely ignored that request.

Funny, that...
.
.
Still waiting for that range, jamm ...
.

[GlennB]

jammonius - 4 times now you have ignored the question below. Does it scare you to confront evidence that destroys your beliefs ? Let me repeat once more:

In this and the 'GZ debris' threads I posted a photo of one very small section of GZ. It shows a great number of steel columns. Did you see it? If so, how can you continue to claim that the steel was 'turned to dust' ?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/groundzeromassivedetail.jpg

Would you like to see some more photos of steel members at GZ ?

[sylvan8798]

Dust hanging from the front of 90 West Street.

17558

[Thunder]

350,000 tons of steel was recovered from GZ. therefore, any suggestion that the wtc steel was turned to dust, is pure lunacy and a lie.

that is all.

[jammonius]

350,000 tons of steel was recovered from GZ. therefore, any suggestion that the wtc steel was turned to dust, is pure lunacy and a lie.

that is all.


I have re-read this thread that raged for a couple of weeks in June, '08. Looked at from a "glass half full" perspective, it seems posters, at present, may be a bit more willing to actually discuss ARA, SAIC and DEPS. If that is correct, then, count me in. I'm willing to "go there."

On the other hand, if what Thunder has posted above is intended to be the equivalent of received wisdom, issued from on high in the form of, well, thunder, then OK, that's fine with me.

So, which is it to be, posters, discussion of ARA, SAIC and DEPS, or thunder, but no lightening?

Pun intended!

[A W Smith]

Perhaps jammonius can show us examples of steel that was partially "vaporised" in the 350,000 tons of steel recovered from GZ?

Edited for Rule 0. Do not change a member's name to insult.

[Oystein]

Really? What kind of directed-energy weapon was it? And where do you claim it was?

To exactly which kind of directed-energy weapon are you referring? You're claiming all sorts of specific effects, so certainly you must have a specific cause in mind, right?

Once we have established the relevant cause-effects of our DEW, we need to estimate how much energy it would have required to actually cause the effects on a scale sufficient to bring down the towers.

And when that has been established, we need to estimate how efficiently our DEW could have Directed that Energy at the 3 towers. Which gives us a lower bound on how much energy must have been available to the DEW device, whereever it was at the time.

Then we can discuss how such a DEW device could have been implemented, and how it could not have been implemented.

Once we know the kind of Directed Energy, and its intended effects, and the energy density at which it operated, we can look at any side effects that a use of such a DEW on the towers would have had in addition to just bringing the structures down. This would be a good point in a DEW theorie that would make it falsifiable.


I believe much of this has been done already, right?


I understand that, per jammonius, a DEW was activated at least 5 times in NYC on 9/11:
- The event that is commonly described as "AA11 hitting WTC1"
- The event that is commonly described as "UA175 hitting WTC2"
- The disintegration of WTC2
- The disintegration of WTC1
- The disintegration of WTC7
Is my understanding correct?

So this might restrict the location of a DEW if it was positioned in space, or we would have to have several DEW devices. This might give rise another set of predictions made from the theory, that would make it testable.

[TSR]

.
And yet, you claim that the "range of lethality" of such weapons were responsible for Ms. Cintron's behaviour on That Day.

I have asked you to describe this range of lethality and you have completely ignored that request.

Funny, that...
.
.
Maybe I'm on ignore?

Could someone please quote me so Jamm sees this?
.

[sylvan8798]

No use, TSR. jamm's ignore function is in his head. If he has no answer, he will dodge the question with a word salad or ignore it all together. That becomes your answer.

[sts60]

Once we have established the relevant cause-effects of our DEW, we need to estimate how much energy it would have required to actually cause the effects on a scale sufficient to bring down the towers.

And when that has been established, we need to estimate how efficiently our DEW could have Directed that Energy at the 3 towers. Which gives us a lower bound on how much energy must have been available to the DEW device, whereever it was at the time.

Then we can discuss how such a DEW device could have been implemented, and how it could not have been implemented.

Once we know the kind of Directed Energy, and its intended effects, and the energy density at which it operated, we can look at any side effects that a use of such a DEW on the towers would have had in addition to just bringing the structures down. This would be a good point in a DEW theorie that would make it falsifiable.

This claim has been quantitatively analyzed by four separate posters - myself (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762857&postcount=311), myriad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354) , R. Mackey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102), and BenBurch (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3756906&postcount=208). Each analysis has shown how unphysical is the silly notion that directed-energy weapons "dustified" the WTC structures.

And that's not even considering the fact that the vast majority of the structural steel was recovered - falsifying the premise anyway.

I believe much of this has been done already, right?

Except for the part where jammonius actually defines his claim. He can't, because his heroine, poor deluded Judy Wood, can't, and all he can do is parrot her ravings. (I do hope that she gets proper mental health care, though. Seriously.)

So this might restrict the location of a DEW if it was positioned in space, or we would have to have several DEW devices. This might give rise another set of predictions made from the theory, that would make it testable.

The only time jammonius came close to offering testable claims was something about "perpendicular" holes of certain sizes. Unfortunately, the photographs he offered as support actually contradicted his own observations. (See a few pages (and couple of years) back in this thread.) So much for that.

I wasted enough time back then doing all of jammonius' work and trying to get him to define his claim. I don't see any point in doing it again and enduring the subsequent clue-free verbal diarrhea, so I'm through indulging him unless he decides to actually define his claim:

What kind of directed-energy weapon was it supposed to be? And where?

[sheeplesnshills]

jammonius;5815194]Multiple posts have been moved to this thread as off-topic in the Dick Oliver thread



Have a look see:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/th_wtc1demobelow.gif

They say seeing is believing; and, that is true to a certain degree.

Problem is, the eye sees what the mind wants to see; so, there we have it, back to square one, no matter what.

Why do you think that dust is steel? There were thousands of tons of thin concrete floors, thousands of tons of drywall all off which would give of huge qualities of dust as it gets pulverized in the collapse. Watch the demolition of any building and you get the same kind of dust.....why would you expect the WTC to be any different?:confused:

[Macgyver1968]

Jam,

Wanna discuss DEWs?....just waiting for you.

Here's a question to start...what kind of energy can turn steel to dust?

[sylvan8798]

How about a giant belt sander?

Now, where's that photoshop expert?

[sheeplesnshills]

How about a giant belt sander?

Now, where's that photoshop expert?

I was thinking giant angle grinder......quicker.......

But they produce iron filings not dust and DR Jones "peer reviewed:rolleyes:) paper found a little iron oxide but not the massive quantities of either free iron filings or the massive amounts of iron oxide that would have been produced by turning them into the only kind of "dust" possible when you have steel beams in air. Its not dustifying....it would be "rustifying":)

[Thunder]

I have re-read this thread that raged for a couple of weeks in June, '08. Looked at from a "glass half full" perspective,

in other words, you are going to simply ignore then fact that 350,000 tons of steel were recovered from GZ.

surprise...surprise.

folks who ignore evidence are not worth debating with.

[Bell]

Riiight Thunder. You're going to convince Jamm about that 350,000 tons of steel, how exactly?

Even if you could produce all the recovered steel, he would still claim you can't proof it actually came from the WTC.

[Thunder]

Riiight Thunder. You're going to convince Jamm about that 350,000 tons of steel, how exactly?

Even if you could produce all the recovered steel, he would still claim you can't proof it actually came from the WTC.

of course not. ideologues are not driven by facts, rationality, or logic.

they are driven by ideology and politics....100%.

that is why its pointless to debate them.

