Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[sts60]

jammonius brought up multiple claims regarding an alleged directed-energy weapon [DEW] used to vaporize most of WTC 1 and 2, but then balked at actually answering those questions in that thread. So here is a thread just for her:

You claimed that directed-energy weapons are currently deployed in orbit. What is your specific evidence for such a claim?

You claimed that the aftermath at Ground Zero was "consistent with use of DEW". What effects, exactly, are expected from such a weapon? How, specifically, would you distinguish them from the effects of the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires and collapse?

You also claimed that the aftermath at Ground Zero were "not a normal effect of a hydrocarbon fire". Have you any firefighting experience? (I have.) Can you even explain exactly why you described the scene as a "hydrocarbon fire", given the enormous amounts of Class I combustibles present?

In the "Debris Pile" thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762857&postcount=311), I presented a numerical estimate, with supporting assumptions stated and calculations shown, which clearly demonstrate the infeasibility of your claim that such a weapon could have vaporized most of the Twin Towers. Do you, or do you not, intend to challenge my analysis? Or myriad's (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354)? Or R. Mackey's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102)?

And, finally, the simplest and most fundamental question of all:

Exactly what kind of directed-energy weapon do you propose was used?

[RedIbis]

A call-out thread on DEW should be illegal. Talk about cherry picking.

[Mr. Skinny]

A call-out thread on DEW should be illegal. Talk about cherry picking.
Jammonius invited people to start a separate thread if they wanted to discuss his DEW claims. sts60 accepted the invitation.

And what do you mean, "cherry picking" :confused:

[~enigma~]

A call-out thread on DEW should be illegal. Talk about cherry picking.
Want to show me what exactly the cherry picked quote in the OP is otherwise please restate your accusation and/or give another reason.

[RedIbis]

Jammonius invited people to start a separate thread if they wanted to discuss his DEW claims. sts60 accepted the invitation.

And what do you mean, "cherry picking" :confused:

Fair enough. I didn't see the thread. I don't mean cherry picking as far as picking a selective quote to prove a point, just in a more casual sense that forcing a debate on DEW is easy pickens, an easy argument to knock down.

[twinstead]

So perhaps it's a strawthread?

ETA: well, not a strawthread because the person in question actually believes this DEW stuff...easy pickin's it is.

[~enigma~]

Fair enough. I didn't see the thread. I don't mean cherry picking as far as picking a selective quote to prove a point, just in a more casual sense that forcing a debate on DEW is easy pickens, an easy argument to knock down.
So it isn't a valid theory of the bowel movement?

[RedIbis]

So perhaps it's a strawthread?

Not exactly because I don't think the theory is being misrepresented.

[Mr. Skinny]

Fair enough. I didn't see the thread. I don't mean cherry picking as far as picking a selective quote to prove a point, just in a more casual sense that forcing a debate on DEW is easy pickens, an easy argument to knock down.
It may or may not be an easy argument to knock down. Depends on the evidence presented.

If, as I suspect, no real evidence for jammonius' DEW theory is presented, then the natural question to ask him is "How did you come to the conclusion that it was DEW if you don't have good evidence".

Really, Red, go read the other thread and decide if you want to come down on the jammonius side of that argument. I predict you'll steer clear. In fact, I doubt I'll even participate in this thread unless some real DEW evidence is presented.

[RedIbis]

So it isn't a valid theory of the bowel movement?

Way to bring some class into the discussion.

[RedIbis]

It may or may not be an easy argument to knock down. Depends on the evidence presented.

If, as I suspect, no real evidence for jammonius' DEW theory is presented, then the natural question to ask him is "How did you come to the conclusion that it was DEW if you don't have good evidence".

Really, Red, go read the other thread and decide if you want to come down on the jammonius side of that argument. I predict you'll steer clear. In fact, I doubt I'll even participate in this thread unless some real DEW evidence is presented.


I did read the thread. You're correct, I do steer clear of a DEW hypothesis, which I think is a more precise word since a theory already has some evidence for it.

[BenBurch]

jammonius says she won't show anyway.

[~enigma~]

Way to bring some class into the discussion.
Didn't know it was my job to bring class into a discussion of the most vile subhuman cretins on the planet.

[BenBurch]

I did read the thread. You're correct, I do steer clear of a DEW hypothesis, which I think is a more precise word since a theory already has some evidence for it.

Good call.

[BenBurch]

Didn't know it was my job to bring class into a discussion of the most vile subhuman cretins on the planet.

SECOND most vile.

Holocaust Deniers are first.

[~enigma~]

SECOND most vile.

Holocaust Deniers are first.
There is a distinct overlap...

[DGM]

jammonius says she won't show anyway.
I don't think jammonius is Dr. Wood. theauther said his name once and claims he's an associate of hers. (it was in response to hot linking)

[OldTigerCub]

A call-out thread on DEW should be illegal. Talk about cherry picking.

Translation: "How dare you challenge someone to back up their claims with facts?"

[Alferd_Packer]

OK, back to the subject.

On DEW. What form of energy are we talking about? What wavelength?

[Alferd_Packer]

2) How does a DEW affect matter?

[Alferd_Packer]

What are the "aftereffects" of DEW in matter, and how do these after effects persist once the energy source is turned off?

[Alferd_Packer]

3) How does dirt "quench" the aftereffects of DEW? How come DEWs affect steel and concrete but not dirt?

[~enigma~]

2) How does a DEW affect matter?
Well dew tends to make things wet :)

[Alferd_Packer]

4) Do DEWs affect billiard balls? :)

[Alferd_Packer]

Well dew tends to make things wet :)

I'm not going to touch that one with a ten foot pole. :jaw-dropp

[OldTigerCub]

OK, back to the subject.


2) How does a DEW affect matter?

What are the "aftereffects" of DEW in matter, and how do these after effects persist once the energy source is turned off?

I have found that a "Dew" makes things rather sticky, if you spill it.:rolleyes:

[Loss Leader]

Exactly what kind of directed-energy weapon do you propose was used?


Here you go (http://www.kitsune.addr.com/SF-Conversions/Rifts-Trek-Ships/Klingon_BRel_Bird.htm).


Hope this helps.

[sts60]

Fair enough. I didn't see the thread. I don't mean cherry picking as far as picking a selective quote to prove a point, just in a more casual sense that forcing a debate on DEW is easy pickens, an easy argument to knock down.
I think that almost any specific claim is suitable for a separate discussion thread, given the enormous amount of traffic on this board. I agree it would be "cherry picking" if I said that Death-Rays-From-The-Sky was the main claim of 9/11 conspiracists, but I also stipulate that most reject this notion. (I think that most of the other MIHOP claims are almost equally as ridiculous, but that's irrelevant here.)

I see that jammonius has been busy posting on the "Debris Pile" thread, where she indicated she would participate in a separate DEW thread:
Why doesn't someone start a DEW thread if that is what posters want to discuss? DEW is an interesting topic. I'm interested in it. I will engage in the discussion, if it is one, but not here in this thread. I have already indicated I won't likely respond immediately as I don't have time for back and forth put downs. But if people want to assess the issue of directed energy weaponry, then I suggest a new thread.
Invitation accepted; jammonius, the thread is ready and waiting for your participation.

[RedIbis]

I think that almost any specific claim is suitable for a separate discussion thread, given the enormous amount of traffic on this board. I agree it would be "cherry picking" if I said that Death-Rays-From-The-Sky was the main claim of 9/11 conspiracists, but I also stipulate that most reject this notion. (I think that most of the other MIHOP claims are almost equally as ridiculous, but that's irrelevant here.)

I see that jammonius has been busy posting on the "Debris Pile" thread, where she indicated she would participate in a separate DEW thread:

Invitation accepted; jammonius, the thread is ready and waiting for your participation.

Reading back on that quote and thread, I see where jam suggests a new thread, not necessarily a personalized debate.

[Dave Rogers]

Reading back on that quote and thread, I see where jam suggests a new thread, not necessarily a personalized debate.

Reading back on the thread title, I don't see where it says "Come and engage in a personalised debate".

Dave

[sts60]

Reading back on that quote and thread, I see where jam suggests a new thread, not necessarily a personalized debate.
jammonius is AFAIK the only member of this forum actively promoting the DEW claim. If asking her about those claims makes it a "personalized debate", then so be it; but I am not interested in anything other than discussing the specific claims, their technical ramifications, and relevant evidence. I would ask all participants to refrain from off-topic discussions (e.g., debris-pile height) or personal attacks.

RedIbis, your comments are noted. Do you have anything to say about the DEW claims themselves?

[Rika]

No, no, it was clearly REQUIEM.

[Klimax]

No, no, it was clearly REQUIEM.

Can't be REQUIEM...it has too large area effect.(Altough it was trimmed down of what GENESIS had... :) )

I think Phaser type IV would be enough. And please,do not bring type 20,Earth is still here... (taken from SCE series)

Maybe I will find another nice beam weapons,it just takes some time...

ETA:
positron rifle or Macross energy cannon...more may come...

ETA2:
Lohengrin positron blaster cannon...

[ktesibios]

Can't be REQUIEM...it has too large area effect.(Altough it was trimmed down of what GENESIS had... :) )

I think Phaser type IV would be enough. And please,do not bring type 20,Earth is still here... (taken from SCE series)

Maybe I will find another nice beam weapons,it just takes some time...

ETA:
positron rifle or Macross energy cannon...more may come...

ETA2:
Lohengrin positron blaster cannon...

I've got it!

It was one of these (http://home.nc.rr.com/tuco/looney/acme/dis.html)!

[Klimax]

I've got it!

It was one of these (http://home.nc.rr.com/tuco/looney/acme/dis.html)!

Problem...too small... :D
:D:D:D :cool:

[jammonius]

Well, I must say, I do think there's possible interest in pursuing a discussion of directed energy weaponry.

The problem here, like that of reading the actual witness statements as was brought up in the debris thread, is that there are no shortcuts. The information base on DEW is vast and no one who posts here should be deemed to know any more or any less than anyone else. Certainly, speaking for me, I am not going to take on the role of tutor to anyone. That is a thankless task. And, besides, lurking out there, somewhere, are people who know more about the subject than I do, so let them chime in.

Permit me to make the following suggestion.

Would each person who would like to engage in a DEW discussion please start by indicating what their current understanding of the subject consists in; together with a basic assertion as to whether they think such weapons exist and have been deployed in some venue or another?

Needless to say, those who really know, won't say; and I'm not prying.

I will start by saying that although the information available to the general public (which is what I am limited to) makes it absolutely clear that DEW are deployed on land, at sea and in the air, at all levels of height, including earth orbit, it is not possible to be specific down to the level of, say, knowing the serial numbers of the gizmos or any other exacting inquiry, beyond more than a few of the weapons.

Now, if I do not make any other post in this thread or say anything else; or, if I make numerous other posts in this thread and say a lot, there is nothing, not one single thing, that I can or will say that will be any more revealing than what I am about to say.

Hear this:

DEW are impracticable as weapons and the US military is resisting their use. That is the most important information I can impart.

DEW operate at the speed of light and they are calibratable over a wide range of lethal effects over a variety of distance parameters. One slip up, and you could cause havoc. They can be, and are, WMDs and they can merely sting you at the other end of their lethality spectrum. They can also control your thought process and make you jump, and therein lies, another clue. The use of DEW create a chain-of-command nightmare.

I don't know the exact upper range of their lethality, but I fear they can destroy the earth. I assert they pulverized 2 110 storey buildings in <10seconds. The query then is, what can they destroy if the beam remains on for 20 seconds, for 1 minute?

I cannot serve as answerer of all questions. DEW are easy to google and you can start anyplace, including wikipedia, if you just want background information. The only other thing I'll say is the closer you look, the more you can know.

[applecorped]

I love Mountain Dew. The new flavors are okay but nothing beats the original. I had no idea that mountain dew brought down WTC. I would think that will hurt the brand image.

[Timothy]

They can also control your thought process ...

Wow. Just wow.

I don't know the exact upper range of their lethality, but I fear they can destroy the earth. I assert they pulverized 2 110 storey buildings in <10seconds. The query then is, what can they destroy if the beam remains on for 20 seconds, for 1 minute?

Well, duh, obviously 4 110-story buildings and 12 110-story buildings, respectively. But where do you get the energy to run it continuously for the 2 billion years necessary to destroy Earth?

(10 seconds can destroy 10^9 kg. 1 sec can destroy 10^8 kg. Would take 6 x 10^16 sec, or 2 billion years, to destroy 6 x 10^24 kg of the Earth)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Fair enough. I didn't see the thread. I don't mean cherry picking as far as picking a selective quote to prove a point, just in a more casual sense that forcing a debate on DEW is easy pickens, an easy argument to knock down.

Just as easy as knocking down the claims that WTC7 had only a "few small fires" or that it "wasn't hit by anything".

[ewing2001]

tinyurl com/5v9u27
updated History of 'Directed Energy Weapons'

[updated and based on research by ewing2001 aka nico haupt, also highlighted at fcs[dot]shortURL[dot]com ]

[SDC]

Normally I don't try to post in the more technically-based threads, because I am not qualified to argue matters of engineering, physics, math, etc.

But wowser. This one seems to include material that is way beyond ... uh, reality. (I was going to type, "way beyond stupid," but didn't want to be rude.) I mean, is there no goddamned balm in Gilead? Who left the nuthouse door unlatched, huh?

[theprestige]

I will start by saying that although the information available to the general public (which is what I am limited to) makes it absolutely clear that DEW are deployed on land, at sea and in the air, at all levels of height, including earth orbit, it is not possible to be specific down to the level of, say, knowing the serial numbers of the gizmos or any other exacting inquiry, beyond more than a few of the weapons.
I'm sorry, but I would like to know exactly what information sources you are using to support these claims. If they are publically available, you should have no problem providing links, titles of books and documentaries, etc.

DEW are impracticable as weapons and the US military is resisting their use. That is the most important information I can impart.

DEW operate at the speed of light and they are calibratable over a wide range of lethal effects over a variety of distance parameters. One slip up, and you could cause havoc. They can be, and are, WMDs and they can merely sting you at the other end of their lethality spectrum. They can also control your thought process and make you jump, and therein lies, another clue. The use of DEW create a chain-of-command nightmare.

I don't know the exact upper range of their lethality, but I fear they can destroy the earth. I assert they pulverized 2 110 storey buildings in <10seconds. The query then is, what can they destroy if the beam remains on for 20 seconds, for 1 minute?

I cannot serve as answerer of all questions. DEW are easy to google and you can start anyplace, including wikipedia, if you just want background information. The only other thing I'll say is the closer you look, the more you can know.
I'm sorry, but I would like to see the evidence you have to support these claims.

[CurtC]

Would each person who would like to engage in a DEW discussion please start by indicating what their current understanding of the subject consists in; together with a basic assertion as to whether they think such weapons exist and have been deployed in some venue or another?

I have a degree in Electrical Engineering, and as part of that I took a senior-level course on pulsed power which dealt with getting large amounts of energy from one place to another very quickly. Part of the class was a field trip to Sandia National Labs in Albuquerque, where the government does much research on this subject. Part of the class was building a project where students built such things as rail guns.

I don't think such weapons exist, except the low-power Active Denial System, and the fact that a bullet could be considered directed energy.

[BenBurch]

I have a degree in Electrical Engineering, and as part of that I took a senior-level course on pulsed power which dealt with getting large amounts of energy from one place to another very quickly. Part of the class was a field trip to Sandia National Labs in Albuquerque, where the government does much research on this subject. Part of the class was building a project where students built such things as rail guns.

I don't think such weapons exist, except the low-power Active Denial System, and the fact that a bullet could be considered directed energy.

Well, I think they CAN exist to the extent of a boost-phase missile killer.

But a BIRD impact can kill a boost-phase missile, so the energy imparted to target is nowhere near what you would need to blast a building from orbit.

And if you will see the posting I made in the other thread about atmospheric windows, you will see that there are significant issues with doing that from orbit EVEN if you could make a laser with that kind of output.

[sts60]

... The information base on DEW is vast and no one who posts here should be deemed to know any more or any less than anyone else.

Statement of equivalent authority. Kindly support this claim by citing your relevant credentials. (I have an undergraduate degree in physics, a master's degrees in electrical engineering and another in system engineering, and over a decade and a half as a professional aerospace engineer working on civil, military, and commercial space projects.)
...together with a basic assertion as to whether they think such weapons exist and have been deployed in some venue or another?
Everyone here knows (or should know) that DEWs exist. That is not the question. The question is whether such a weapon could have destroyed the WTC buildings.

.I will start by saying that although the information available to the general public (which is what I am limited to) makes it absolutely clear that DEW are deployed on land, at sea and in the air, at all levels of height, including earth orbit, it is not possible to be specific down to the level of, say, knowing the serial numbers of the gizmos or any other exacting inquiry, beyond more than a few of the weapons.
Straw man. What DEW systems are deployed in Earth orbit? Exactly what is your evidence for this claim?

DEW are impracticable as weapons
But they are capable of neatly vaporizing skyscrapers, without any sign of their existence or operation? What exactly is your definition of "impracticable"?
and the US military is resisting their use...]
Factually incorrect. The military is actively funding and developing microwave weapons for crowd control (the "pain ray", already tested) and for damaging or disabling enemy systems. They are also actively funding and developing laser weapons for anti-missile and anti-aircraft use (like the already-demonstrated THEL) as well as airborne weapons like the Advanced Tactical Laser (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q4/071210a_nr.html), and, of course, the Airborne Laser system you frequently reference.
[QUOTE=jammonius;3768710]DEW operate at the speed of light ...
Only electromagnetic instruments. Particle beams do not travel at the speed of light.
I don't know the exact upper range of their lethality, but I fear they can destroy the earth. I assert they pulverized 2 110 storey buildings in <10seconds.
Exactly what type of weapon do you claim did this?
Exactly what is your evidence for its existence?
The query then is, what can they destroy if the beam remains on for 20 seconds, for 1 minute?
I have already demonstrated (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762857&postcount=311) the energy required to vaporize even one percent of one of the towers was more than five orders of magnitude greater than the energy deliverable by the ABL you are so fond of displaying as support for your claim. The theoretical beam power necessary is comparable to the combined output of every nuclear power plant on Earth. What is your evidence for the existence of such a weapon? Exactly what type of beam did it generate? Where do you assert it was operated?
I cannot serve as answerer of all questions....
You have yet to answer any of the questions that have been posed to you in response to your claim, including myriad's (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354) analysis of the energy required. Or R. Mackey's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102) analysis of the system needed to deliver the same energy as imparted by the impacting aircraft. Three quantitative analyses, and a host of specific questions specifically on this topic, have been presented to you. Start by answering them.

[RedIbis]

Just as easy as knocking down the claims that WTC7 had only a "few small fires" or that it "wasn't hit by anything".

Don't you mean as easy as knocking down the claim that WTC 7 was a raging inferno? But let's not distract.

[Spud1k]

I don't know the exact upper range of their lethality, but I fear they can destroy the earth. I assert they pulverized 2 110 storey buildings in <10seconds. The query then is, what can they destroy if the beam remains on for 20 seconds, for 1 minute?

All very scary, but that doesn't answer the OP - what evidence do you have that they were used on 9/11? On what basis do you 'assert' that they did all that pulverising?

[Alt+F4]

Don't you mean as easy as knocking down the claim that WTC 7 was a raging inferno? But let's not distract.

Then why do you?

[leftysergeant]

Not exactly because I don't think the theory is being misrepresented.

The theory is being represented as true by the Woodies, and as a possible explanation of what happened. Those of us who have fire fighting experience are representing it as an example of the BS that some people try to drag in here.

[SDC]

Don't you mean as easy as knocking down the claim that WTC 7 was a raging inferno? But let's not distract.

False claims should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

Horsefeathers, Red I. Nonsense.

[leftysergeant]

I am still waiting for someone to explain how their supposed weapons would function without visible light, intense heat and ear-destroying sound that would be detectible over the chaos of collapse.

[Dog Town]

Don't you mean as easy as knocking down the claim that WTC 7 was a raging inferno? But let's not distract.
Maybe you should look words up before using them!

For you.http://dictionary.reference.com/
inferno
noun

2. a very intense and uncontrolled fire


raging
Very active and unpredictable; volatile: a raging debate; a raging fire.
Remarkable; extraordinary:

[sts60]

Everyone, kindly refrain from unrelated discussions, and from trying to get in the last word about unrelated topics.

Questions are on the table for jammonius which she has yet to address. No distractions, please, or I will request that the thread be moderated.

[Dog Town]

Sorry bout that. I too would love to see Jamm'n Judy answer.

[theauthor]

How many times do i have to tell people that jammonius is Andrew Johnson, not Judy Wood.

[NickUK]

tinyurl com/5v9u27
updated History of 'Directed Energy Weapons'

[updated and based on research by ewing2001 aka nico haupt, also highlighted at fcs[dot]shortURL[dot]com ]

:covereyes

[Mr. Skinny]

Jammonius asked about qualifications: Other than my engineering degree and a basic understanding of physics, I'm only slightly more qualified in that I'm a safety engineer (and by default, the Laser Safety Officer) for a laboratory that has over 300 Class IIIB and Class IV lasers, ranging in power from 0.5 milliwat to over 100 kilowatts and covering about every type (Gas, Chemical Dye, Continuous Wave, Pulsed, Gaussian, Flat-top, etc.)

I'm no laser expert, but I think I understand them better than the average person.

[Mr. Skinny]

How many times do i have to tell people that jammonius is Andrew Johnson, not Judy Wood.
I didn't assume it was her the first time I posted, and BTW, I did see your previous post regarding this.

Mind sharing how you concluded this is Andrew Johnson and not Judy Wood, since he seems to be spouting a Judy Woods line of thinking and seems to primarily refer to her web site.

[jammonius]

I'm sorry, but I would like to know exactly what information sources you are using to support these claims. If they are publically available, you should have no problem providing links, titles of books and documentaries, etc.


I'm sorry, but I would like to see the evidence you have to support these claims.

Let me repeat. I'm not going to serve as answer person here. If, as you say, "[you] would like to see the evidence..." then you look it up. It's publicly available and you may google or go to reference sites, or .mil or .gov sites just as easily as anyone else.

I will provide some clues. For instance, assume you're interested in DEW deployed at sea. Then, use "navy" in your search. Here's a search suggestion: "navy, cruiser, directed energy"

Note, the above suggestion is only that, you can actually construct your own searches and might get more specific results in so doing.

Ultimately, you'll find the names of the ships that have DEW deployed on them, but you might not find that in your first search.

[theauthor]

I didn't assume it was her the first time I posted, and BTW, I did see your previous post regarding this.

Mind sharing how you concluded this is Andrew Johnson and not Judy Wood, since he seems to be spouting a Judy Woods line of thinking and seems to primarily refer to her web site.


Andrew Johnson collaborates with Judy Wood. His website is Checktheevidence.com

You can see from his style that it is him.

[jammonius]

Well, I think they CAN exist to the extent of a boost-phase missile killer.

But a BIRD impact can kill a boost-phase missile, so the energy imparted to target is nowhere near what you would need to blast a building from orbit.

And if you will see the posting I made in the other thread about atmospheric windows, you will see that there are significant issues with doing that from orbit EVEN if you could make a laser with that kind of output.

You might want to search "high energy laser (hel) giga" and, based on the results, you'll be able to conduct a more refined search, based on your intuition and what strikes you as important.

[Mr. Skinny]

Andrew Johnson collaborates with Judy Wood. His website is Checktheevidence.com

You can see from his style that it is him.
Thanks. I'll take a look.

[jammonius]

Statement of equivalent authority. Kindly support this claim by citing your relevant credentials. (I have an undergraduate degree in physics, a master's degrees in electrical engineering and another in system engineering, and over a decade and a half as a professional aerospace engineer working on civil, military, and commercial space projects.)

Everyone here knows (or should know) that DEWs exist. That is not the question. The question is whether such a weapon could have destroyed the WTC buildings.


Straw man. What DEW systems are deployed in Earth orbit? Exactly what is your evidence for this claim?


But they are capable of neatly vaporizing skyscrapers, without any sign of their existence or operation? What exactly is your definition of "impracticable"?
[QUOTE=jammonius;3768710] and the US military is resisting their use...]
Factually incorrect. The military is actively funding and developing microwave weapons for crowd control (the "pain ray", already tested) and for damaging or disabling enemy systems. They are also actively funding and developing laser weapons for anti-missile and anti-aircraft use (like the already-demonstrated THEL) as well as airborne weapons like the Advanced Tactical Laser (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q4/071210a_nr.html), and, of course, the Airborne Laser system you frequently reference.

Only electromagnetic instruments. Particle beams do not travel at the speed of light.

Exactly what type of weapon do you claim did this?
Exactly what is your evidence for its existence?

I have already demonstrated (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762857&postcount=311) the energy required to vaporize even one percent of one of the towers was more than five orders of magnitude greater than the energy deliverable by the ABL you are so fond of displaying as support for your claim. The theoretical beam power necessary is comparable to the combined output of every nuclear power plant on Earth. What is your evidence for the existence of such a weapon? Exactly what type of beam did it generate? Where do you assert it was operated?

You have yet to answer any of the questions that have been posed to you in response to your claim, including myriad's (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354) analysis of the energy required. Or R. Mackey's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102) analysis of the system needed to deliver the same energy as imparted by the impacting aircraft. Three quantitative analyses, and a host of specific questions specifically on this topic, have been presented to you. Start by answering them.

sts

I mean no disrespect, but what part of "NO" I am not going to play 20 questions with you" do you fail to grasp?

I have not got any obligation to answer your or anyone else's questions. You've got your degrees, so put the darn things to use and do your own research. If you want to make certain "power requirement" assumptions and take that route, do so.

This is a collaborative approach as far as I am concerned, but that doesn't mean you won't find others who'll take on the role you've got designated for them. But as for me, no, I respectfully decline to do that.

Look, it's old hat. Everyone knows Dr. Judy Wood asserts DEW destroyed the WTC. That issue has been debated in several forums and I've participated in a few myself. It always ends up the same way, with name-calling as the predominant outcome. Why bother?

Please consider joining me in a different approach this time.

[Mr. Skinny]

[quote=sts60;3768991]Statement of equivalent authority. Kindly support this claim by citing your relevant credentials. (I have an undergraduate degree in physics, a master's degrees in electrical engineering and another in system engineering, and over a decade and a half as a professional aerospace engineer working on civil, military, and commercial space projects.)

Everyone here knows (or should know) that DEWs exist. That is not the question. The question is whether such a weapon could have destroyed the WTC buildings.


Straw man. What DEW systems are deployed in Earth orbit? Exactly what is your evidence for this claim?


But they are capable of neatly vaporizing skyscrapers, without any sign of their existence or operation? What exactly is your definition of "impracticable"?


sts

I mean no disrespect, but what part of "NO" I am not going to play 20 questions with you" do you fail to grasp?

I have not got any obligation to answer your or anyone else's questions. You've got your degrees, so put the darn things to use and do your own research. If you want to make certain "power requirement" assumptions and take that route, do so.

This is a collaborative approach as far as I am concerned, but that doesn't mean you won't find others who'll take on the role you've got designated for them. But as for me, no, I respectfully decline to do that.

Look, it's old hat. Everyone knows Dr. Judy Wood asserts DEW destroyed the WTC. That issue has been debated in several forums and I've participated in a few myself. It always ends up the same way, with name-calling as the predominant outcome. Why bother?

Please consider joining me in a different approach this time.
*Plonk*

[Sparky]

I mean no disrespect, but what part of "NO" I am not going to play 20 questions with you" do you fail to grasp?

I have not got any obligation to answer your or anyone else's questions. You've got your degrees, so put the darn things to use and do your own research. If you want to make certain "power requirement" assumptions and take that route, do so.

This is a collaborative approach as far as I am concerned, but that doesn't mean you won't find others who'll take on the role you've got designated for them. But as for me, no, I respectfully decline to do that.



Waste of time. He's going to take his toys, go home and pout.

[A W Smith]

Evasion noted. Not surprisingly you use the same tactic Judy Wood used in the Jenkins interview when asked to define what type of energy weapon was allegedly used.

transcript
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/interview-with-dr-judy-wood-and-dr-greg.html#_edn17

GJ: Well, thank you. I guess the first question is: you have come up with some ideas regarding space-based weapons and the demolition of the World Trade Center Towers, and I was wondering if you could give us an overview of the proposed types of weapons that could be used for such a thing.
JW: Uh… We haven’t got into listing them yet—Just Energy Weapons.
GJ: In what form?
JW: I don’t think we even need to define it.
JW[continuing]:What we did was assemble all the pictures—evidence that we trusted, and just going through the evidence—just looking at it. At that point what motivated this paper was…wait—we’ve been told this story, that story—let’s wipe the slate clean and start over. Let’s see what evidence we do believe instead of relying on this rumor mill. We’re told about molten metal that nobody has ever seen pictures of—these rumors of molten metal
JW [continuing]:Let’s see if we can find any pictures of it. Let’s see what we can see. And so I started looking through [many] pictures. What were they telling us—what’s the evidence? And what categories of information? And you start putting these categories of information together and it turns the building in one direction and eliminating various other possibilities.
GJ: No matter what the beam that is used in this situation, will involve—I guess the term you use is ‘dustification’ of metal…
JW: I thought I’d invent a new word.
GJ: Might as well, right?
JW: Poof!
GJ: …or the vaporization of the metal in the towers, one or the other. Have you had, do you have any energy calculations at all to get a scale for what is involved for doing that?
JW: Yea, but [stuttering] we don’t need to get distracted by those values.




http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017&q=source:006201444710501546945&hl=en

[BenBurch]

Jammonius asked about qualifications: Other than my engineering degree and a basic understanding of physics, I'm only slightly more qualified in that I'm a safety engineer (and by default, the Laser Safety Officer) for a laboratory that has over 300 Class IIIB and Class IV lasers, ranging in power from 0.5 milliwat to over 100 kilowatts and covering about every type (Gas, Chemical Dye, Continuous Wave, Pulsed, Gaussian, Flat-top, etc.)