[Darth Rotor]

Riiight Thunder. You're going to convince Jamm about that 350,000 tons of steel, how exactly?

Even if you could produce all the recovered steel, he would still claim you can't proof it actually came from the WTC.
He could look at a picture of that ship ....

http://nygoe.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/uss-new-york.jpg

[beachnut]

.
And yet, you claim that the "range of lethality" of such weapons were responsible for Ms. Cintron's behaviour on That Day.

I have asked you to describe this range of lethality and you have completely ignored that request. ....
He does not do science, he does delusional fantasy; and he does it so good.

[dudalb]

No Planers Are Bat Crap Crazy. This whole discussion in a nutshell.

[LashL]

jammonius - 4 times now you have ignored the question below. Does it scare you to confront evidence that destroys your beliefs ? Let me repeat once more:

In this and the 'GZ debris' threads I posted a photo of one very small section of GZ. It shows a great number of steel columns. Did you see it? If so, how can you continue to claim that the steel was 'turned to dust' ?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/groundzeromassivedetail.jpg

Would you like to see some more photos of steel members at GZ ?

Dust hanging from the front of 90 West Street.

17558


Indeed, and just look at all the steel "dust" here:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_111034bc5036df19bb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19712)

[W.D.Clinger]

From the April and May 1998 issues of The mini-Annals of Improbable Research (http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Nerdliness/luggage.html) (mini-AIR):

Investigator David Smith writes to notify us of a startlingly powerful new technology:

The March 16th issue of "Aviation Week and Space Technology" (p.13) reports that passengers at San Francisco International Airport will be asked to submit carry-on luggage for examination by a machine called the "Carry-on Luggage Profiler." Av Week reports that this remarkable device makes use of "3-megawatt average power" top- and side-mounted lasers to derive precise bag height and width data. The article goes on to say that initial trials at Des Moines International Airport have 'significantly increased the amount of luggage that was checked.'


The editors of mini-AIR asked how much power it takes to vaporize a piece of luggage.

Investigator Dave Thomson:

You may want to check out an article I published in Applied Optics some years ago, Vol 32, No 33, Page 6818, 20 Nov 1993. In any case, I'll attempt a quick first approximation to your question. I'll make the following gross approximations: A typical 10 micron diameter particle may require a fluence of 100 J/cm to completely vaporize. This implies an energy deposition of about 8 x 10^-5 Joules. Assuming a density of 1.7 (which may be low for luggage), the particle would have a mass of about 5 x 10^-10 g. Putting this together shows that one would need about 1.5 x 10^5 J/g, or 150 MJ/Kg to vaporize a macroscopic object. Even with a 3 MW laser (impressive as that is), a small piece of luggage of several Kg would require several minutes to be vaporized.

[Bell]

Indeed, and just look at all the steel "dust" here:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_111034bc5036df19bb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19712)

Do you also notice how flat the pile is?

[Oystein]

Do you also notice how flat the pile is?

Wow - nearly indistinguishable from the Rockefeller Center ice-skating rink! So flat and smooth! :eye-poppi

[Scott Sommers]

The amazing thing that just struck me is...no, it's not that Truthers talk like they got dropped on their heads at a young age...it's the amazing lengths scientist go through to hide the development of their technology. Jammi and his friends tell us there are orbiting space station with ray guns that can destroy buildings on the Earth. Reading through the information provided by the Directed Energy Professional Society, you'd never get the feeling technology was so advanced. It seems there is nowhere you'd come to understand there was such power. It is a secret, not just never talked about, but hidden behind a discourse that makes it look like nothing much is happening in the world of Star Trek pahser technology. It takes mavericks like Judy Wood and her familiars, Jammi and Act Baker, for even the most highly trained among us mere mortals to learn of such thing.

So think about it...it's not just that there are ray guns in space. In The World According to Jammi, amazing perversion of science are common place. There's a whole world of literature that appears to be scientific writing, but is really just an illusion cast to leave you and me thinking science is still only in the 21st century. Universities and their journals are being set up to make it look like we have nowhere near the technology to put ray guns in space and dustify buildings. But as Jammi has demonstrated to us all, there is no doubt such thing occur.

The implications of this are endless and I am deeeply bothered by them. Jammi, thanks for letting me know what's really going on.

[GlennB]

The implications of this are endless and I am deeeply bothered by them. Jammi, thanks for letting me know what's really going on.

Yep. Considering the spectacle that a space shuttle, Saturn V or Ariadne launch creates, you have to wonder how they get these things up there unnoticed. And they'd be damn huge, requiring many launches to plug the parts together.

And then nobody sees them. Not a single astronomer notices that orbiting thingy that never used to be there.

I suppose anti-gravity drives and cloaking devices are the obvious answer :)

[sheeplesnshills]

The editors of mini-AIR asked how much power it takes to vaporize a piece of luggage.



I take it that this was a typo and it was a 3mW laser not a 3MW one :)

[BigAl]

Yep. Considering the spectacle that a space shuttle, Saturn V or Ariadne launch creates, you have to wonder how they get these things up there unnoticed. And they'd be damn huge, requiring many launches to plug the parts together.

And then nobody sees them. Not a single astronomer notices that orbiting thingy that never used to be there.

I suppose anti-gravity drives and cloaking devices are the obvious answer :)

There are amateur astronomers all over the world that track and try to guess the purpose of every satellite launched.

[Scott Sommers]

Yep. Considering the spectacle that a space shuttle, Saturn V or Ariadne launch creates, you have to wonder how they get these things up there unnoticed. And they'd be damn huge, requiring many launches to plug the parts together.

And then nobody sees them. Not a single astronomer notices that orbiting thingy that never used to be there.

I suppose anti-gravity drives and cloaking devices are the obvious answer :)

You're missing my point, or rather the point that Jammi has made so obvious. That all those so-called astronomers aren't telling us about the massive structures orbiting the Earth dustifying buildings all over the place has no meaning - no meaning at all!! There are so-called scientists of all kinds and varieties involved in the mascarade. Universities, journals, conferences, professional associations, they're all part of it. So it's not just the pretend astronomers, it's a whole pretend university structure that pretends their astronomy professors really go to conferences and publish papers. It's a whole pretend world where these pretend professors get on the Discovery channel and tell people about their pretend research about space.

Ace Baker says it's the media, but he's only touched on what it really must be. I strongly suggest that Jammi and Judy and Ace get down to the nearest chapter of the American Astrophysics Association with their pickets signs and their videos and tell them it's all over. They've been discovered and it's on the Net that this whole world of space science is just a cover for starship and transporter beams.

Glenn, there is that moment in the morning when you wake up and look at your wife and children feeling the love and warmth that only a family can bring. Judy and Jammi have taken this from us all. We wake up not just threatened by space guns and starships. The whole world is a lie. You think you know what's real or at least how to find out what is and isn't real. But all your books are a lie. There are no universities. There is no science. It's all a lie made up to hide the reality of dustifying ray beams from space.

[twinstead]

I for one welcome our dustifying ray beams from space overlords.

[GlennB]

I for one welcome our dustifying ray beams from space overlords.

Well, you wouldn't want to argue with them.