I'm no laser expert, but I think I understand them better than the average person.

And I have about the same qualifications with particle beams. I was a Fermilabber, and I worked doing magnet test and accelerator control software and data acquisition software. I think I understand particle accelerators better than any of these "truthers" and I know that you could not get a particle accelerator to work from orbit. I also know that any particle accelerator that could deliver that sort of energy would be the size of a small planetoid.

"That's no moon."

http://www.physicsguides.com.nyud.net/images/deathstar.jpg

[LashL]

"Judy, Judy, Judy."

Plonk, indeed.

[sts60]

sts

I mean no disrespect, but what part of "NO" I am not going to play 20 questions with you" do you fail to grasp?
You said you would "engage in the discussion". I am merely taking you up on your offer.
I have not got any obligation to answer your or anyone else's questions.
Yes, you have. You have made an extraordinary claim: you said that directed-energy weapons destroyed the Twin Towers. You have been repeatedly asked to support this claim. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, then you are asking us to accept your claims based on nothing more than your personal authority, but you have declined to cite your relevant credentials despite repeated requests to do so, and citation by several others of their own.
You've got your degrees, so put the darn things to use and do your own research.
I have. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762857&postcount=311) You have failed to address my quantitative assessment, which clearly demonstrates the infeasibility of your claim. Nor have you addressed quantitative assessments by myriad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354) and R. Mackey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102), both of which also rebutted your claim.
If you want to make certain "power requirement" assumptions and take that route, do so.
My assumptions were clearly stated. Do you have any specific challenges to my assessment?


What type of directed-energy weapon do you claim was used to destroy the Twin Towers?

[X]

I have not got any obligation to answer your or anyone else's questions. You've got your degrees, so put the darn things to use and do your own research. If you want to make certain "power requirement" assumptions and take that route, do so.


Not even when the question is merely a request for evidence of the things you claim?


I'm going to add my voice to the clamour requesting you provide evidence for what you claim.
Specifically, that DEWs are already in orbit around the Earth and can be used for demolishing buildings.

[Klimax]

You might want to search "high energy laser (hel) giga" and, based on the results, you'll be able to conduct a more refined search, based on your intuition and what strikes you as important.

I happen to watch some military and defense servers.I even saw reports on high-energy laser.There are still no lasers capable of seriously damaging building ,so destroing building by laser is so far out.They are glad that it will be powerfull enough to take down ballistic missile...

And those most powerfull lasers bit nearer to your need are land-based and certainly require so much of energy that it is nearly imposible to get it to orbit...

[Klimax]

Everyone here knows (or should know) that DEWs exist. That is not the question. The question is whether such a weapon could have destroyed the WTC buildings.

What is exactly DEW and then we may contionue about possibility of existance.


I have not got any obligation to answer your or anyone else's questions. You've got your degrees, so put the darn things to use and do your own research. If you want to make certain "power requirement" assumptions and take that route, do so.


YOU are claiming an really extraordinary thing exists.(for today techology)You have to provide evidence or at least pointers.Or discussion is going to end very quicly.


Look, it's old hat. Everyone knows Dr. Judy Wood asserts DEW destroyed the WTC. That issue has been debated in several forums and I've participated in a few myself. It always ends up the same way, with name-calling as the predominant outcome. Why bother?

Please consider joining me in a different approach this time.

Unless there is something to debate,your request shall not be met,since you refuse to provide what is being requested.

SO,PROVIDE SOURCES OR EVIDENCE OR EXPECT NOTHING.
(I am not shouting,just want the not-bolded way to emphasis.It is sort of friendly warning :) )

[Sparky]

What is exactly DEW and then we may contionue about possibility of existance.



Directed Energy Weapons. As I understand them, they include such crowd control devices as high-output focused acoustical cannon and microwave projectors on up the scale to lasers, masers and particle beam weapons. Not my area of expertise but I'm sure that others here will expand upon this.

[Rika]

Kilmax: Hmm, point. Maybe we should start sweeping the sky for Minerva....

jammoios: You make the claim, you proof it, the majority of us have more important things to do than back up YOUR assertion...

[volatile]

I subscribed to this thread because I hoped Jammonius, who can at least string a sentence together, would have a go at substantiating his claims.

It's such a shame he didn't.

[jammonius]

volatile,

Sorry to disappoint. I'd be more inclined to participate based on a collaborative approach to understanding DEW. I rely on Dr. Wood's analysis of why and how the WTC was destroyed and that information is already set out in detail at her website.

drjudywood.uk.com

By the way, for some of you who are interested in the "power or energy requirement" issue, I commend the section of her website dealing with the coincidence of Hurricane Erin being present on 9/10-9/11 offshore the NE coast. It's the section entitled "Weather Anamolies..."

[MRC_Hans]

I'd be more inclined to participate based on a collaborative approach to understanding DEW.


Fine, so let's.

You claim that DEW could be instrumental in destroying WTC 1, 2, and 7.

I claim that no DEW existed in 2001 (or exist now) that can direct power at a level required to impart serious structural damage to a large building, within a short period of time.

Clairifications: By large building I mean skyscraper class, but not necessarily WTC class. By serious structural damage, I mean sufficient to bring the building within risk of collapse.

Your turn now.

Hans

[Dave Rogers]

I have a doctorate in physics in a discipline unrelated to DEW.

Existing terrestrial DEW, as I understand it, are all some type of laser; indeed it's hard to imagine any other kind of DEW that would be effective in the atmosphere over any significant range, as any particle beam would simply be scattered. Therefore, the operating principle of any DEW used to create structural damage to the WTC towers would have to operate thermally, by delivering energy to the target as photons which would then be converted to heat on absorption. Jammonius, have you calculated the energy requirements for vapourisation of the structure of the towers to the degree you believe occurred on 9-11? That would give a minimum amount of energy required to be delivered by your hypothetical DEW.

Judy Wood has repeatedly asserted that vertical circular holes in buildings around GZ are evidence of DEW directed from above. However, it is abundantly clear from all the videos of the collapses of the Twin Towers that the collapse initiation occurred at a lower floor than roof level, and that failure was observed to occur throughout the building at the collapse initiation level before any visible damage occurred to the upper floors. This indicates that any optical beam used to damage the towers' structure cannot have been directed from vertically overhead, unless you can postulate a means by which an optical beam could be induced to pass through 15-25 storeys of building without significant absorption and then to be absorbed entirely in a structurally identical region; can you suggest any such means?

If not, then it would appear that the DEW beam must have been directed horizontally. Have you attempted to determine where the beam could have been located in order to obtain the required line of sight to the collapse initiation regions in both buildings? Since the collapses were initiated on different sides of the two towers, with horizontal progression in different directions, that implies that at least two DEW installations were required. Have you studied the geography of the region, identified possible locations, and visited them to look for signs of the installation?

Let me make it clear that at this point I think your hypothesis is unfounded in reality and could only be espoused by someone utterly ignorant of the laws of physics. If you can come up with satisfactory answers to the questions posed, then I'm prepared to reconsider that position. If you repeat your refusal to answer specific questions about your claims, refusing in effect even to defend your claims, then neither I nor anyone else will have any reason to take you seriously. It's your choice.

Dave

[Disbelief]

Gee, why am I not shocked by the dodging. Different thread, same result (or would SSDT work?).

[Spud1k]

Existing terrestrial DEW, as I understand it, are all some type of laser; indeed it's hard to imagine any other kind of DEW that would be effective in the atmosphere over any significant range, as any particle beam would simply be scattered.

Technically, ADS doesn't use a laser but then again, its energy density is much, much, lower (being a nondestructive weapon) so it bears thinking about even less.

[BenBurch]

Technically, ADS doesn't use a laser but then again, its energy density is much, much, lower (being a nondestructive weapon) so it bears thinking about even less.

See my post in the other thread about atmospheric windows where I consider RF weapons. Ruled out by the survival of the many electronic cameras looking at the event.

[volatile]

Sorry to disappoint. I'd be more inclined to participate based on a collaborative approach to understanding DEW. I rely on Dr. Wood's analysis of why and how the WTC was destroyed and that information is already set out in detail at her website.

So, you have no doubts whatsoever that her analysis is wrong? Does the fact that you have been presented with a raft of evidence that not only do these DEWs not exist, they can't exist.

You're obviously smart. So why do these analyses not give you pause for thought? Now, I know you're read them. I know you've understood them, at least the basics. And I know you're rejected them out of hand.

What are your reasons for doing so? You must have rationalised these facts in line with your (or Dr. Woods'?) opinions - so let's hear that rationalisation.

[MRC_Hans]

Technically, ADS doesn't use a laser but then again, its energy density is much, much, lower (being a nondestructive weapon) so it bears thinking about even less.Yes, since high-power weapons depend on high directability and high energy density, they must necessarily use light wavelengths. Not necessarily in the visible spectrum, but ... light, which means lasers.

Also, longer wavelenghts (micowaves), would cause heating, localized in conductive substances, which is not what was observed, whereas shorter wavelengths would be ionizing radiation, which would cause residual radioactivity, which was also not observed.

Unfortunately, for the DEW hypothesis, laser beams, even if outside the visible spectrum, will cause visible phenomenon at high energy levels, which ws ALSO not observed.

Hans

Hans

[BenBurch]

Hans,

One nit to pick, X and gamma rays do not induce radiation. Neutrons or Protons as cosmic rays can, but those are very different; X and gamma are just photons.

[sts60]

...I'd be more inclined to participate based on a collaborative approach to understanding DEW. I rely on Dr. Wood's analysis of why and how the WTC was destroyed and that information is already set out in detail at her website.

drjudywood.uk.com
jammonius, you brought the claims up here; presumably that means you understand Dr. Wood's claims. What type of directed-energy weapon is claimed to have vaporized the Twin Towers?

If you understand her claims, but she cannot specify what type of weapon she thinks was used, then the claim is too vague to merit further discussion.

If she specifies what type of weapon was used, but you do not understand her claims well enough to tell us, there you are not yet equipped to engage in productive discussion - however...

If you would like to learn about the topic, there a number of posters with relevant physics and engineering backgrounds who have already presented a significant amount of information, and can teach you more about the topic. Are you willing to learn?

By the way, the last course would require you to abandon your earlier claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3768710#post3768710) that "no one who posts here should be deemed to know any more or any less than anyone else." Because, clearly, several people here do know more about the topic. Do you, or do you not, abandon your appeal to equivalent knowledge? If so, kindly state your relevant credentials, as have several other posters (including myself).
By the way, for some of you who are interested in the "power or energy requirement" issue, I commend the section of her website dealing with the coincidence of Hurricane Erin being present on 9/10-9/11 offshore the NE coast. It's the section entitled "Weather Anamolies..."
Three separate posters (R. Mackey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102), myriad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354), and myself (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762857&postcount=311) ) have already addressed energy/power and other operational aspects quantitatively. Each of the three analyses demonstrates the infeasibility of the DEW/WTC claim. Do you have any specific objections to these analyses?

[bonavada]

Jammonius, you stated in the "debris pile" thread:-

I don't know what destroyed WTC 7, but I think it was some form of exotic weapon, similar, but not identical to that which the evidence confirms destroyed the remainder of the WTC complex.....

<snip>

.....I just don't think that theory [CD at WTC7] fits the evidence very well and certainly not nearly as well as DEW theory does.

Please can you explain why you think a different DEW was used to destroy WTC7?

BV

[twinstead]

Can't have too many DEWs, that's what I always say. Well, I don't always say it, but I've said it now, and I can't take it back. So, I'm going to have to always say it now.

[BenBurch]

Can't have too many DEWs, that's what I always say. Well, I don't always say it, but I've said it now, and I can't take it back. So, I'm going to have to always say it now.

I dunno, more than three or four Dews in an afternoon and I get all jittery.

And I have to go to the bathroom all the time, too.

[Drudgewire]

Can't have too many DEWs, that's what I always say. Well, I don't always say it, but I've said it now, and I can't take it back. So, I'm going to have to always say it now.


http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/mountaindew-6.jpg

[Myriad]

There is ample evidence that the Towers and WTC7 were destroyed by a diffuse, ambient, radially aligned gravity beam, directed upward from the center of the earth.

So devastating is this weapon that physicists have concluded that no shielding is possible. Instead, every structure we build anywhere within a few miles of earth's surface must be equipped with gravity countermeasures to supply the necessary gravity-canceling force vectors or else suffer immediate destruction.

This was clearly demonstrated on 9/11, when extensive damage to the gravity countermeasures in three large buildings led to their total loss.

So far, all attempts to send expeditionary forces to the earth's core to neutralize this threat at the source have failed. (Also, though there are many ongoing and very expensive efforts to reduce the threat by removing some of the higher-gravity substances, such as gold and uranium, from the interior of the earth, their effect on the gravity beam has so far been negligible.) So instead, engineers are learning what they can from the disaster about how to improve the gravity countermeasures in existing and future buildings.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jammonius]

jammonius, you brought the claims up here; presumably that means you understand Dr. Wood's claims. What type of directed-energy weapon is claimed to have vaporized the Twin Towers?

If you understand her claims, but she cannot specify what type of weapon she thinks was used, then the claim is too vague to merit further discussion.

If she specifies what type of weapon was used, but you do not understand her claims well enough to tell us, there you are not yet equipped to engage in productive discussion - however...

If you would like to learn about the topic, there a number of posters with relevant physics and engineering backgrounds who have already presented a significant amount of information, and can teach you more about the topic. Are you willing to learn?

By the way, the last course would require you to abandon your earlier claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3768710#post3768710) that "no one who posts here should be deemed to know any more or any less than anyone else." Because, clearly, several people here do know more about the topic. Do you, or do you not, abandon your appeal to equivalent knowledge? If so, kindly state your relevant credentials, as have several other posters (including myself).

Three separate posters (R. Mackey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102), myriad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354), and myself (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762857&postcount=311) ) have already addressed energy/power and other operational aspects quantitatively. Each of the three analyses demonstrates the infeasibility of the DEW/WTC claim. Do you have any specific objections to these analyses?

sts,

You know, on a certain level, your and my viewpoint on DEW might not be that different. In this thread, however, I am not going to take on the burden of proving anything. I consider that a thankless task.