[GlennB]

Glenn, there is that moment in the morning when you wake up and look at your wife and children feeling the love and warmth that only a family can bring. Judy and Jammi have taken this from us all. We wake up not just threatened by space guns and starships. The whole world is a lie. You think you know what's real or at least how to find out what is and isn't real. But all your books are a lie. There are no universities. There is no science. It's all a lie made up to hide the reality of dustifying ray beams from space.

Regret to say that I'll have to join them soon. I'm just about to reassemble the nice telescope that's been in its box for the last 2 years since we moved house. I can tell you in advance that <cough> I will definitely not be seeing any orbiting death-ray zapper spacecraft thingies. No sirree.

(Will 'they' find me, or do I need to apply somewhere? What's the pay like?)

[W.D.Clinger]

I take it that this was a typo and it was a 3mW laser not a 3MW one :)
So I presume, but we will have no definitive verdict until jammonius renders his opinion. ;)

I also presume the copy editor knew more about English than science (some friend of jammonius?) and decided to spell out the "MW" as "megawatt".

Although it was just a mistake, scientists thought it was absurdly funny. As jammonius has discovered, scientists think it's even funnier when someone makes mistakes on a far grander scale of absurdity, deliberately, and persists in the delusions despite all offers of technical assistance. :p

The calculation of power required to vaporize a macroscopic object was done in 1998. Could this have been part of a disinfo campaign to discredit DEW capabilities in anticipation of the 2000 presidential election? :eek:

[Scott Sommers]

I suppose anti-gravity drives and cloaking devices are the obvious answer :)

Perhaps you are closer to the truth than you think.

I for one appreciate the posts of Jammi and his fellow no-planers. I only wish they would really work through the logic of what they're saying instead of leaving it to amateurs like me. It's clear he and Doctor Judy have stumbled on to a whole alternative reality with implications for what we have always though we knew about education, research, and science. So much of it has just been pretending or covering up for the real stuff going on in the Star Trek world of reality.

Perhaps there is a world of anti-gravity. Bob Lazar says he's seen it, and didn't graduate from MIT? But who can be impressed with a place like MIT know now that the university world of research just pretends to have nothing like the technology that could dustify a building. Indeed, the university world of research and science pretends to not even understand what a term like dustification could even mean!!

[sylvan8798]

I've been pondering the potential health effects of breathing microscopic particles of dustified steel, and come to the conclusion that doctors treating the ground zero workers must also be in on the conspiracy now. Surely having your lungs coated with metal can't be a good thing and would not go unnoticed by the people taking x-rays, etc. Yet we have not heard reports or seen papers in the medical journals regarding some new "metal lung" phenomenon unique to GZ workers. Can you say "cover up"?:rolleyes:

[Macgyver1968]

I've been pondering the potential health effects of breathing microscopic particles of dustified steel, and come to the conclusion that doctors treating the ground zero workers must also be in on the conspiracy now. Surely having your lungs coated with metal can't be a good thing and would not go unnoticed by the people taking x-rays, etc. Yet we have not heard reports or seen papers in the medical journals regarding some new "metal lung" phenomenon unique to GZ workers. Can you say "cover up"?:rolleyes:

Forget x-rays..what about an MRI?!!! Yikes!

[DGM]

I suppose anti-gravity drives and cloaking devices are the obvious answer :)

By far the most impressive capability of the DEW is it's ability to alter time :eye-poppi. How else can the fact all the evidence was planted in no time at all be explained? The DEW is also a time machine!!!!! Hey, maybe that's how it works, it takes whatever back to before it was formed thus making it appear to turn to dust!!!!!!!


(This is fun when you can start with whole cloth and no concern for science :) )

[GlennB]

By far the most impressive capability of the DEW is it's ability to alter time :eye-poppi. How else can the fact all the evidence was planted in no time at all be explained? The DEW is also a time machine!!!!! Hey, maybe that's how it works, it takes whatever back to before it was formed thus making it appear to turn to dust!!!!!!!


Case solved! The steel returns to iron ore form, which as we all know is in the form of iron oxide micro-sphericules. Prof Jones was kinda right, but kinda wrong too. Just fooled by temporal distortion.

If jammonius is willing to lead a cult I'm game to join up. I always thought he was a bit of a cult.

[Scott Sommers]

Forget x-rays..what about an MRI?!!! Yikes!

This is a very important point and one that has been ignored so far. Can Jammi and Doctor Judy provide us with some estimates of the size of this dustified metal. The photos of 911 I have seen make it appear the size must have been just around the same size as chalk dust. That would mean all sorts of people were breathing it in.

So it's not just the on-site physicians and health workers this implicates. There would have been New Yorkers and tourists moving all over the country with metal bits in their bodies getting MRIs. Do you know what happens to people with metal bits in their body when they get an MRI? No you don't and you don't want to know. So where are all these stories of people's bodies being ripped up from magnetized bits of metal being torn out of them?

I've been pondering the potential health effects of breathing microscopic particles of dustified steel, and come to the conclusion that doctors treating the ground zero workers must also be in on the conspiracy now. Surely having your lungs coated with metal can't be a good thing and would not go unnoticed by the people taking x-rays, etc. Yet we have not heard reports or seen papers in the medical journals regarding some new "metal lung" phenomenon unique to GZ workers. Can you say "cover up"?:rolleyes:

It's not just the doctors who were on-site who are keeping this quite, it's ALL THE DOCTORS IN THE USA!!!

Case solved! The steel returns to iron ore form, which as we all know is in the form of iron oxide micro-sphericules. Prof Jones was kinda right, but kinda wrong too. Just fooled by temporal distortion.

If jammonius is willing to lead a cult I'm game to join up. I always thought he was a bit of a cult.

And none of this will solved by your suggestion Glenn. It's just plain clear the scope of the conspiracy is beyond anything ever suggested here.

We have stumbled onto some very frightening. Much more frightening than Arab terrorists or problems with airport security.

JAMMI...JAMMI...HELP US WITH THIS ONE. I AM SCARED AND NEED YOUR HELP!! THESE ARE REAL PROBLEMS AND REAL PEOPLE WHO NEED THIS TO GO AWAY. HELP ME!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!
!!
!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZFrVQqO4oJ0/StF0-vwiW0I/AAAAAAAAAzo/hw4hUr8GIeU/s1600/MRI+Safety+01A.001.png

[Scott Sommers]

By the way, what does DEW mean? Is it a reference to Mounatin Dew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Dew)?

We can't get this in Taiwan. Is this related to a conspiracy? Judy Wood talks about DEW all the time. Is this because she likes it a lot?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aRx6oHiE5fQ/SZBLFnmvEQI/AAAAAAAAAz8/cCgXLtSGgjQ/s400/mountain+dew.jpg

[CompusMentus]

By the way, what does DEW mean?


Dr Judy has made it clear. It's "Directed Energy Weapon" FFS.

Pressed further she will elaborate fully:- "It's energy...that's directed...and used as a weapon."

Anyone with half a brain knows that caused the demolition destruction dustification of the WTC.

Duh.


Compus

[aggle-rithm]

Dr Judy has made it clear. It's "Directed Energy Weapon" FFS.

Pressed further she will elaborate fully:- "It's energy...that's directed...and used as a weapon."

Anyone with half a brain knows that caused the demolition destruction dustification of the WTC.

Duh.


Compus

On Star Trek they had communicators, and now we have cell phones that are even smaller than communicators and can do more things.

So it's obvious that we also have phasers that work even better than the ones on Star Trek.

[sylvan8798]

Dr Judy has made it clear. It's "Directed Energy Weapon" FFS.