However, there's an equally valid way for those participating here to become knowledgable about DEW, their possibilities, limitations, likelihood of having been used on 9/11 and so on.

Frankly, now that you know that people like BenBurch have engineering/physics backgrounds, why don't you pose your questions to them?

My suggestion is that we just continue doing what we're doing. In fact, I have a question.

Are there any publicly available information sources that describe in at least some detail the lethality effects of the various gradations of DEW?

Now, I think at this point I'd like to mention that I have encountere what might or might not be disinformation in connection with DEW. My working assumption is that the overall thrust of disinformation in the realm of DEW is toward understating both their lethality and their current state of development.

However, one can sometimes have the impression that DEW literature does the opposite; namely, overstate the state of the art of DEW development.

Would anyone be willing to discuss this issue?

[volatile]

My working assumption is that the overall thrust of disinformation in the realm of DEW is toward understating both their lethality and their current state of development.



By "disinformation", I assume you mean information known to be false but presented as true by those involved in the conspiracy in order to act as a cover-up?

Do you, perchance, have any evidence that the maths, physics and engineering tracts which show DEWs of the magnitudes your theory requires are, indeed, "disinformation"? It strikes me that to ake this case, you need to make a positive case to the contrary.

Neither you, nor Dr. Wood, has done so yet, as far as I can see. Which is why we keep asking you the questions you urgently need to answer; namely: what was this weapon, how much energy did it produce, and how did it work? In other words, what underpins this "working assumption"? What ever gives you the impression that there is the understatement you describe? Do you have positive evidence of a DEW more lethal than the maths and physics in this thread suggest is possible?

Only by answering those can we begin to have even the nebulous type of conversation you've requested.

[jammonius]

There is ample evidence that the Towers and WTC7 were destroyed by a diffuse, ambient, radially aligned gravity beam, directed upward from the center of the earth.

So devastating is this weapon that physicists have concluded that no shielding is possible. Instead, every structure we build anywhere within a few miles of earth's surface must be equipped with gravity countermeasures to supply the necessary gravity-canceling force vectors or else suffer immediate destruction.

This was clearly demonstrated on 9/11, when extensive damage to the gravity countermeasures in three large buildings led to their total loss.

So far, all attempts to send expeditionary forces to the earth's core to neutralize this threat at the source have failed. (Also, though there are many ongoing and very expensive efforts to reduce the threat by removing some of the higher-gravity substances, such as gold and uranium, from the interior of the earth, their effect on the gravity beam has so far been negligible.) So instead, engineers are learning what they can from the disaster about how to improve the gravity countermeasures in existing and future buildings.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thank you for your post Myriad. You know, in some ways what you posted does bear some resemblance to an actual description given by one of the First Responders who was actually there and who witnessed the event of destruction. Here's what EMS Karin Deshore had to say:

"My last recollection was of them going towards the building. I asked at that time -- everybody else was with me still and I kept pushing them back and back and back, because I said what is this, a subway at the end of the overpass, because there is fire coming out of the ground. I didn't realize that that was a car already on fire over there."
…
" I had no clue what was going on. I never turned around because a sound came from somewhere that I never heard before. Some people compared it with an airplane. It was the worst sound of a rolling sound, not a thunder. I can't explain it, what it was. All I know is -- and a force started to come hit me in my back. I can't explain it. You had to be there. All I know is I had to run because I thought there was an explosion.
I ran about 10, 12 feet up this little grassy hill and by then this force and this sound caught up with me already. I threw myself behind the last support column of the pedestrian overpass. It became pitch dark. The sound got worse, the force just kept passing me. At times I thought it was like an orange light maybe, coming past me.
I was unaware what was happening. I thought it was just a major explosion. I didn't know the building was collapsing. I was sitting with my left side towards the support beam, total darkness, total noise. I felt beyond
alone. I felt desolated. I felt like, all I could say was people think about their families and whatever. All I kept saying to myself within me I don't want to die, I don't want to die, I don't want to die.

I can't tell you how long it was before it died down. I just felt like the darkness the loneliness and being alone was the worst thing I ever experienced in my life and not being able to breathe. There was no air.

Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met

I assert that the effects described by EMS Deshore provide a basis for the claim that DEW or some form of exotic weaponry was involved. I further assert that descriptions of the effects that those present experienced consititute a rich source of information that will help pin down what destroyed the WTC.

For those interested, I've said several times that the 503 Task Force Witness Statements are a vital source of clues and of information that will enable America and the world to figure out that DEW destroyed the WTC.

EMS Deshore is only one of many witnesses who described events that are inconsistent with any other destructive mechanism except DEW, in my opinion.

Deshore's statement is worthy of close scrutiny and analysis, in my opinion.

[jammonius]

Jammonius, you stated in the "debris pile" thread:-



Please can you explain why you think a different DEW was used to destroy WTC7?

BV

The destructive effects differed somewhat, but not by that big a factor or margin. As you look closely at the remnant pile of debris for WTC 7 you do see that there was a remarkable degree of pulverization of the buildings innards, but the shell of the building -- exterior walls -- were not destroyed to nearly the same extent as was the case in WTC 1,2.

Of course another obvious difference is that WTC 7 appeared to be destroyed bottom up, not top down like WTC 1,2.

So, basically, by virtue of their having been some differences in the destructive effects seen, I hypothesize a different weapon.

[volatile]

Take a step back - your theories are ludicrous. Seriously, listen to yourself - you're actually claiming, with a straight face, that two skyscrapers which were hit by fully-laden jetliners and burned for hours, collapsed not because of these impacts and the subsequent damage, but because of some magic, unidentified death ray from space.

A death ray. From space.

You're living in cloud-cuckoo land, Jammonius. Your theories are laughable. They are ridiculous. Were they to be dreamed up by Hollywood, audiences would think them too absurd for words. You're clearly not stupid. You clearly have some grasp of reality. Just think about what you're really arguing for a microsecond.

A death ray. From space. A death ray that requires more power than all the nuclear power stations on earth. A death ray that is silent, invisible and undetectable. In fact, given the physics of orbit, TWO death rays, both funded by some invisible budget, designed, assembled, launched and fired by teams of hundreds of people who have thus far remained silent. Two death rays, in space, put into orbit by invisible black-ops rocket teams.


It's stupid. From beginning to end. We can talk about "DEWs" and energy potentials and dustification all day long, but the fact remains that the very premise of your "argument", such that it is, is that death rays from space destroyed the WTC complex. Which is just a monstrously infantile idea.

[Alt+F4]

So a DEW:
1. emits an orange light
2. makes fire come out of the floor

Maybe it's powered by kryptonite.

[jammonius]

So a DEW:
1. emits an orange light
2. makes fire come out of the floor

Maybe it's powered by kryptonite.

Those aren't the only clues. Notice that EMS Deshore said she "...didn't know the building was collapsing..." which attests to the fact that this was not a gravity driven event. Indeed, the destructive interval was too fast for mere gravity as the time was about the same as would be required for an object to hit ground from the height of the Twin Towers -- 1360+/- ft -- IF dropped in a vacuum. Here, you not only did not have a vacuum, you had the entire structure to contend with that, in effect, put up no resistance whatsoever.

Do posters acknowledge that the Twin Towers were destroyed in approximately 10 seconds each? Do posters agree that the time required for an object to hit ground from a height of 1360ft would be over 9 seconds, if dropped in a vacuum?

The fact EMS Deshore did not know the building was being destroyed also attests to the assertion that the building was being pulverized in midair, with literally the steel/concrete/rebar/you name it being instantaneously (or nearly so) turned to dust. It made no noise consistent with a huge, steel on steel, concrete on concrete crash, tumble, collapse. That was totally lacking.

Other witnesses described the event as being QUIET. See statement of Zachary Goldfarb

See: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met

[Spud1k]

Those aren't the only clues. Notice that EMS Deshore said she "...didn't know the building was collapsing..." which attests to the fact that this was not a gravity driven event.

How exactly does that attest to gravity not being a factor? I always took that to mean that with all the crashing and the dust and the confusion, she was saying that at the time, she didn't know what was going on.

Indeed, the destructive interval was too fast for mere gravity as the time was about the same as would be required for an object to hit ground from the height of the Twin Towers -- 1360+/- ft -- IF dropped in a vacuum. Here, you not only did not have a vacuum, you had the entire structure to contend with that, in effect, put up no resistance whatsoever.

The towers did not fall unrealistically fast. This has been debunked more times than I care to count.

[jammonius]

How exactly does that attest to gravity not being a factor? I always took that to mean that with all the crashing and the dust and the confusion, she was saying that at the time, she didn't know what was going on.


That is one possible interpretation; and, the assertion that she didn't hear anything because the building was being all but instantaneously pulverized is another possible interpretation -- and it is the one that I assert comports more accurately with the reality. You can disagree, I don't question that one bit.

The towers did not fall unrealistically fast. This has been debunked more times than I care to count.

This certainly is not one of them.

Moreover, I tend to shy away from self-proclamations about who has debunked whom. I note a very, very high correlation as between the identity of the person making the declaration that such and such is debunked and what postion that declaring person opposes in the first place.

Has that not been your experience?

[BenBurch]

That is one possible interpretation; and, the assertion that she didn't hear anything because the building was being all but instantaneously pulverized is another possible interpretation -- and it is the one that I assert comports more accurately with the reality. You can disagree, I don't question that one bit.



This certainly is not one of them.

Moreover, I tend to shy away from self-proclamations about who has debunked whom. I note a very, very high correlation as between the identity of the person making the declaration that such and such is debunked and what postion that declaring person opposes in the first place.

Has that not been your experience?

Stop lying to people.

[Drudgewire]

Moreover, I tend to shy away from self-proclamations about who has debunked whom. I note a very, very high correlation as between the identity of the person making the declaration that such and such is debunked and what postion that declaring person opposes in the first place.

That certainly helps explain how you guys have been able to continue believing your crap after all these years.

"Well, that guy doesn't believe 9/11 is an inside job. So just because every bit of legitimate science is on his side, it doesn't mean he's necessarily any more right than the rest of us who wildly speculate and make up things." :rolleyes:

[sts60]

You know, on a certain level, your and my viewpoint on DEW might not be that different.
Let's explore that proposition, starting with the most basic point of all: What type of directed-energy weapon do you claim was used to destroy WTC 1 and 2?
In this thread, however, I am not going to take on the burden of proving anything. I consider that a thankless task.
I do not ask you to "prove" anything. But it is incumbent upon you to provide at least the most rudimentary details for your claim (what type of DEW? where in general do you claim it was?) and to provide evidence for it.
However, there's an equally valid way for those participating here to become knowledgable about DEW, their possibilities, limitations, likelihood of having been used on 9/11 and so on.
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)) have offered quantitative and specific analyses on exactly these topics. Evidently the participants here are knowledgeable. Do you accept the analyses? If so, you concede that DEWs could not have done what you claim. If not, kindly state your specific objections, and provide your supporting data and calculations, as we have.
Frankly, now that you know that people like BenBurch have engineering/physics backgrounds, why don't you pose your questions to them?
Because we all agree that your claim is wrong, and have done the work that shows it.

However, since you acknowledge that various posters here do have relevant credentials, do you, or do you not, withdraw your earlier claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3768710#post3768710) that "no one who posts here should be deemed to know any more or any less than anyone else"? If not, kindly state your relevant credentials, as have several other posters (including myself). Otherwise I will consider your claim abandoned.
My suggestion is that we just continue doing what we're doing...
No. You have yet to answer any of the numerous rebuttals offered for your DEW claims, and in fact have yet to even state exactly what your claim is. Can you, or can you not, state what type of DEW you believe destroyed the Towers? If not, you are simply asserting a claim in broad terms but refusing to discuss it, let alone support it.

Are there any publicly available information sources that describe in at least some detail the lethality effects of the various gradations of DEW?
Just a moment. You have previously claimed that DEW operate at the speed of light and they are calibratable over a wide range of lethal effects over a variety of distance parameters. One slip up, and you could cause havoc. They can be, and are, WMDs and they can merely sting you at the other end of their lethality spectrum. They can also control your thought process and make you jump, and therein lies, another clue.
You also made somewhat specific claims about the effects of DEWs here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3748601#post3748601) (lingering "fuming", "dissocation"), here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3757858&postcount=221) (comparing them to directed nuclear weapons), and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3757946&postcount=224) (asserted "very long-lasting" effects incompatible with "normal effect[s]... of a hydrocarbon fire").

Why are you asking now for information on the effects of DEW, when you were asserting a wide variety of effects and capabilities before? Upon what exactly did you base all these prior claims?

[jammonius]

stws60

My, my, my you are so insistent on getting me to play 20 questions with you.

I take no specific position on what exact type of DEW was used. After all, DEW remain a highly secretive aspect of the US armada. If you were to ask me for the serial number of, say, the thyratron trigger on a particular type of DEW, I would not be able to say what it is because I do not know.

Now, let's restate what appears to be an assumption of yours; namely: That to make a claim that DEW destroyed the WTC, one must say exactly what type of DEW did it.

I don't think that assumption is correct. I think, in fact, that a main purpose of Dr. Wood's legal proceedings is to get the chance to ask the MIC defendants who do, indeed, manufacture, develop and test DEW, the same questions you seem so very intent upon asking of me. Chances are, the questions Wood would ask would be phrased a little differently and I can help you in that respect, I think.

You keep missing the main point I am trying to make here. I am not going to put myself in the role of proponent here on this thread. I'm not defending anyone and I'm not advocating a darn thing. I will explore DEW in all of their ramifications, but I am not the person providing proof of anything.

I do wish I could be understood by you in that particular.

I do not ask you to "prove" anything. But it is incumbent upon you to provide at least the most rudimentary details for your claim (what type of DEW? where in general do you claim it was?) and to provide evidence for it.

You and I differ a bit on who has to prove what. Somewhere above, there was what I described as something like the "second best post" in this thread. That post, by someone with a lot of consonants in his/her name (KTES---) if I recall the name correctly,indicated in substance that causes are inferred or deduced from effects. You remember that post?

Well, in this thread so far I have posted up and quoted witness statements attesting to effects. I have suggested people look at Dr. Wood's website and suggested specific pages there for specific purposes. For instance, on the power requirement issue, I suggested the Weather Anamolie pages.

The whole tenor of her website is an assessment of effects and the assertion that they are best explained by the properties associated with DEW, broadly defined.

If you want to look at some of the effects she points to and challenge the assertion that those effects are consistent with DEW, then fine. Let's have at it.

Better still, assume there's merit to her approach of seeking to question ARA and SAIC who are known DEW manufacturers, can you think of questions you'd LIKE TO ASK OF THEM? Or, are you solely and exclusively focused on getting me to answer your DEW questions?

Hint: I think a person who has positioned herself to ask DEW manufacturers questions has kind of placed herself ahead in this game. But hey, that's just me.

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)) have offered quantitative and specific analyses on exactly these topics. Evidently the participants here are knowledgeable.

Maybe ARA and SAIC will rely on your cited experts to help defend themselves against Dr. Wood's claims. We'll see.

Do you accept the analyses? If so, you concede that DEWs could not have done what you claim. If not, kindly state your specific objections, and provide your supporting data and calculations, as we have.

Because we all agree that your claim is wrong, and have done the work that shows it.


Please feel free to contact ARA and SAIC and tell them you can help out.

Why are you asking now for information on the effects of DEW, when you were asserting a wide variety of effects and capabilities before? Upon what exactly did you base all these prior claims?[/

Could help in getting information from those who manufacture and develop DEW.

Now, for the last time, sts, I am not going to play 20 questions with you; and, besides, even if I were to agree to put myself in that position, your one post to which I am replying contained close on to 20 questions in that one post. So, even by the rules of that game, you've used up all you're entitled to with respect to me.

I do hope you'l develop an interest in asking DEW manufacturers questions about DEW.

[jammonius]

Stop lying to people.

You do not know what you're talking about; and I certainly haven't got the foggiest idea what got you to the point of being snide like that. However, no further clarification is considered necesary. Posts like yours don't advance the knowledge base one jot or iota.

[volatile]

Mate. Look. You believe towers that were hit by planes and burned for hours were destroyed by a beam from space.

It's silly. It's bizarre. It's weird. It's ludicrous. It's wrong.

Don't you see that?

[metamars]

a force started to come hit me in my back. I can't explain it.

Have you cataloged witness accounts that describe a strange force? I only recall 1 other one (and perhaps it was the same person - don't want to check).

You really can't make any statements with a high degree of certainty regarding DEW's unless there's published, reproducible lab reports. I don't mind discussing them - I do myself - but getting proof is likely to be impossible.
BTW, I emailed the Max Planck Institute and asked them for a lab report re Hutchinson's samples, but got no answer. It's possible, though, that you can confirm scalar waves, as they now seem to be easily reproducible. Konstantin Meyl sells a demo kit. He believes they're what made Tesla coils tick, so maybe confirmation of destructive effects claimed by Tesla is not far away. Also, take note that Meyl is claiming his device is overunity - he believes that the excess energy comes from "the environment". (I think he ties this into his theory of neutrinos, but my gut feeling is that physicists will never buy that.)

Nevertheless, that day is not here, yet.

As for your speculation that disinfo tends to understate the state of the art, I heard, what I'll call a rumor, that the US already has a system in place that can take out missiles (I assume big, intercontinental ones). As I recall, you don't actually point something at the missile, it somehow works indirectly.

I also heard Charles R. Smith recently talk about a system designed for US fighter planes than can shoot down an opposing plane using some sort of phased array. No missile necessary. Apparently, you don't point an array of gun-like devices, either. Whether it just fries the electronics or does some other kind of destruction, I'm not sure.

[pomeroo]

stws60

My, my, my you are so insistent on getting me to play 20 questions with you.

I take no specific position on what exact type of DEW was used. After all, DEW remain a highly secretive aspect of the US armada. If you were to ask me for the serial number of, say, the thyratron trigger on a particular type of DEW, I would not be able to say what it is because I do not know.

Now, let's restate what appears to be an assumption of yours; namely: That to make a claim that DEW destroyed the WTC, one must say exactly what type of DEW did it.

I don't think that assumption is correct. I think, in fact, that a main purpose of Dr. Wood's legal proceedings is to get the chance to ask the MIC defendants who do, indeed, manufacture, develop and test DEW, the same questions you seem so very intent upon asking of me. Chances are, the questions Wood would ask would be phrased a little differently and I can help you in that respect, I think.

You keep missing the main point I am trying to make here. I am not going to put myself in the role of proponent here on this thread. I'm not defending anyone and I'm not advocating a darn thing. I will explore DEW in all of their ramifications, but I am not the person providing proof of anything.

I do wish I could be understood by you in that particular.



You and I differ a bit on who has to prove what. Somewhere above, there was what I described as something like the "second best post" in this thread. That post, by someone with a lot of consonants in his/her name (KTES---) if I recall the name correctly,indicated in substance that causes are inferred or deduced from effects. You remember that post?

Well, in this thread so far I have posted up and quoted witness statements attesting to effects. I have suggested people look at Dr. Wood's website and suggested specific pages there for specific purposes. For instance, on the power requirement issue, I suggested the Weather Anamolie pages.

The whole tenor of her website is an assessment of effects and the assertion that they are best explained by the properties associated with DEW, broadly defined.

If you want to look at some of the effects she points to and challenge the assertion that those effects are consistent with DEW, then fine. Let's have at it.

Better still, assume there's merit to her approach of seeking to question ARA and SAIC who are known DEW manufacturers, can you think of questions you'd LIKE TO ASK OF THEM? Or, are you solely and exclusively focused on getting me to answer your DEW questions?

Hint: I think a person who has positioned herself to ask DEW manufacturers questions has kind of placed herself ahead in this game. But hey, that's just me.



Maybe ARA and SAIC will rely on your cited experts to help defend themselves against Dr. Wood's claims. We'll see.



Please feel free to contact ARA and SAIC and tell them you can help out.



Could help in getting information from those who manufacture and develop DEW.

Now, for the last time, sts, I am not going to play 20 questions with you; and, besides, even if I were to agree to put myself in that position, your one post to which I am replying contained close on to 20 questions in that one post. So, even by the rules of that game, you've used up all you're entitled to with respect to me.

I do hope you'l develop an interest in asking DEW manufacturers questions about DEW.


It's fascinating that these futuristic weapons were not available to the military in the Iraq War. A conventional airstrike against a building in Baghdad thought to contain Saddam and several of his inner circle failed to bring it down. Your imaginary weapons are intended for the private use of the Bush-Cheney crime family, but not for military purposes. The cost of their development does not show up anywhere in the DOD's budget and everyone in the military is agreeable to the conditions of restricted use, i.e., only against buildings in America for the purpose of mass murder.

Nah, you aren't hopelessly deranged.

[beachnut]

Wow. Just wow.

Only if he sticks his whole head in the microwave for awhile. Mind control?

[Alzke]

If DEW was used what would be the reason for the perps choosing to destroy the towers out of sequence in relation to the plane strikes ?

[beachnut]

Thank you for your post Myriad. You know, in some ways what you posted does bear some resemblance to an actual description given by one of the First Responders who was actually there and who witnessed the event of destruction. Here's what EMS Karin Deshore had to say:
Your beam weapons ideas put you in a class of 9/11 truth movement membership, that defies gravity. Or was that, ignores gravity.

[Myriad]

Thank you for your post Myriad. You know, in some ways what you posted does bear some resemblance to an actual description given by one of the First Responders who was actually there and who witnessed the event of destruction.


That makes sense, because what I posted is completely consistent with the generally accepted account of the events of 9/11. I don't think any "debunker" on this board will argue otherwise, though they make quibble about some of my descriptive word choices (such as "beam").

Here's what EMS Karin Deshore had to say:

"My last recollection was of them going towards the building. I asked at that time -- everybody else was with me still and I kept pushing them back and back and back, because I said what is this, a subway at the end of the overpass, because there is fire coming out of the ground. I didn't realize that that was a car already on fire over there."
…
" I had no clue what was going on. I never turned around because a sound came from somewhere that I never heard before. Some people compared it with an airplane. It was the worst sound of a rolling sound, not a thunder. I can't explain it, what it was. All I know is -- and a force started to come hit me in my back. I can't explain it. You had to be there. All I know is I had to run because I thought there was an explosion.
I ran about 10, 12 feet up this little grassy hill and by then this force and this sound caught up with me already. I threw myself behind the last support column of the pedestrian overpass. It became pitch dark. The sound got worse, the force just kept passing me. At times I thought it was like an orange light maybe, coming past me.
I was unaware what was happening. I thought it was just a major explosion. I didn't know the building was collapsing. I was sitting with my left side towards the support beam, total darkness, total noise. I felt beyond
alone. I felt desolated. I felt like, all I could say was people think about their families and whatever. All I kept saying to myself within me I don't want to die, I don't want to die, I don't want to die.

I can't tell you how long it was before it died down. I just felt like the darkness the loneliness and being alone was the worst thing I ever experienced in my life and not being able to breathe. There was no air.

Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met

I assert that the effects described by EMS Deshore provide a basis for the claim that DEW or some form of exotic weaponry was involved. I further assert that descriptions of the effects that those present experienced consititute a rich source of information that will help pin down what destroyed the WTC.

For those interested, I've said several times that the 503 Task Force Witness Statements are a vital source of clues and of information that will enable America and the world to figure out that DEW destroyed the WTC.

EMS Deshore is only one of many witnesses who described events that are inconsistent with any other destructive mechanism except DEW, in my opinion.

Deshore's statement is worthy of close scrutiny and analysis, in my opinion.


Deshore's statement are completely consistent with being perilously close to an enormous collapsing burning building. Orange light -- like fire makes, especially when seen at a distance through dust? A force pushing -- kind of like the pressure and wind from a collapsing building? A loud "rolling" sound, unfamiliar, as if of something that's very loud but doesn't happen very often -- like a skyscraper collapsing?

Here are a few things she doesn't mention:
- Unexplained heat
- Unexplained pain
- Flash burns
- Blinding light
- Electric arcs from the metal fasteners in her clothing
- Tingling or crawling sensations
- Radiation sickness

She does talk about feeling frightened and isolated, which is understandable under the circumstance she describes being in. Or is feeling frightened and isolated a known side effect of exotic energy weapons?

The problem is that you're looking through these accounts for evidence of anything unfamiliar -- and finding it, because something was happening that was indeed unfamiliar to the people experiencing it: an enormous nearby building was collapsing. Evidence of a DEW must be something not already explainable by the things that we already know for certain were occurring at and near Ground Zero, including fire, wind, dust, noise, and falling objects.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[BenBurch]

You do not know what you're talking about; and I certainly haven't got the foggiest idea what got you to the point of being snide like that. However, no further clarification is considered necesary. Posts like yours don't advance the knowledge base one jot or iota.

Your posts are 100% lies.

And you simply cannot do what you suggest you can do with them, and I think you KNOW that, and hence are a LIAR.

[BenBurch]

It's fascinating that these futuristic weapons were not available to the military in the Iraq War. A conventional airstrike against a building in Baghdad thought to contain Saddam and several of his inner circle failed to bring it down. Your imaginary weapons are intended for the private use of the Bush-Cheney crime family, but not for military purposes. The cost of their development does not show up anywhere in the DOD's budget and everyone in the military is agreeable to the conditions of restricted use, i.e., only against buildings in America for the purpose of mass murder.

Nah, you aren't hopelessly deranged.

Hell yeah. Why isn't Tora Bora a slag heap now?

Why are we worried that Iran will build a nuclear device? We could slag their supposed weapons sites and not risk a single American life.

Why are we bothering with warships? You could sink anything afloat without ever getting your feet wet.

Why all the anti-missile missiles up in Alaska? A weapon like this would be an assured kill on any ballistic missile.

And WHY are these truthers still alive? You could obliterate their homes with surgical precision and people would merely think there was a gas explosion.

[sts60]

stws60

My, my, my you are so insistent on getting me to play 20 questions with you.
No. I am simply trying to get you to engage in the discussion, as you said you would. In any case, you have failed to answer any of the questions put to you.
I take no specific position on what exact type of DEW was used.
Incompatible with your previous claims of relatively specific effects. If you cannot specify what type of weapon was used, then you cannot specify what type of effects it must have had.
After all, DEW remain a highly secretive aspect of the US armada.
Incompatible with your previous claims. You have represented that classified information was not important, and that you had sufficient information to state your case with certainty from only unclassified sources.
If you were to ask me for the serial number of, say, the thyratron trigger on a particular type of DEW, I would not be able to say what it is because I do not know.
Straw man. Again. No such level of detail has been requested. But you admit you cannot even state what kind of weapon was used.
Now, let's restate what appears to be an assumption of yours; namely: That to make a claim that DEW destroyed the WTC, one must say exactly what type of DEW did it.
Only if one wants to actually discuss one's claim. If your goal is merely to assert it without evidence, but avoid examination of said claim, you have said all you need to say, and no further discussion is warranted.
You keep missing the main point I am trying to make here. I am not going to put myself in the role of proponent here on this thread.
Incorrect. You have repeatedly and firmly espoused the notion that a DEW was used to destroy the Twin Towers.
I'm not defending anyone and I'm not advocating a darn thing.
Incorrect. You have repeatedly relied upon Ms. Wood's claims. Whether you yourself are actually Ms. Wood is irrelevant; you are in fact defending and advocating her claims.
I will explore DEW in all of their ramifications,
Incorrect. You have assiduously avoided all exploration of the ramifications of your claim, despite your stated willingness to engage on the topic. A number of other posters, on the other hand, have explored this claim in "all ramifications", but you seem completely uninterested in participating, in direct contradiction of this statement.
but I am not the person providing proof of anything.
Correct. Not only have you not provided evidence, let alone proof, of anything related to your claim; you have failed to even elaborate the [i]nature of your claim beyond a generic appeal to a weapon of unknown nature.
I do wish I could be understood by you in that particular.
Rest assured, I understand you quite clearly.
...Well, in this thread so far I have posted up and quoted witness statements attesting to effects.
Effects which can be correlated to known causes.
I have suggested people look at Dr. Wood's website and suggested specific pages there for specific purposes. For instance, on the power requirement issue, I suggested the Weather Anamolie pages.
The power and energy requirements have been analyzed by three different posters, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you, and been shown to conclusively rule out the use of a DEW as you allege.
The whole tenor of her website is an assessment of effects and the assertion that they are best explained by the properties associated with DEW, broadly defined.
Inconsistent. Different DEWs will have different effects, some overlapping, some distinct. Moreover, certain effects which the use of such DEWs would have unmistakably caused were not observed.
Better still, assume there's merit to her approach of seeking to question ARA and SAIC who are known DEW manufacturers,
Incorrect. Neither SAIC nor ARA manufacture directed-energy weapons.
can you think of questions you'd LIKE TO ASK OF THEM? Or, are you solely and exclusively focused on getting me to answer your DEW questions?
I don't need to ask them; I have already shown your claim to be without merit, and I (and others) have done so quantitatively. Moreover, I am not asking you questions about DEWs, since you evidently don't know anything about them. I am asking you questions about your claim in an attempt to get you to engage on the topic, as you said you would.
Hint: I think a person who has positioned herself to ask DEW manufacturers questions has kind of placed herself ahead in this game. But hey, that's just me.
One cannot meaningfully ask questions if one cannot decide what they're even referring to. That is the position you are in, and we've been encouraging you to try to develop that position, to no avail.
Maybe ARA and SAIC will rely on your cited experts to help defend themselves against Dr. Wood's claims. We'll see.
High-technology organizations are routinely accosted by mentally ill persons. Defense is not needed; compassionate psychiatric care in indicated.
Please feel free to contact ARA and SAIC and tell them you can help out.
I can't help them deal with such claims; I'm an engineer, not a psychiatrist.
Could help in getting information from those who manufacture and develop DEW.
What is your specific evidence that either of the named organizations manufactures directed-energy weapons?
Now, for the last time, sts, I am not going to play 20 questions with you; and, besides, even if I were to agree to put myself in that position, your one post to which I am replying contained close on to 20 questions in that one post. So, even by the rules of that game, you've used up all you're entitled to with respect to me.
If you do not wish to fulfill your stated intention of engaging on this topic, that is your prerogative. As you have admitted that you cannot even specify the nature of your claim, it seems clear that you are not capable of answering even one questions, let alone 20 - or the much smaller number I actually have asked you.
I do hope you'l develop an interest in asking DEW manufacturers questions about DEW.
Neither of the companies you mentioned manufactures directed-energy weapons.