Pressed further she will elaborate fully:- "It's energy...that's directed...and used as a weapon."


Hmm... wouldn't that include guns, then? And bombs? Missiles?

[Robo Sapien]

The DEW theory just isn't reasonable. Those weapons are costly to build and the electric bill must be pretty steep once you go over a few megajoules. Religious fanatics with crude weapons are so much cheaper.

[BaaBaa]

I'm not the droid you're looking for.


Or maybe I am...I dunno...

[Scott Sommers]

I'm also wondering about the behaviour of the so-called dustified steel. Metal powder reacts to magnets in very particular ways. It's claimed that hundreds of thousands of tons of dustified metal was floating around interacting with magnets and other magnetized surfaces. I don't know where one would find magnets in commercial products, but I'm sure they exist.

Jammi, real question - are there any reports of steel 'dust' sticking to magnets in the households of New Yorkers? There must be a hundred billion fridge magnets in NY City. And this wouldn't even include powerful commercial magnets.

Now that I think about it, there has probably never been such a huge amount of metal 'dust' in the world, much less in one localized area. It couldn't have just 'blown away'.

Come on Jammi, in eight years you haven't figured out this one. Makes me think your thinking on this isn't too deep. Find me up some reports of what happened to all this steel dust.

[BigAl]

I'm also wondering about the behaviour of the so-called dustified steel. Metal powder reacts to magnets in very particular ways. It's claimed that hundreds of thousands of tons of dustified metal was floating around interacting with magnets and other magnetized surfaces. I don't know where one would find magnets in commercial products, but I'm sure they exist.
.
.

NYC subway track workers have inhaled steel dust as an occupational hazard. Doctors can identify it. Survivors of GZ of course show no such symptoms.

[aggle-rithm]

I'm also wondering about the behaviour of the so-called dustified steel. Metal powder reacts to magnets in very particular ways. It's claimed that hundreds of thousands of tons of dustified metal was floating around interacting with magnets and other magnetized surfaces. I don't know where one would find magnets in commercial products, but I'm sure they exist.

Jammi, real question - are there any reports of steel 'dust' sticking to magnets in the households of New Yorkers? There must be a hundred billion fridge magnets in NY City. And this wouldn't even include powerful commercial magnets.


I remember as a child reading a book about meteorites. The book said that if you wanted to find them, go out in your back yard with a magnet and run it over the ground. You will pick up many fine particles of iron dust, which is the remains of meteors that are constantly burning up in the Earth's atmosphere, and have been for billions of years.

[sheeplesnshills]

It obvious that its the space station that has the dustification beamy thingie.......its obviously a NWO plannie thingie to get around the tin foil hats that most Truthers have started to wear......
Thinking about it, what orbit would the dustification Beamy thingie or DBT for short be in to be able to hit the north tower from the north and the south tower from the south about 17 minutes later?

[Scott Sommers]

It obvious that its the space station that has the dustification beamy thingie.......its obviously a NWO plannie thingie to get around the tin foil hats that most Truthers have started to wear......
Thinking about it, what orbit would the dustification Beamy thingie or DBT for short be in to be able to hit the north tower from the north and the south tower from the south about 17 minutes later?

Claims the WTCs were destroyed by a space station in orbit around the Earth are completely unfounded. Until you can produce evidence of this, the most logical explanation for their destruction is a hand-held energy beam such as depicted by the Star Trek phaser. This phaser appears to have the ability to demagnitize iron and its alloys and perhaps time distortion abilities. I am sure there are abilities to this ray gun that I have missed.

Jammi and Doctor J. seem to have the most information about this. I have repeatedly called on Jammi for clarification, but he seems shy about this one. Jammi, Jammi, where are you? Help me. Help us. There seems to be no Earthly power with such techology. Could this be space aliens? I've heard there were numerous sightings of UFOs on 911. Is this the secret technology Bob Lazar tells us is being kept in Area 51? What's the connection? Area 51 must be connected with the ray guns. What else could it be?

[sylvan8798]

It obvious that its the space station that has the dustification beamy thingie.......its obviously a NWO plannie thingie to get around the tin foil hats that most Truthers have started to wear......
Thinking about it, what orbit would the dustification Beamy thingie or DBT for short be in to be able to hit the north tower from the north and the south tower from the south about 17 minutes later?

Yeah, but then they had to hit the south tower from above, followed by the north tower from above a short time later. And really interesting is that the dustification takes place from the impact points down and up, rather than from the roof downward, as one might expect from ray beams hitting the rooftop. That's a lot of manuevering around in a short period of time. Or maybe there were several orbiting thingies all firing away. Hmmm....my brain is starting to hurt. :eye-poppi

[sheeplesnshills]

=scott.in.taiwan;5843793]Claims the WTCs were destroyed by a space station in orbit around the Earth are completely unfounded. Until you can produce evidence of this, the most logical explanation for their destruction is a hand-held energy beam such as depicted by the Star Trek phaser. This phaser appears to have the ability to demagnitize iron and its alloys and perhaps time distortion abilities. I am sure there are abilities to this ray gun that I have missed.

No No No! It can't have been a Federation Phaser as they leave no dust!....I think the most likely perpetrator were Romulan Disruptors with the dust being quite clearly residual antiprotons.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Romulan_disruptor

How can you not see that?:confused:

[Pikachu]

No No No! It can't have been a Federation Phaser as they leave no dust!....I think the most likely perpetrator were Romulan Disruptors with the dust being quite clearly residual antiprotons.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Romulan_disruptor

How can you not see that?:confused:

I think it's much more likely to be a spaceborne variant of the Jathar Sunglider weapon retroengineered by Torchwood. When it was used against the Sycorax it produced dust all over London. QED

[Scott Sommers]

I really think Jammi should straighten us out on this one. Perhaps I should send him a PM asking for help. we're never going to be able to answer this without assistance from someone who has thought more deeply about this than any of us here.

[ktesibios]

I'm also wondering about the behaviour of the so-called dustified steel. Metal powder reacts to magnets in very particular ways. It's claimed that hundreds of thousands of tons of dustified metal was floating around interacting with magnets and other magnetized surfaces. I don't know where one would find magnets in commercial products, but I'm sure they exist.


Loudspeakers, for one. Also dynamic microphones, old-style telephone receivers... what else...

Permanent magnet electric motors come to mind. Since these are universally used in such devices as CD players, one would expect an awful lot of home-entertainment systems to malfunction if there were large quantities of superfine steel dust floating around.

Also, CRT-type color displays (as in color TVs, older computer monitors, etc.) commonly had small permanent magnets as part of the deflection yoke assembly. The position of these magnets was adjusted to help tweak the electron beams so that they would strike the correct phosphor dots- so you would expect a lot of TV repair calls caused by conductive dust stuck all over the CRT neck.

Anything magnetized would attract the dust. I remember a product called "Mag-View", which was extremely fine iron powder suspended in a volatile liquid and dispensed from an aerosol can. We used to use it to "develop" recorded magnetic tape so as to make the recorded tracks visible for the purpose of checking track placement.

With the local atmosphere acting as a giant can of Mag-View, anything with a remanent magnetic field, such as a floppy disc, would suddenly acquire strange surface patterns of grayish dust.

[Bell]

But what if the DEW has changed the magnetic properties of the steel dust? Huh? Huh?