[jammonius]

If DEW was used what would be the reason for the perps choosing to destroy the towers out of sequence in relation to the plane strikes ?

Can you think of reasons? Remember, this is a collaborative thread. No one is the permanent questioner and vice versa.

That said, please consider the issue of "fall zones."

[jammonius]

That makes sense, because what I posted is completely consistent with the generally accepted account of the events of 9/11. I don't think any "debunker" on this board will argue otherwise, though they make quibble about some of my descriptive word choices (such as "beam").




Deshore's statement are completely consistent with being perilously close to an enormous collapsing burning building. Orange light -- like fire makes, especially when seen at a distance through dust? A force pushing -- kind of like the pressure and wind from a collapsing building? A loud "rolling" sound, unfamiliar, as if of something that's very loud but doesn't happen very often -- like a skyscraper collapsing?

Here are a few things she doesn't mention:
- Unexplained heat
- Unexplained pain
- Flash burns
- Blinding light
- Electric arcs from the metal fasteners in her clothing
- Tingling or crawling sensations
- Radiation sickness

She does talk about feeling frightened and isolated, which is understandable under the circumstance she describes being in. Or is feeling frightened and isolated a known side effect of exotic energy weapons?

The problem is that you're looking through these accounts for evidence of anything unfamiliar -- and finding it, because something was happening that was indeed unfamiliar to the people experiencing it: an enormous nearby building was collapsing. Evidence of a DEW must be something not already explainable by the things that we already know for certain were occurring at and near Ground Zero, including fire, wind, dust, noise, and falling objects.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Greetings Myriad,

and, as usual, thanks for your thoughtful post.

Your post is largely speculative -- and that is NOT a criticism. Speculation is a valid part of the discovery process. In science it is classically referred to as having an hypothesis.

In connection with 9/11, we are each pursuing our hunches and applying reason as best we can in connection with trying to determine what happened and how best to interpret witness accounts. Your hypotheses may differ from mine and vice/versa. No?

Your entitled to your interpretation, of course. But, would you agree with me that my interpretation could, conceivably have some merit?

By the way, there are 503 actual eyewitnesses. I think I was the first to call attention to that source. Why don't other posters use it in an affirmative way, rather than merely criticize the witnesses that I bring up?

Again, this is not a onesided thread. We're all searching for meaning and for signficance together. I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone of anything, other than the fact that there is tangible and real support for the proposition that DEW destroyed the WTC, in the form of effects and in the form of witness observations.

There are many witnesses who make statements similar, in substance, to that of Karin Deshore.

Consider, for instance, Fernando Camacho who "saw steel disappear" and who, unfortunately, also saw "people disappear."

[LashL]

Maybe ARA and SAIC will rely on your cited experts to help defend themselves against Dr. Wood's claims. We'll see.


ARA and SAIC will never have to defend themselves against that ludicrous complaint, nor against the equally ludicrous one brought by Reynolds. Both will be tossed on the pending motions to dismiss.

The more interesting question in both pieces of litigation is whether the defendants' motions for sanctions against Leaphart will be successful. I, for one, hope that they are.

[jammonius]

sts,

From your post above,this is worth exploring:

"Incorrect. Neither SAIC nor ARA manufacture directed-energy weapons."

What, then, is their involvement with DEW? I don't think it appropriate for you to give a simple, totally unsupported answer like that. Furthermore, I disagree.

The rest of your post merely argues with me. You argue, so what happens next? I argue, then you... etc. so forth, ad infinitum, on and on forever and ever amen?

No thanks

[Alt+F4]

If your goal is merely to assert it without evidence, but avoid examination of said claim, you have said all you need to say, and no further discussion is warranted.

Exactly. As far as jammonius is concerned, if Dr. Judy Wood says a DEW destroyed the WTC, then that is what happened. No scientific evidence is required, nothing other than what she says is correct.

[jammonius]

ARA and SAIC will never have to defend themselves against that ludicrous complaint, nor against the equally ludicrous one brought by Reynolds. Both will be tossed on the pending motions to dismiss.

The more interesting question in both pieces of litigation is whether the defendants' motions for sanctions against Leaphart will be successful. I, for one, hope that they are.

Maybe you should send ARA and SAIC and the others GOOD LUCK cards and tell them that you're rooting for them!!

The MIC might like to know that it has supporters like you.

OK folks. I've got to sign off for a long weekend. I hope the thread will continue to progress. Do please give consideration to being a little more precise about who manufacturers DEW.

Have any of you looked at the Directed Energy Professional Society's website?

http://deps.org

Enjoy.

I won't be able to resume until Monday earliest.

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

bye for now

[tsig]

There is ample evidence that the Towers and WTC7 were destroyed by a diffuse, ambient, radially aligned gravity beam, directed upward from the center of the earth.

So devastating is this weapon that physicists have concluded that no shielding is possible. Instead, every structure we build anywhere within a few miles of earth's surface must be equipped with gravity countermeasures to supply the necessary gravity-canceling force vectors or else suffer immediate destruction.

This was clearly demonstrated on 9/11, when extensive damage to the gravity countermeasures in three large buildings led to their total loss.

So far, all attempts to send expeditionary forces to the earth's core to neutralize this threat at the source have failed. (Also, though there are many ongoing and very expensive efforts to reduce the threat by removing some of the higher-gravity substances, such as gold and uranium, from the interior of the earth, their effect on the gravity beam has so far been negligible.) So instead, engineers are learning what they can from the disaster about how to improve the gravity countermeasures in existing and future buildings.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Nominated

[LashL]

By the way, there are 503 actual eyewitnesses. I think I was the first to call attention to that source. Why don't other posters use it in an affirmative way, rather than merely criticize the witnesses that I bring up?

There are far more than 503 eyewitnesses. The 503 to whom you refer are just the tip of the iceberg and consist only of firefighters, paramedics and emts who were interviewed by FDNY after the events, on an invitational basis. There were thousands more witnesses, of course.

And, no, you are not - by a longshot - the first to call attention to the NYT source. It was published years ago and some of us here - myself included - have read all 12,000+ pages of them a long time ago. We have discussed them and cited the source numerous times on numerous threads here.

That you failed to look for those references and that you are oblivious to the fact that that we have been aware of and referring to it for years is yet another indication of your poor research skills.

Moreover, like most conspiracy fantasists, you have simply cherry picked portions of statements that you think - usually wrongly - support whatever fantasy you are espousing, and you disregard or handwave away everything else. That does not constitute legitimate or honest research. But then, you have not demonstrated that you are capable of legitimate or honest research, so this is not terribly surprising.

Maybe you should send ARA and SAIC and the others GOOD LUCK cards and tell them that you're rooting for them!!

They don't need any "luck" to have both of the idiotic complaints dismissed. The complaints will fail because they are legally unsustainable. It is the results of the motions for sanctions in both pieces of litigation that I am more interested in.

[Arus808]

::cough::cough:: realstice ::cough::cough

[tsig]

Hell yeah. Why isn't Tora Bora a slag heap now?

Why are we worried that Iran will build a nuclear device? We could slag their supposed weapons sites and not risk a single American life.

Why are we bothering with warships? You could sink anything afloat without ever getting your feet wet.

Why all the anti-missile missiles up in Alaska? A weapon like this would be an assured kill on any ballistic missile.

And WHY are these truthers still alive? You could obliterate their homes with surgical precision and people would merely think there was a gas explosion.


Since it can be tweaked to control thoughts why don't we all love Big Brother?

[Sparky]

I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone of anything


That's good because you're doing a damn fine job of it.

[sts60]

sts,

From your post above,this is worth exploring:

"Incorrect. Neither SAIC nor ARA manufacture directed-energy weapons."

What, then, is their involvement with DEW? I don't think it appropriate for you to give a simple, totally unsupported answer like that.
The answer is simple, because your claim was wrong. Directed-energy weapons are not among the numerous products offered by either company (SAIC:
Advanced Technologies (http://www.saic.com/business/technologies/), products (http://www.saic.com/products); ARA: products (http://www.ara.com/products.htm)). They do not manufacture such systems, though they offer some engineering analysis and support in the field - as in hundreds of other fields.
Furthermore, I disagree.
Then you may support your position with evidence. Otherwise, you may argue from personal authority, after citing your relevant credentials. I have already given mine.

In the absence of either evidence or argument from relevant authority, your disagreement is irrelevant.
The rest of your post merely argues with me.
I have demonstrated quantitatively that your proposed system is infeasible. I have pointed out several serious inconsistencies in your arguments. I have pointed out other areas where your claims are unsupported (such as your appeal to equivalent authority). I have repeatedly cited quantitative refutations of your scenario by several other posters.

You have failed to answer any of these challenges, and after multiple attempts to get to you to fulfill your stated intention to engage in this conversation - all of which you have assiduously avoided - I consider you to have functionally abandoned your claims.

Of course, you cannot even define your claim; you are evidently completely incapable of even saying what kind of directed-energy weapon you think destroyed the Twin Towers. Needless to say, such a vague, completely open-ended claim is indistinguishable from an appeal to magic, and equally disconnected from reality.

Nevertheless, 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)) have offered quantitative and specific analyses bounding the directed-energy weapon/WTC claim, each clearly demonstrating it to be unphysical. Since you have failed to dispute these analyses - the very type of discussion for which you've asked - they stand as clear refutations of the DEW scenario.

If, however, you change your mind and decide to attempt to defend your claim - or at least define it - I will be happy to discuss it with you.

[Sparky]

Since Jammonious has labored several times to offer the Weather Anomalies page of Judy Jetson's site as some sort of proof, I decided to go take a look for myself. Unfortunately, my eyes fogged over at about the 200th photograph of a cloudy sky and I dropped it.

Did anyone else get anything more out of it than a thousand photographs, vague speculation with no concrete evidence, JAQing and multiple references to Tesla coils, levitation and HAARP? I didn't see anything in my short stay there offered up as actual proof of anything, let alone detailed power calculations required to cause the imagined steerable hurricanes and artificial earthquakes.

[pomeroo]

Greetings Myriad,

and, as usual, thanks for your thoughtful post.

Your post is largely speculative -- and that is NOT a criticism. Speculation is a valid part of the discovery process. In science it is classically referred to as having an hypothesis.

In connection with 9/11, we are each pursuing our hunches and applying reason as best we can in connection with trying to determine what happened and how best to interpret witness accounts. Your hypotheses may differ from mine and vice/versa. No?

Your entitled to your interpretation, of course. But, would you agree with me that my interpretation could, conceivably have some merit?

By the way, there are 503 actual eyewitnesses. I think I was the first to call attention to that source. Why don't other posters use it in an affirmative way, rather than merely criticize the witnesses that I bring up?

Again, this is not a onesided thread. We're all searching for meaning and for signficance together. I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone of anything, other than the fact that there is tangible and real support for the proposition that DEW destroyed the WTC, in the form of effects and in the form of witness observations.

There are many witnesses who make statements similar, in substance, to that of Karin Deshore.

Consider, for instance, Fernando Camacho who "saw steel disappear" and who, unfortunately, also saw "people disappear."


Given that ALL of the structural steel was recovered, how much disappeared?

[beachnut]

...
Consider, for instance, Fernando Camacho who "saw steel disappear" and who, unfortunately, also saw "people disappear."
When will you present the evidence? The people did not disappear, they were crushed. False ideas on 9/11, why?
DEW did it? Please state the required energy.
Mentioning Camacho actually makes your claim false. When you make up stuff, do not mix in reality, it kills your fantasy. Anyone can look up Camacho and see you are making up a fantasy.

[Furi]

Just on the question of DEWs and their power to pulverise building matter, could I ask where is the trail of Ionised atmosphere that would pinpoint the source?

I am sure our Jolly friends Nitrogen and Oxygen where most unexcited at being specifically left out of this high power party.

[BenBurch]

Just on the question of DEWs and their power to pulverise building matter, could I ask where is the trail of Ionised atmosphere that would pinpoint the source?

I am sure our Jolly friends Nitrogen and Oxygen where most unexcited at being specifically left out of this high power party.

IR in the four micron window might not do that. But it would have other effects (like the whole thing would GLOW for hours, and "shine" from the target would have set paper alight in New Jersey) that would exclude it.

See the window post in the parent thread to this one.

[sts60]

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3756906&postcount=208) is Ben's post. (I have practice citing it for jammonius - it's exactly the type of discussion for which she has repeatedly asked, and yet somehow she has avoided it despite my repeated efforts to point it out to her.*)

I was thinking about ionized air last night. Let's suppose the beam is exactly as wide as one of the Towers. A circular beam, then, is about 3100 m2. According to my , the beam needs to deliver something like 310*109 W, so the beam irradiance is on the order of 100 MW/m2. I was thinking about whether the energy absorbed by clear, dry air of such a beam would cause ionization, but don't have time right now to look up the specific numbers. Any suggestions? I'm not a laser guy.

It is clear (so to speak) that such a beam would show up... clearly (sorry!) when it interacted with the smoke and dust billowing from the site (not to mention police helicopters and birds).

*And let's not forget [url=http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354]myriad (]analysis[/url) and R. Mackey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102), who also showed quantitatively the infeasibility of the "DEW did WTC" claim. Again, exactly the type of discussions for which jammonius has called, yet she has studiously ignored them.

[Disbelief]

I also want to know how they tested this. How did they calibrate it? If it was strong enough to vaporize steel and concrete, how did it not punch through a large portion of the Earth's crust?

[jberryhill]

I take no specific position on what exact type of DEW was used. After all, DEW remain a highly secretive aspect of the US armada. If you were to ask me for the serial number of, say, the thyratron trigger on a particular type of DEW, I would not be able to say what it is because I do not know.

Nobody asked you about the serial number of any part, so you can stop protesting that you can't provide one.