[alienentity]

Jammi and Doctor J. seem to have the most information about this. I have repeatedly called on Jammi for clarification, but he seems shy about this one. Jammi, Jammi, where are you? Help me.

j is singing directly from the Dr Judy playbook, so he can't answer about DEW's - Dr. Judy hasn't got a clue, and doesn't want to get a clue, you see.
All she will allow is that it was directed, some kind of energy, and some kind of weapon.:jaw-dropp
Pretty insightful, huh?

There still seems to be a market/appetite for far-fetched, crackpot ideas like this. Richard Syrett is milking this crap on his conspiracy show, and I'm noticing quite a lot of woo coming from places like one radio with Patrick Timpone - he has the usual anti-vaccine, health cure stuff - which is actually tied into 9/11 woo thru the mutual belief in the NWO grand conspiracy stuff.
I think chemtrails intersect somewhere in there as well.

I'm actually not searching for this stuff, but my podcast aggregator keeps pulling it up.

[Scott Sommers]

j is singing directly from the Dr Judy playbook, so he can't answer about DEW's - Dr. Judy hasn't got a clue, and doesn't want to get a clue, you see.
All she will allow is that it was directed, some kind of energy, and some kind of weapon.:jaw-dropp
Pretty insightful, huh?

There still seems to be a market/appetite for far-fetched, crackpot ideas like this. Richard Syrett is milking this crap on his conspiracy show, and I'm noticing quite a lot of woo coming from places like one radio with Patrick Timpone - he has the usual anti-vaccine, health cure stuff - which is actually tied into 9/11 woo thru the mutual belief in the NWO grand conspiracy stuff.
I think chemtrails intersect somewhere in there as well.

I'm actually not searching for this stuff, but my podcast aggregator keeps pulling it up.

You mean there are Truthers just hooking on to crazy ideas that make no sense? I can't believe it. And Jammi was sounding so clear and well thoughtout. I really want to know how the phaser beams demagnitize the metal. Is there a time distortion effect? Why does the commercial technology using DEW seem so weak and feeble compared with all that great stuff Punch & Judy keep telling us about? Is the Illuminati keeping all the cool for themselves?

I will never again post a picture of anything on the JREF, but readers might find humorous this picture of Punch & Judy puppets
http://tinyurl.com/cdzgug

[Sam.I.Am]

I will never again post a picture of anything on the JREF

If you don't mind me asking, why not?

[X]

j is singing directly from the Dr Judy playbook, so he can't answer about DEW's - Dr. Judy hasn't got a clue, and doesn't want to get a clue, you see.
All she will allow is that it was directed, some kind of energy, and some kind of weapon.:jaw-dropp
Pretty insightful, huh?


Well, technically the aircraft were directed (read: piloted), were a kind of energy (kinetic) and were used as weapons...

Which, if nothing else, goes to show how utterly useless their phrasing is in terms of defining anything specific.
Or maybe they intentionally avoid making specific claims.

[sheeplesnshills]

Lurkers, Is it not agreed that since the use of Federation Phasers has not been proven, we ought to demand a new investigation into the possibility that planes were used, piloted by suicidal religious nutcases?

[Scott Sommers]

Lurkers, Is it not agreed that since the use of Federation Phasers has not been proven, we ought to demand a new investigation into the possibility that planes were used, piloted by suicidal religious nutcases?

I've been lurking around this post for a while. It's been very interesting. But I notice recently some of the most knowledgable regulars on this type of post have not been saying very much. What happened to that guy, Strawberry Jam or something like that. I haven't seen him answer any of the questions posted here about what happened to the metal dust after the WTCs were turned into piles of dust by the big ray guns.

The idea of the WTC being attacked by suicidal religious nuts is interesting. I heard something about that. But I think the idea of giant Star Trek starships or Battlestar Gallactica sounds way more interesting. And I'd like to hear that stuff about nuclear bombs, as well. It's way more fun to talk about with the kids in the lunch room. Religion's so boring. Besides, wasn't Kennedy assassinated by the CIA? And there are aliens in Area 51?

[twinstead]

Religious nuts with hijacked jets? Now that's just crazy talk!

[Scott Sommers]

Religious nuts with hijacked jets? Now that's just crazy talk!

I'm glad someone finally agrees with me. I for one knew there was something wrong even back in 2001. And if that's not enough, Jammi's pictures of wheel covers and parts of the building disappearing in dust clouds,...well that should overwhelm you with proof. Anyone who has ever seen a real demolition will know right away that the piles of dust thrown up by a building falling down are completely different from the piles of dust thrown up at the WTC collapse.

But the amazing thing to me is how anyone could discover this. As Jammi and Doctor J have pointed out, no one human seems to have seen the effect they describe. They can not point to a device that does this thing. The physical effect of turning metal to dust is unknown by the scientists and engineers who work with our Earthly knowledge. Prior to 911, there has never been a single event, in the laboratory or otherwise, that is related to this understanding of what happened at the WTC. It is truely an amazing work of deductive power that Doctor J could understand the true origins of the collapse.

The major questions left now involve the role of aliens in all this. Do you think we should open another thread?

[sylvan8798]

Aliens? Or psychedelic mushrooms? You make the call...

[BaaBaa]

Y'all are worse than deluded if you think this was anything else but an example of the Wave Motion Gun in action.

Where was Space Cruiser Yamato, on 9/11?

Obviously, this was a put-up job by Iskandar, in order for the US to be dragged into the Global War on Gamelan!!!

[Scott Sommers]

Aliens? Or psychedelic mushrooms? You make the call...

You mean you didn't find the pictures of hubcaps to be convincing? what more proof could you ask for?

[alienentity]

Why the either/or? Could be aliens on mushrooms!:shocked:

[A W Smith]

testing, testing, is this DEW thing on? OOPS sorry Guatemala. My bad

http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/In-Pictures/Guatemala-sinkhole

[aggle-rithm]

testing, testing, is this DEW thing on? OOPS sorry Guatemala. My bad

http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/In-Pictures/Guatemala-sinkhole

De nada.

[aggle-rithm]

De nada.

That's why the CIA established all these third-world countries, to have a place to test their weapons-O-doom.

[jammonius]

I was in NY about 2 weeks after 9/11- The whole city smelled of an electric fire- i'll never forget that smell..

Greetings Titanic Explorer,

Your sense impression has epistemological value. Thank you for posting.

While sight and hearing are our primary sense organs that allow us to make claims about what we think we know, the sense of smell (weak though it may be in comparison, say, with our canine companions) can impart important information.

Your sense of "an electric fire" is consistent with destruction by exotic weaponry in the nature of DEW. I notice you did not say there was a smell of kerosene.

Thanks again for your direct observation post. It is much appreciated for its contribution to our knowledge base.

[Oystein]

...
Your sense of "an electric fire" is consistent with destruction by exotic weaponry in the nature of DEW....

How do you know that? Sources? Own experience?

If you can't providy neither sources nor own experience, we can safely depose that claim of yours to nirvana, as it carries no weight and value. I am sure you agree with this 100%.

ETA: Because obviously you must have pulled that thing from your backside as you saw fit.

[Oystein]

I was in NY about 2 weeks after 9/11- The whole city smelled of an electric fire- i'll never forget that smell..

I notice you did not say there was a smell of pyrotechnical displays. I notice you did not say there was a smell of burned rubber. I notice you did not say there was a smell of petroleum of any kind.


...I notice you did not say there was a smell of kerosene.


Eh, jammo, do you want to suggest that means anything? Why don't you spell it out? You want to suggest that TE's not smelling kerosene is an indication of the fires not having been started with kerosene, right?
Why don't you say so?

Will you accept in the same vein that TE's statement is equally indicative of there not having been any vehicles with rubber tires burning, or diesel-powered vehicles and generators, such as the one in WTC7? Or, lo and behold - no indication of pyrotechnics involved that fateful day?

Of course you know all that is bull.

Ever done a barbeque? When I do it, I usually start the fire with a fluid or solid matter that probably contains some type of petroleum and sure does smell like petroleum.
However, when someone comes by my place 2 weeks (or 2 hours) later, they never smell the petroleum that started the fire. They usually smell the pork fat that makes the BBQ such a yummie affair.

[fess]

Greetings Titanic Explorer,

Your sense impression has epistemological value. Thank you for posting.

While sight and hearing are our primary sense organs that allow us to make claims about what we think we know, the sense of smell (weak though it may be in comparison, say, with our canine companions) can impart important information.

Your sense of "an electric fire" is consistent with destruction by exotic weaponry in the nature of DEW. I notice you did not say there was a smell of kerosene.
Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Would you mind explaining to us that are unknowledgeable about your supposed DEW weapon just how it would leave a strong smell of an electrical fire throughout NY for weeks? Or better yet, explain to us what this DEW “thingy” really is.

And, reading your comments, I see that you are also implying that the individuals that got out of the towers after they were hit, you know, the ones that reported a strong smell of kerosene in the buildings, are also liars.

[phunk]

Greetings Titanic Explorer,

Your sense impression has epistemological value. Thank you for posting.

While sight and hearing are our primary sense organs that allow us to make claims about what we think we know, the sense of smell (weak though it may be in comparison, say, with our canine companions) can impart important information.

Your sense of "an electric fire" is consistent with destruction by exotic weaponry in the nature of DEW. I notice you did not say there was a smell of kerosene.

Thanks again for your direct observation post. It is much appreciated for its contribution to our knowledge base.

Unsupported nonsense. How do you know what a DEW smells like, when you don't even know what a DEW is or does?

[carlitos]

Unsupported nonsense. How do you know what a DEW smells like, when you don't even know what a DEW is or does?

He won't answer that. Here was his "explanation," over in the thread devoted to this topic.

What form of energy will "dustify" steel?
Greetings Alferd Packer

Your 7 word question remains unanswered by any authorized investigation as it relates to the destruction of the WTC complex. Dr. Wood has answered it -- DEW -- and has vetted that answer via NIST, via the US Directed Energy Directorate and tried to put SAIC and ARA on the spot, via legal process, to get them to answer it.

No one here seems much interested in following those leads;

SAIC
ARA
DEPS
DED

But, just as your question was concise, so to is the answer. It is set forth within the above acrynyms.

As the board now has its answer to the quintessential question, I will sign off here. It has been a useful endeavor. Your question obviously entails understanding that a presumed smack from a jetliner, a bit of kerosene (about enough to fill an average size backyard swimming pool) and office content did not amount to sufficient energy to do this:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image190.jpg
There are no steel beams where one would assume hundreds or thousands should be; but there is dust.



Show the above picture and ask your question at

SAIC
ARA
DEPS
DED

bye for now
:words:

[CompusMentus]

How do you know what a DEW smells like


I know what I smell. <hint> Cows produce a lot of it but I wouldn't put it in my tea.

Compus

[TSR]

Your sense of "an electric fire" is consistent with destruction by exotic weaponry in the nature of DEW.

.
It is? You can supply citation to support this assertion, right?





No?






Then why make unsupportable assertions as if they were fact?
.

[Titanic Explorer]

Greetings Titanic Explorer,

Your sense impression has epistemological value. Thank you for posting.

While sight and hearing are our primary sense organs that allow us to make claims about what we think we know, the sense of smell (weak though it may be in comparison, say, with our canine companions) can impart important information.

Your sense of "an electric fire" is consistent with destruction by exotic weaponry in the nature of DEW. I notice you did not say there was a smell of kerosene.

Thanks again for your direct observation post. It is much appreciated for its contribution to our knowledge base.


What does the smel in the air proove? The smell of the calamity filled the NY/Jersey air for the rest of the month..the moment I approached NY city around Sept 25 (2001) , it was a charred smell, and smelled of an electric fire. What does that prove? many different things burned that day- 2 airplanes, the contents of the WTC complex, and the bodies of countless victims.

Planes still hit the towers, as opposed to your holograms.


I'm still waiting for you to provide PROOF that the airplane wreckage was planted, and that the people who saw the planes hit the towers were lying, and that all the film footage is fake.

You can't.

You have no proof.

[jammonius]

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Would you mind explaining to us that are unknowledgeable about your supposed DEW weapon just how it would leave a strong smell of an electrical fire throughout NY for weeks? Or better yet, explain to us what this DEW “thingy” really is.

I have done that, as noted by Carlitos in post # 2101

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6108858&postcount=2101

Fess, because you engage in rhetoric, rather than dialogue, it is entirely unclear what information you have about DEW and whether or to what extent you have researched the subject.

I suspect that most posters here, who, after all, self-identify as "debunkers" by an overwhelming margin, are those who, for the most part, are very comfortable in acknowledging the legitimacy of ex-president Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was also one of a very few 5-star army generals. As you know, he held the lofty title of Supreme Allied Commander in WW II.

I assume you're familiar with Eisenhower's admonition to beware of the "military industrial complex" (MIC) right?

I here assert that Americans have not taken President Eisenhower's warning against the MIC very seriously, with debunkers being on the opposite end of the spectrum; namely, embracing and trusting of the MIC.

Indeed, posters and lurkers, hear this:

Debunker websites advance the interests of the MIC.

The MIC is implicated in what happened on 9/11, could more of you but realize it.

As noted in post # 2101, I have already given the answer as to what happened on 9/11 and have given the sources of where more information can be found.

I think debunkers are afraid of SAIC and ARA. They sure as heck don't ever comment on those companies, let alone their capacities and areas of expertise.

Side Note to Lurkers: These intials are key to understanding 9/11:

saic, ara, deps, usded, afrl

Take it from there, folks and post if you can.


And, reading your comments, I see that you are also implying that the individuals that got out of the towers after they were hit, you know, the ones that reported a strong smell of kerosene in the buildings, are also liars.

The above is inane and insipid. All posters and lurkers know that you, Fess, are much more patriotic, loyal, curteous, friendly, brave and reverent you are than I am. You don't need to proclaim your moral superiority post in and post out; unless, that is, you have your own doubts...:D

[jammonius]

I notice you did not say there was a smell of pyrotechnical displays. I notice you did not say there was a smell of burned rubber. I notice you did not say there was a smell of petroleum of any kind.




Eh, jammo, do you want to suggest that means anything? Why don't you spell it out? You want to suggest that TE's not smelling kerosene is an indication of the fires not having been started with kerosene, right?
Why don't you say so?

Will you accept in the same vein that TE's statement is equally indicative of there not having been any vehicles with rubber tires burning, or diesel-powered vehicles and generators, such as the one in WTC7? Or, lo and behold - no indication of pyrotechnics involved that fateful day?

Of course you know all that is bull.

Ever done a barbeque? When I do it, I usually start the fire with a fluid or solid matter that probably contains some type of petroleum and sure does smell like petroleum.
However, when someone comes by my place 2 weeks (or 2 hours) later, they never smell the petroleum that started the fire. They usually smell the pork fat that makes the BBQ such a yummie affair.