On the subject of qualifications, I have a doctorate in Electrical Engineering with relevant background that includes extensive work and an issued patent in optoelectronics. I also have experience with resonant microwave devices (in particular optically-induced modulation of microwave diodes).

Getting back to the "what kind of device", my understanding is that you posit an electromagnetic wave producing device of unspecified wavelength(s) that

1. Has the ability to turn steel and concrete into dust and vapor.

2. Produce "anomalous partial burning" effects in nearby vehicles.

3. Does not burn paper.

4. Is not dispersed or attenuated by ablated material in the course of performing its function on an extremely large scale.

5. Causes persistent "fuming" in impacted materials for months.

So, before we get to "what type of device", please let me know whether 1-5 are the operational characteristics of the device you assert, or whether there are any other significant characteristics of device performance which you would like to add to that list.

You have invited us to apply our respective expertise to "answering our own questions". I have considered the list of characteristics above, and I am no closer to identifying a device with those operating characteristics. Hence, a hint from you, since you are certain of the existence of this device would dispel the notion that your reluctance is a mere dodge.

[BenBurch]

Nobody asked you about the serial number of any part, so you can stop protesting that you can't provide one ...

I'll make it simple for her - 40 questions.

Question one;

Is the DEW photons or other sorts of particles?

[A W Smith]

I believe they have solved the problem of projecting nuclear energy!


mVr-hhsbOs0

[jammonius]

Then you may support your position with evidence. Otherwise, you may argue from personal authority, after citing your relevant credentials. I have already given mine.

In the absence of either evidence or argument from relevant authority, your disagreement is irrelevant.

I have demonstrated quantitatively that your proposed system is infeasible. I have pointed out several serious inconsistencies in your arguments. I have pointed out other areas where your claims are unsupported (such as your appeal to equivalent authority). I have repeatedly cited quantitative refutations of your scenario by several other posters.

You have failed to answer any of these challenges, and after multiple attempts to get to you to fulfill your stated intention to engage in this conversation - all of which you have assiduously avoided - I consider you to have functionally abandoned your claims.

Of course, you cannot even define your claim; you are evidently completely incapable of even saying what kind of directed-energy weapon you think destroyed the Twin Towers. Needless to say, such a vague, completely open-ended claim is indistinguishable from an appeal to magic, and equally disconnected from reality.

Nevertheless, 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)) have offered quantitative and specific analyses bounding the directed-energy weapon/WTC claim, each clearly demonstrating it to be unphysical. Since you have failed to dispute these analyses - the very type of discussion for which you've asked - they stand as clear refutations of the DEW scenario.

If, however, you change your mind and decide to attempt to defend your claim - or at least define it - I will be happy to discuss it with you.

The answer is simple, because your claim was wrong. Directed-energy weapons are not among the numerous products offered by either company (SAIC:
Advanced Technologies (http://www.saic.com/business/technologies/), products (http://www.saic.com/products); ARA: products (http://www.ara.com/products.htm)). They do not manufacture such systems, though they offer some engineering analysis and support in the field - as in hundreds of other fields.

The above is viciously disengenuous in that it downplays the role of SAIC and ARA in connection with DEW. Note the euphemisms used by sts:
He starts out by saying SAIC and ARA do not manufacture DEW. That claim, however, is highly misleading because the manufacturing element within the MIC is usually a highly dispersed process, so as to facilitate COMPARTMENTALIZATION and FRAGMENTATION so that no one knows exactly what is being made, let alone its purposes.

If I remember correctly, sts60 raised the issue of Security Clearances. sts60 did not raise the issue of how they actually work. However, compartmented information is a key element in the secrecy apparatus that informs SCs. Moreover, in high-tech weapons, the issue of manufacturing is only one part of a process that consists in design, development, prototype testing, refinement, further development, testing, deployment and so on.

Note how sts60 continues:

They do not manufacture such systems, though they offer some engineering analysis and support in the field - as in hundreds of other fields.

The euphemism is palpable: "...such systems" means DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS (DEW) and sts60 found it necessary to duck, dodge and not use that term. This is from someone who, in other posts, was demanding EXACT descriptions of them.

The euphemistic dodge continues. sts60 also states: "...they [meaning SAIC and ARA] offer some engineering analysis and support in the field..."

That is too clever by half, sts60. SAIC and ARA are deeply involved in the manufacture, development, testing, implementation and deployment of DEW.

You have not refuted that claim on bit. Rather, you have engaged in evasion.

Now, if you want answers to your exact questions about DEW, you can go directly to SAIC and ARA and get them.

That, by the way, is what Dr. Judy Wood has already done, by a factor of more than a year ago and her process in that respect is ongoing.

[jammonius]

False ideas on 9/11, why?
DEW did it? Please state the required energy.
Mentioning Camacho actually makes your claim false. When you make up stuff, do not mix in reality, it kills your fantasy. Anyone can look up Camacho and see you are making up a fantasy.

When will you present the evidence? The people did not disappear, they were crushed.

No, you do not have the right to change what an actual eyewitness said. I am quoting Fernando Camacho, a firefighter who was there and who's statement is officially recorded.

Were you there?

There is little or no evidence of crushing because there were very, very few bodies recovered, or even large fragments of them. Instead, the human remains were micoscopic and/or very small, consistent with the observation that people disappeared.

Please state the required energy.

This is a misleading query. Have you asked those who attribute the near instantaneous destruction of the WTC complex to explain how the low level energy of kerosene, a mere combustible, not even a flammable liquid, could have generated the "required eneergy" or have you merely let that issue pass and find it only applicable to exotic weaponry, like DEW?

What, by the way, is the energy capability of kerosene? What, for instance, can kerosene do to steel? Answer: Not a damn thing.

[jammonius]

They don't need any "luck" to have both of the idiotic complaints dismissed. The complaints will fail because they are legally unsustainable. It is the results of the motions for sanctions in both pieces of litigation that I am more interested in.

If they don't need any luck, then why are you rooting for them so hard?

By the way, then President Eisenhower, in January, 1961, admonished all of us to be extremely wary of the MIC. Too bad you didn't heed his warning. Instead, you seem to want to lead cheering for them.

Pity that. And pity the USA, too. Viewpoints like yours help sustain a system that is bankrupting us and doing nothing except devising ever more hideous weapons of mass destruction, like DEW.

[jammonius]

I'll make it simple for her - 40 questions.

Question one;

Is the DEW photons or other sorts of particles?

Question duly noted. Since Dr. Wood has put herself into position to be able to get the answers from those who develop the weapons, you just might be in luck.

Who else do you know of who has sued those elements of the MIC that are the most directly involved in DEW in a way that just might result in the answers you seek?

And, who else have you asked for an answer to Question one, if anyone?

Are you asking the question rhetorically in the actual hope that you won't get an answer?

What, pray tell, are you doing BenBurch?

[WildCat]

jammonius, will you ever answer post #134?

[jammonius]

jammonius, will you ever answer post #134?

No. That post engages in rhetoric. The questions are not posed for purposes of being answered or for purposes of advancing the issue of how best to confirm that the WTC was destroyed by DEW.

The premise of rhetoric is the opposite. The poster in question very clearly opposes the proposition that DEW destroyed the WTC and, instead, appears to be comfortable with the claim that kerosene, gravity and a supposed smack from a hollow aircraft -- albeit a big one traveling fast -- destroyed the WTC almost instantaneously and down to the level of dust, including the complete pulverization of every person, thing situated therein.

The clue to the fact that the questions posed are not questions, but are, instead, rhetorical ploys, is in the fact that no one who is actually interested in, say, the capacity for kerosene to cause 'fuming' for years in the manner seen and documented could, for one instant, accredit the official story.

Unless and until those and similar questions are posed with respect to how, on earth, lowly kerosene, could have caused the observed destrcution we know, without a doubt, that we are dealing with rhetoric.

I don't engage with rhetoric.

[Disbelief]

No. That post engages in rhetoric. The questions are not posed for purposes of being answered or for purposes of advancing the issue of how best to confirm that the WTC was destroyed by DEW.

The premise of rhetoric is the opposite. The poster in question very clearly opposes the proposition that DEW destroyed the WTC and, instead, appears to be comfortable with the claim that kerosene, gravity and a supposed smack from a hollow aircraft -- albeit a big one traveling fast -- destroyed the WTC almost instantaneously and down to the level of dust, including the complete pulverization of every person, thing situated therein.

The clue to the fact that the questions posed are not questions, but are, instead, rhetorical ploys, is in the fact that no one who is actually interested in, say, the capacity for kerosene to cause 'fuming' for years in the manner seen and documented could, for one instant, accredit the official story.

Unless and until those and similar questions are posed with respect to how, on earth, lowly kerosene, could have caused the observed destrcution we know, without a doubt, that we are dealing with rhetoric.

I don't engage with rhetoric.

And you accuse sts60 of evasion in post #137. How pathetic.

Figure out how it was tested? Calibrated?

[jammonius]

Somewhere in the split thread dealing with the flatness of Ground Zero there is a very good post indicating the proper way to engage in forensic evaluations. The post essentially states that causes are inferred from an examination of effects.

Do posters recall that post?

Here, then is a quote from NIST's "Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (NCSTAR1)" which appears to have given rise to Dr. Wood's subsequent legal challenges.

Buried in a footnote in NCSTAR 1 is the following quotation:

“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable”.8 8NCSTAR 1, pg. xxxvii, footnote 2

Permit me to suggest posters consider that quote from NCSTAR 1 and ask, what did NIST and its contractors investigate?

Can we tell from the quoted footnote, what analytical work NIST and its contractors did?

Can we infer whether they left out any work that might be considered important from a forensic perspective?

Remember, my assumption is that there are those who are posting here who are interested in a dialogue about the quesiton of whether DEW destroyed the WTC.

I know there are some who are fundamentally opposed to and/or dead-set against the idea. Fine. For those who are interested in dialogue, it is suggested that it is important to understand what NIST and its contractors did or did not do.

[jammonius]

For ready reference, I thought it might be helpful to offer up that post from the other thread dealing with proper forensic evaluation:

10th June 2008, 12:24 PM #374
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 787

Originally Posted by sts60
Exactly what effects are "consistent with use of DEW"? How, specifically, would you distinguish them from the effects of the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires and collapse?
Exactly what kind of directed-energy weapon do you propose was used?



Spot on. Working backwards from effects to infer possible causes and then to test those inferences is exactly how I have earned my living these nine-and-twenty years.

Knowing the specifics of the effect, the specific cause which it implies and the mechanism by which A causes B are a sine qua non of that kind of reasoning.

As long as jammonius and Judy provide nothing but vague claims about the "aftereffects of DEW", leaving out all details about what is relevant about the available observations and exactly how they are consistent with what, they will remain trapped in an infinite loop of circular reasoning, unable even to rise to the conspiracist's favorite fallacy of affirming the consequent. Such a whirlpool of handwaving isn't worth any attention at all.

In my view, the responsibility for assessing the after effects of the destruction of the WTC should have been the main provence of NIST and its contractors.

I know some will dispute this and will defend NIST and its contractors; however, in doing so, I wonder how, on earth, can one be satisfied with a document that is entitled "Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center" if, in fact, the effects of the event itself -- the collapses (as NIST termed the episode of destruction) --were not investigated?

[WildCat]

No. That post engages in rhetoric. The questions are not posed for purposes of being answered or for purposes of advancing the issue of how best to confirm that the WTC was destroyed by DEW.
:dl:

You propose a weapon you can't even describe!

[sts60]

The above is viciously disengenuous in that it downplays the role of SAIC and ARA in connection with DEW. Note the euphemisms used by sts:
He starts out by saying SAIC and ARA do not manufacture DEW.
Correct. They do not manufacture directed-energy weapons, as you claimed. That claim, however, is highly misleading because the manufacturing element within the MIC is usually a highly dispersed process, so as to facilitate COMPARTMENTALIZATION and FRAGMENTATION so that no one knows exactly what is being made, let alone its purposes.
Handwaving. Do you have any specific evidence that either company manufactures such weapons?

Furthermore, unlike you, I have actually worked in the so-called "military-industrial complex", and I reject your claim that "no one knows" what is being made. Such weapons cannot be assembled piecemeal from a variety of components supplied by contractors ignorant of the work, especially highly-energetic weapons such as you conjecture. Your characterization is a cartoon of how such programs work.
If I remember correctly, sts60 raised the issue of Security Clearances.
No, you did, when you claimed (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3747626&postcount=17) classified information "isn't that useful". This brings up, again, a key point: if your claim is true, you should have no difficulty citing specific evidence to back up your claims. I have asked you repeatedly for such evidence, but not only have you failed to produce any, you have repeatedly failed to even specify what your claim is. I ask you again: what type of directed-energy weapon do you claim was used, and where (in the air? in low orbit? in high orbit?) do you claim it was?
sts60 did not raise the issue of how they actually work. However, compartmented information is a key element in the secrecy apparatus that informs SCs. Moreover, in high-tech weapons, the issue of manufacturing is only one part of a process that consists in design, development, prototype testing, refinement, further development, testing, deployment and so on.
More handwaving. What is your experience on such projects? And why is it relevant anyway, since you claim that you don't need classified information to make your case?
Note how sts60 continues:

They do not manufacture such systems, though they offer some engineering analysis and support in the field - as in hundreds of other fields.

The euphemism is palpable: "...such systems" means DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS (DEW) and sts60 found it necessary to duck, dodge and not use that term.
Any competent native English speaker would understand that "such systems" was exactly a reference to directed-energy weapons.
This is from someone who, in other posts, was demanding EXACT descriptions of them.
Not merely a straw man, but outright misrepresentation. I have asked you what kind of directed-energy weapon you claim was used, and its general location (in the air? low orbit? high orbit?)
The euphemistic dodge continues. sts60 also states: "...they [meaning SAIC and ARA] offer some engineering analysis and support in the field..."

That is too clever by half, sts60. SAIC and ARA are deeply involved in the manufacture, development, testing, implementation and deployment of DEW.
Then you should have no problem offering evidence to back up this claim. You have been asked for this repeatedly; do you, or do you not, intend to provide such evidence?
You have not refuted that claim on bit. Rather, you have engaged in evasion.
Factually incorrect; in post 126 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3772976&postcount=126) I provided links to the products those companies do make. You are welcome to rebut this with specific evidence to the contrary. Do you intend to do so?
Now, if you want answers to your exact questions about DEW, you can go directly to SAIC and ARA and get them.
I don't need to; I have already shown (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762857&postcount=311) the infeasibility of your claim, quantitatively - as have 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).

I do have a question for you, however. What kind of DEW do you claim was used?
That, by the way, is what Dr. Judy Wood has already done, by a factor of more than a year ago and her process in that respect is ongoing.
Ms. Wood evidently cannot even define her claim. In any case, as I have mentioned, large high-technology operations are often accosted by mentally ill persons.