Well, Oystein, you've ranged far and wide in the above quote, all the while missing the point rather badly.

One interesting snipet and aspect of your post does stand out, however. Intermingled in the above is the following rhetorical flourish:

"Will you accept in the same vein that TE's statement is equally indicative of there not having been any vehicles with rubber tires burning, or diesel-powered vehicles and generators, such as the one in WTC7?"

What some lurkers might not realize is that on the one hand, not one single part or piece of a supposed jetliner was identified by part or serial number; but, just about every automobile, truck or other vehicle having a serial number that was damaged on 9/11 near the WTC was identified by that method, on the other.

See: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/sortingprocess.html

Your snide reference to such vehicles did call to mind some information that is actually of some use. So, for that, I'd like to express gratitude.

[dafydd]

I have done that, as noted by Carlitos in post # 2101

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6108858&postcount=2101

Fess, because you engage in rhetoric, rather than dialogue, it is entirely unclear what information you have about DEW and whether or to what extent you have researched the subject.

I suspect that most posters here, who, after all, self-identify as "debunkers" by an overwhelming margin, are those who, for the most part, are very comfortable in acknowledging the legitimacy of ex-president Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was also one of a very few 5-star army generals. As you know, he held the lofty title of Supreme Allied Commander in WW II.

I assume you're familiar with Eisenhower's admonition to beware of the "military industrial complex" (MIC) right?

I here assert that Americans have not taken President Eisenhower's warning against the MIC very seriously, with debunkers being on the opposite end of the spectrum; namely, embracing and trusting of the MIC.

Indeed, posters and lurkers, hear this:

Debunker websites advance the interests of the MIC.

The MIC is implicated in what happened on 9/11, could more of you but realize it.

As noted in post # 2101, I have already given the answer as to what happened on 9/11 and have given the sources of where more information can be found.

I think debunkers are afraid of SAIC and ARA. They sure as heck don't ever comment on those companies, let alone their capacities and areas of expertise.

Side Note to Lurkers: These intials are key to understanding 9/11:

saic, ara, deps, usded, afrl

Take it from there, folks and post if you can.



The above is inane and insipid. All posters and lurkers know that you, Fess, are much more patriotic, loyal, curteous, friendly, brave and reverent you are than I am. You don't need to proclaim your moral superiority post in and post out; unless, that is, you have your own doubts...:D

Every time that I think you have plumbed the depths of insanity,you dive deeper.

[dafydd]

Well, Oystein, you've ranged far and wide in the above quote, all the while missing the point rather badly.

One interesting snipet and aspect of your post does stand out, however. Intermingled in the above is the following rhetorical flourish:

"Will you accept in the same vein that TE's statement is equally indicative of there not having been any vehicles with rubber tires burning, or diesel-powered vehicles and generators, such as the one in WTC7?"

What some lurkers might not realize is that on the one hand, not one single part or piece of a supposed jetliner was identified by part or serial number; but, just about every automobile, truck or other vehicle having a serial number that was damaged on 9/11 near the WTC was identified by that method, on the other.

See: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/sortingprocess.html

Your snide reference to such vehicles did call to mind some information that is actually of some use. So, for that, I'd like to express gratitude.

Stop talking to the the lurkers,none of them agree with you.

[Thunder]

theories like "DEW" and "No-Planes" are the best evidence of a govt. conspiracy to make
9-11 Truthers look insane and psychotic.

MKULTRA maybe?

maybe just plain old disinfo.

[fess]

Jammonius
Hey Lurkers, point blank, DO ANY OF YOU WORK FOR SAIC or ARA? PM me if you do.
Still begging for help? You would do better trying to sell pencils on a street corner.

I have done that, as noted by Carlitos in post # 2101

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6108858&postcount=2101
You call that meaningless gibberish an answer?

Fess, because you engage in rhetoric, rather than dialogue, it is entirely unclear what information you have about DEW and whether or to what extent you have researched the subject.
Rhetoric, as you say, is a lot better than BS.
The only weapon that could even be considered to be a DEW weapon wasn’t even in R&D in 2001. It is a non-lethal weapon used for security purposes that doesn’t destroy anything, much less bring down two 110 storey buildings.

I suspect that most posters here, who, after all, self-identify as "debunkers" by an overwhelming margin, <snip>
More meaningless gibberish, come on J, you can do better than that... can't you?

[Oystein]

...
What some lurkers might not realize is that on the one hand, not one single part or piece of a supposed jetliner was identified by part or serial number; but, just about every automobile, truck or other vehicle having a serial number that was damaged on 9/11 near the WTC was identified by that method, on the other. ...

What all lurkers will surely realize is that not one single part of a pyrotechnic or DEW device was identified, let alone by part or serial number.

Lurkers generally realize that parts of planes (many) were found and identified.

Lurkers therefore reslize that that the "PLANE" theory has much stronger evidential support than "pyrotechnics" or "DEW" theories.

What some lurkers might not realize is that on the one hand, not one witness ever reported smelling pyrotechnical thingies, however several witnesses inside the twin towers reported smelling kerosene.


Any lurker reading our exchange will hardly miss the fact that you entirely missed my point: That someone's not reporting a particular smell 2 weeks after an event does not imply that nothing happened 2 weeks earlier that would have smelled a certain way.

Lurkers understand that not reporting the smell of kerosene 2 weeks after 9/11 leaves wide open the possibility, even the certainty, that the office fires in the twin towers were largely started by the exploding kerosene of two jetliners that crashed into the buildings.



Any lurkers here wanting to chime in and tell jammonius and me who of us represents your realizations better?

[Oystein]

I have done that, as noted by Carlitos in post # 2101

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6108858&postcount=2101
...

Liar. That is the precisely the opposite of what Carlitos has noted. Carlitos didn't note that you have done that, he clearly noted that you have not. Funny that you, who is so keen on calling nearly everything "rhetoric" would miss true rhetoric once it stares you in the face!

Nothing in the word salad you refer us to explains anything at all about DEWs
Nothing in there has anything at all to do with smells. The topic of what kinds of smells 2 weeks after their use DEWs would leave behind is not even touched in the remotest way by that gibberish that carlitos found.
carlitos quoted you to point out, as everybody except you immediately recognizes, that you did NOT say anything of relevance, and used many many words to achieve that utter nothingness.


You have not answered to a valid and necessary question:

How do you know what smells DEWs would create - sources or own experience?


Part of the reason for your failure to explain your wild assumption about smells is of course your equally utter failure to even start to explain what a DEW is, what kind of DEW you think was used on 9/11, where a DEW would have been on 9/11, and how it was put to work.
Just pointing us to some companies who do some sort of work on DEWs does not answer in the slightest any of these questions.

Do better, jammonius! Much much better.




...Fess, because you engage in rhetoric, rather than dialogue, it is entirely unclear what information you have about DEW and whether or to what extent you have researched the subject.

You make exceptional claims about DEW. If you want to make that case, then you do the research and present the result. It is good when results name names and are supported by references and links, however, just dropping names and links is no substitute for actually presenting results and making a case. Do oh so much better, jammomius!

If I need to clarify: We don't have to research DEWs to debunk your claims until the day that you have finally made your case. You will not have made your case until you at least specify what a DEW is, where one was, how it was used, and what its effects were. As long as you leave us in the dark about these things, there is utterly nothing to be debunked.


As noted in post # 2101, I have already given the answer as to what happened on 9/11 and have given the sources of where more information can be found.

No, you very definitely have not. See above.



I think debunkers are afraid of SAIC and ARA. They sure as heck don't ever comment on those companies, let alone their capacities and areas of expertise.

You make that up as you know it's silly and wrong. Since you consciously write something which you must very clearly know to be your invention and extremely unlikely, I once again conclude that you are nothing but a liar.

Side Note to Lurkers: These intials are key to understanding 9/11:

saic, ara, deps, usded, afrl

No. Initials and names are not key to anything whatsoever. You must present your beloved lurkers a narrative, a story, a theory that may or may not involve initials. Everything else is, in the truest sense, rhetoric and a wild goose chase.

[dafydd]

Why the either/or? Could be aliens on mushrooms!:shocked:

The worst kind.

[Thunder]

i will give $100 to anyone who finds direct physical evidence of some sort of "energy weapons" being used at the WTC on 9-11.

[Titanic Explorer]

i will give $100 to anyone who finds direct physical evidence of some sort of "energy weapons" being used at the WTC on 9-11.

Does such technology even exisit?
Or is this 'alien tech' that truthers think were taken from a 'downed UFO or time machine from the future'?

[Thunder]

Does such technology even exisit?
Or is this 'alien tech' that truthers think were taken from a 'downed UFO or time machine from the future'?

made out of a Delorian?

[Titanic Explorer]

made out of a Delorian?

Or mabey a Tardis...

[jhunter1163]

Once again, I link this legendary post by our very own R. Mackey, who is a NASA engineer (although he would be the first to say that he does not argue from authority, and wants his work to be critiqued and any errors pointed out).

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2086102#post2086102

In this post, he conclusively disproves the beam-weapon theory.

[Thunder]

i really think DEW at the WTC may take the cake as the most insane conspiracy theory of our lifetime.

[Bell]

i really think DEW at the WTC may take the cake as the most insane conspiracy theory of our lifetime.

You're quite the optimist.

[Titanic Explorer]

i really think DEW at the WTC may take the cake as the most insane conspiracy theory of our lifetime.

Well, it's only a matter of time before someone comes up with a theory that the WTC never existed, and was just a prop from the 1977 king Kong movie...

[aggle-rithm]

Does such technology even exisit?


Sure. It's just so overwhelmingly impractical that it would be a million times easier to hijack some planes and fly them into buildings.


Or is this 'alien tech' that truthers think were taken from a 'downed UFO or time machine from the future'?

Ooh..let me change my answer.

Of COURSE it's the aliens! See my sig.

[Thunder]

Well, it's only a matter of time before someone comes up with a theory that the WTC never existed, and was just a prop from the 1977 king Kong movie...

There was a woman who was suffering from what is know as "Truman Show Syndrome". She actually thought that she was living in a make believe world.

She believed that part of the make believe world was to convince her that the WTC was destroyed, when it really still existed. She came to NYC to make sure.

:)

[Titanic Explorer]

There was a woman who was suffering from what is know as "Truman Show Syndrome". She actually thought that she was living in a make believe world.

She believed that part of the make believe world was to convince her that the WTC was destroyed, when it really still existed. She came to NYC to make sure.

:)

Mental illness is a sad thing..

[Mr. Skinny]

Side Note to Lurkers: These intials are key to understanding 9/11:

saic, ara, deps, usded, afrl

Take it from there, folks and post if you can.

USDED is an acronym for the United States Department of Education. What do they have to do with directed energy weapons?

[Thunder]

jammonius http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6110945#post6110945)
Side Note to Lurkers: These intials are key to understanding 9/11:

saic, ara, deps, usded, afrl

Take it from there, folks and post if you can.

these are called "acronyms", my friend. acronyms. please look it up.

[Macgyver1968]

Jam...maybe you can explain it to me. I looked up SAIC and ARA, and I don't see where they do any work on DEW's.

Products by SAIC:
http://www.saic.com/products/list.html

Products by ARA:
http://www.ara.com/products/products_R.htm

I don't see anything even close to directed energy weapons. Maybe you can point me to a link where you got your information.

[Titanic Explorer]

Jam...maybe you can explain it to me. I looked up SAIC and ARA, and I don't see where they do any work on DEW's.

Products by SAIC:
http://www.saic.com/products/list.html

Products by ARA:
http://www.ara.com/products/products_R.htm

I don't see anything even close to directed energy weapons. Maybe you can point me to a link where you got your information.

Perhaps these are secret departments of the Shadow Government.

[jhunter1163]

Jambone, no comment on R.Mackey's destruction of your theory?

[Titanic Explorer]

Jambone, no comment on R.Mackey's destruction of your theory?

Jammy engages in a typical Truther tactic..when his theories are fully discredited..he ignores it-then usually jumps to a different Truther theory..

Just imagine if he were a lawyer arguing a case?

[sts60]

Jambone, no comment on R.Mackey's destruction of your theory?

Ha, ha. Two years ago, four separate posters - myself (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762857&postcount=311), myriad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354) , R. Mackey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102), and BenBurch (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3756906&postcount=208) - showed quantitatively the absurdity of such claims. Meanwhile, poor old deranged jammonius still can't even define her claim.

She has still also managed not to name any of the companies which really do manufacture directed-energy weapons, either... two years after I pointed them out to her.

But feel free to recycle the farce for another ten pages, if you wish. I've put poor jammonius on ignore; it's unseemly (and pointless) to argue with lunatics. I hope she gets competent mental health care at some point, just like poor crazy Judy Wood. (Or maybe they're the same person; I don't know, or care.)

[Myriad]

Side Note to Lurkers: These intials are key to understanding 9/11:

saic, ara, deps, usded, afr


These letters unscramble into AIRSPACE SADDLES FRAUD.

This is proof that the radar data is fake.

They also unscramble into RESURFACED AS LADS PAID.

This is proof that young technicians were bribed to alter ("resurface") all photos and videos of the event.

They also unscramble into AIRFARES CAPSULED DADS.

This is proof that passengers were kidnapped and removed from the planes before the 9/11 crashes.

The also unscramble into AFRAID CRUSADES LAPSED.

This is proof of motive. The conspirators feared that anti-Islam sentiment was insufficient to generate public support for Middle Eastern aggression.

They also unscramble into PARADE CUDDIES SAFARIS.

I trust that the devastating implications of that one will be obvious to all.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, whatever shall we all do? I'm planning a vigorous resistance movement based on USA DAD FARCE DISPERSAL.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[AJM8125]

These letters unscramble into AIRSPACE SADDLES FRAUD.

This is proof that the radar data is fake.

They also unscramble into RESURFACED AS LADS PAID.

This is proof that young technicians were bribed to alter ("resurface") all photos and videos of the event.

They also unscramble into AIRFARES CAPSULED DADS.

This is proof that passengers were kidnapped and removed from the planes before the 9/11 crashes.

The also unscramble into AFRAID CRUSADES LAPSED.

This is proof of motive. The conspirators feared that anti-Islam sentiment was insufficient to generate public support for Middle Eastern aggression.

They also unscramble into PARADE CUDDIES SAFARIS.

I trust that the devastating implications of that one will be obvious to all.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, whatever shall we all do? I'm planning a vigorous resistance movement based on USA DAD FARCE DISPERSAL.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Soooooooooo nominated.