[sts60]

By the way, this thread is about directed-energy weapons. There are separate threads for discussing debris-pile height, NIST investigations, and the mechanisms of collapse due to fire and impact damage.

[Max Photon]

Perhaps higher-order DEW was used......you know, like DEW2 ?

[BenBurch]

Question duly noted. Since Dr. Wood has put herself into position to be able to get the answers from those who develop the weapons, you just might be in luck.

Who else do you know of who has sued those elements of the MIC that are the most directly involved in DEW in a way that just might result in the answers you seek?

And, who else have you asked for an answer to Question one, if anyone?

Are you asking the question rhetorically in the actual hope that you won't get an answer?

What, pray tell, are you doing BenBurch?

Don't pretend to not be Dr. Wood.

Answer the question. Then I'll give you question #2.

[beachnut]

I know some will dispute this and will defend NIST and its contractors; however, in doing so, I wonder how, on earth, can one be satisfied with a document that is entitled "Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center" if, in fact, the effects of the event itself -- the collapses (as NIST termed the episode of destruction) --were not investigated?
Start another thread and list the GOALS of NIST for the WTC and how they failed to meet the GOALS. Your empty rhetoric has failed, your DEW is a fantasy for being used against the WTC. In fact, DEW is just an insane idea, like nukes and thermite being used agains the WTC by unknown people. You can't even tell us who did it and how it was done with any detail.

Start the new thread where you show your evidence that NIST failed to meet it's GOALS. But I fear like you failed to define the DEW that took down the WTC, and have no idea of the power requirements, will expose your lack knowledge of NISTs goals and how you think they failed.

Your post is wrong, NIST showed cause for the collapse. Do you need help understanding how aircraft impacts, and fire can do it? If you took the time and gained the knowledge necessary, it may cure your desire to entertain insane ideas about 9/11.

Don't lecture me on DEW, I am an engineer, I was in the USAF and understand the use of DEW, such as the airborne laser lab. Sorry, the existence of DEW is not in question here, the fantasy ideas you present, without evidence are the problem.

[jammonius]

QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Correct. They do not manufacture directed-energy weapons, as you claimed. Handwaving. Do you have any specific evidence that either company manufactures such weapons?


Wait a minute. Where are we on this? I assert SAIC and ARA manufacture such weapons and you say they only provide engineering services with respect to DEW.

Since half the posters on this thread don't even believe DEW exist and spend a lot of time telling jokes to that effect, it is at least clear that you and I agree:

a) That DEW exist; and that
b) SAIC and ARA are involved with them. I say "manufacture" and you say "engineer." Fine. I still say I'm right about this and you're not.

Furthermore, unlike you, I have actually worked in the so-called "military-industrial complex", and I reject your claim that "no one knows" what is being made. Such weapons cannot be assembled piecemeal from a variety of components supplied by contractors ignorant of the work, especially highly-energetic weapons such as you conjecture. Your characterization is a cartoon of how such programs work.


I assert compartmentalization is used in connection with DEW, you say otherwise. Once again, at least we're well past the stage of arguing their existence. As you have used the word work in its past tense form, I should like to congratulate you for getting out of that wicked arena. The MIC is a menace to America, all as Eisenhower specifically warned.

I here assert that elements of the MIC are certainly candidate suspects with respect to 9/11 because they had the capacity to carryout that operation in conjunction with rogue elements of the US military and/or rogue elements of its chain of command. NOte: I said "candidate suspects" and "elements" and "rogue elements" and "capacity." I did not say that either your former company(ies) did it, nor your buddies in the military, nor Bush (who probably wasn't in the loop), let alone you.

No, you did, when you claimed (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3747626&postcount=17) classified information "isn't that useful". This brings up, again, a key point: if your claim is true, you should have no difficulty citing specific evidence to back up your claims. I have asked you repeatedly for such evidence, but not only have you failed to produce any, you have repeatedly failed to even specify what your claim is. I ask you again: what type of directed-energy weapon do you claim was used, and where (in the air? in low orbit? in high orbit?) do you claim it was?


No, you are wrong again. I said you brought up SCs, not classified information. I mentioned that I do not have access to classified information. You brought up th issue of SCs, I do believe. However, the post record is what it is in this respect.

You keep insisting on specific burdens on my part. It is as if you haven't heard or understood a damn thing I've said. I've told you that Dr. Wood is challenging the MIC elements in a specific context where the cause and effect issues are presented in conjunction with what was and was not done.

You're not grasping the state of play of what is actually involved in the official legal challenges, in my opinion. It's all laid out at Dr. Wood's website, for those who care to look. I quoted above ktesibios post on how properly to engage in forensics. I posted the footnote from the NCSTAR `1 detailing what they had done and I suggested posters think about it. That information actually sets out the parameters of what Wood has to prove or not prove.

I have also said the questions you're asking should be asked of those who -- to use your term -- ENGINEER DEW and I have said that Dr. Wood has put herself in postion to command answers from SAIC and ARA. As a matter of fact, who knows, maybe she'll use some of the very questions you, yourself, in this here thread, have posed.

Any competent native English speaker would understand that "such systems" was exactly a reference to directed-energy weapons.

No BenBurch, you cannot get away with being disengenuous. You know damn well that half the people posting in this tread do not believe DEW even exist. Thus, by being coy and indirect in referring to such systems instead of referring to Directed Energy Weapons, you aid to the amnbiguity factor that allows those who don't want to believe that DEW exist to glide right over what you've said without it fully registering on them that you are acknowledging the existence of DEW; that is, the existence of DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS.

Your capacity for playing games can be irksome at times.

Not merely a straw man, but outright misrepresentation. I have asked you what kind of directed-energy weapon you claim was used, and its general location (in the air? low orbit? high orbit?)

Let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding. Do you now grasp that SAIC and ARA might well end up being asked those questions? And, if so, do you, BenBurch, think THEY KNOW the answers to them?

And, do you think they'll be obliged t tell the truth or do you think they'll be permitted to use "cover stories"? If they are permitted to use "cover stories" do you think Dr. Wood will be able to force disclosure that such practices are being applied? And, if so, will that force those companies to concede the cases? Or, do you think they can lie to the legal system with impunity and without consequence?

Factually incorrect; in post 126 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3772976&postcount=126) I provided links to the products those companies do make. You are welcome to rebut this with specific evidence to the contrary. Do you intend to do so?

The links you provided didn't delve very deeply and didn't show much; but, thanks, anyway, for your contribution to the thread and in showing, however obliquely, what involvement ARA and SAIC have with DEW.

I don't need to; I have already shown (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762857&postcount=311) the infeasibility of your claim, quantitatively - as have 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).

I do have a question for you, however. What kind of DEW do you claim was used?

Ms. Wood evidently cannot even define her claim. In any case, as I have mentioned, large high-technology operations are often accosted by mentally ill persons.[/

It's Dr. Wood for your information and you can continue to misapprehend what is actually taking place as much as you like. However, I have, in this and other posts, shown you what's at stake and what the real proof burdens actually center on.

Sooner or later you might begin to grasp that Dr. Wood is not obliged to either prove the things you assert she has to prove and that, instead, she gets to ask of SAIC and ARA the quCestion that you think she has to answer. Moreover, when she asks them, SAIC' and ARA's representatives will be under a legal requirment to tell the truth.

Thanks, again, for some of your suggested questions.

[pomeroo]

Perhaps higher-order DEW was used......you know, like DEW2 ?


Would "Higher DEW' be "Mountain Dew"?

[pomeroo]

Wait a minute. Where are we on this? I assert SAIC and ARA manufacture such weapons and you say they only provide engineering services with respect to DEW.

Since half the posters on this thread don't even believe DEW exist and spend a lot of time telling jokes to that effect, it is at least clear that you and I agree:

a) That DEW exist; and that
b) SAIC and ARA are involved with them. I say "manufacture" and you say "engineer." Fine. I still say I'm right about this and you're not.



I assert compartmentalization is used in connection with DEW, you say otherwise. Once again, at least we're well past the stage of arguing their existence. As you have used the word work in its past tense form, I should like to congratulate you for getting out of that wicked arena. The MIC is a menace to America, all as Eisenhower specifically warned.

I here assert that elements of the MIC are certainly candidate suspects with respect to 9/11 because they had the capacity to carryout that operation in conjunction with rogue elements of the US military and/or rogue elements of its chain of command. NOte: I said "candidate suspects" and "elements" and "rogue elements" and "capacity." I did not say that either your former company(ies) did it, nor your buddies in the military, nor Bush (who probably wasn't in the loop), let alone you.



No, you are wrong again. I said you brought up SCs, not classified information. I mentioned that I do not have access to classified information. You brought up th issue of SCs, I do believe. However, the post record is what it is in this respect.

You keep insisting on specific burdens on my part. It is as if you haven't heard or understood a damn thing I've said. I've told you that Dr. Wood is challenging the MIC elements in a specific context where the cause and effect issues are presented in conjunction with what was and was not done.

You're not grasping the state of play of what is actually involved in the official legal challenges, in my opinion. It's all laid out at Dr. Wood's website, for those who care to look. I quoted above ktesibios post on how properly to engage in forensics. I posted the footnote from the NCSTAR `1 detailing what they had done and I suggested posters think about it. That information actually sets out the parameters of what Wood has to prove or not prove.

I have also said the questions you're asking should be asked of those who -- to use your term -- ENGINEER DEW and I have said that Dr. Wood has put herself in postion to command answers from SAIC and ARA. As a matter of fact, who knows, maybe she'll use some of the very questions you, yourself, in this here thread, have posed.



No BenBurch, you cannot get away with being disengenuous. You know damn well that half the people posting in this tread do not believe DEW even exist. Thus, by being coy and indirect in referring to such systems instead of referring to Directed Energy Weapons, you aid to the amnbiguity factor that allows those who don't want to believe that DEW exist to glide right over what you've said without it fully registering on them that you are acknowledging the existence of DEW; that is, the existence of DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS.

Your capacity for playing games can be irksome at times.



Let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding. Do you now grasp that SAIC and ARA might well end up being asked those questions? And, if so, do you, BenBurch, think THEY KNOW the answers to them?

And, do you think they'll be obliged t tell the truth or do you think they'll be permitted to use "cover stories"? If they are permitted to use "cover stories" do you think Dr. Wood will be able to force disclosure that such practices are being applied? And, if so, will that force those companies to concede the cases? Or, do you think they can lie to the legal system with impunity and without consequence?



The links you provided didn't delve very deeply and didn't show much; but, thanks, anyway, for your contribution to the thread and in showing, however obliquely, what involvement ARA and SAIC have with DEW.



It's Dr. Wood for your information and you can continue to misapprehend what is actually taking place as much as you like. However, I have, in this and other posts, shown you what's at stake and what the real proof burdens actually center on.

Sooner or later you might begin to grasp that Dr. Wood is not obliged to either prove the things you assert she has to prove and that, instead, she gets to ask of SAIC and ARA the quCestion that you think she has to answer. Moreover, when she asks them, SAIC' and ARA's representatives will be under a legal requirment to tell the truth.

Thanks, again, for some of your suggested questions.


I am certainly one of those posters who believe that the futuristic weapons posited by Judy Wood do not exist. You have, for obvious reasons, avoided my questions about the R&D aspects of this fabulous program. You can't begin to suggest an explanation for the indifference of Congress to the military's inability to use weapons reserved for the private use of the Bush-Cheney crime family. You dismiss the energy requirements calculated by real scientists with a wave of your hand. In short, you are attempting to snow us with a preposterous fairy tale that no one in his right mind could be expected to swallow.

[Dog Town]

Your capacity for playing games can be irksome at times.


Oh...for the love O' Pete!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1092346be7f1c63099.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7632)

There goes another one!

[Drs_Res]

Heres a new one for you.

:i:

It's a little less sensitive than your old digital and not as prone to explosion.

If you break this one, the next one comes out of your NWO paycheck.

[WildCat]

Sooner or later you might begin to grasp that Dr. Wood is not obliged to either prove the things you assert she has to prove and that, instead, she gets to ask of SAIC and ARA the quCestion that you think she has to answer. Moreover, when she asks them, SAIC' and ARA's representatives will be under a legal requirment to tell the truth.
Didn't they also have a legal requirement not to obliterate lower Manhattan with their Death Ray?

[Dog Town]

Didn't they also have a legal requirement not to obliterate lower Manhattan with their Death Ray?

Yes, the all powerful NWO runs the world, in the same breath, if only we could get them under oath! Yes, if only...

It's mind numbing, really.

[Myriad]

Didn't they also have a legal requirement not to obliterate lower Manhattan with their Death Ray?


This question bears repeating.

Given that you believe that their legal obligation not to cover up the murders of thousands of people did not prevent them from covering up the murders of thousands of people, why do you believe that their legal obligation to answer questions truthfully will prevent them from answering questions untruthfully?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[BenBurch]

This question bears repeating.

Given that you believe that their legal obligation not to cover up the murders of thousands of people did not prevent them from covering up the murders of thousands of people, why do you believe that their legal obligation to answer questions truthfully will prevent them from answering questions untruthfully?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Because they are silly bunts?

[sts60]

Wait a minute. Where are we on this? I assert SAIC and ARA manufacture such weapons and you say they only provide engineering services with respect to DEW.
Many, many organizations provide engineering and scientific support for directed-energy weapons. Neither company makes them.
Since half the posters on this thread don't even believe DEW exist and spend a lot of time telling jokes to that effect,
Flatly incorrect. Kindly identify one poster here who does not believe weapons such as the Airborne Laser, Active Denial System, or Tactical High-Energy Laser exist in at least the developmental stage.
it is at least clear that you and I agree:

a) That DEW exist; and that
b) SAIC and ARA are involved with them.
SAIC is involved in a variety of related research - not manufacturing. I cannot identify any particular associated role for ARA, though I would not be surprised if they do some modeling or other analysis.
I say "manufacture" and you say "engineer." Fine. I still say I'm right about this and you're not.
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Neither SAIC nor ARA manufacture directed-energy weapons. You might as well say that the Federal Highway Safety Commission "manufactures" automobiles because it performs research on automotive safety. Your statement is simply wrong. and your fixation on these two companies I can only describe as bizarre, Not once have you mentioned any contractors actually involved in manufacture of such weapons, such as -

Airborne Laser: Boeing (airframe/system integrator), Lockheed-Martin (fire control system), Northrop Grumman Space Technologies (formerly TRW) (the laser itself).
Active Denial System: Raytheon (system integrator), Communications and Power Industries (microwave system)
Advanced Tactical Laser: Boeing (laser, system integration), L-3 (laser turret), HYTEC (structural elements)
Tactical High-Energy Laser and derivatives: TRW/Northrop Grumman.
I assert compartmentalization is used in connection with DEW, you say otherwise.
Your handwaving opinion is irrelevant, since you have no experience in and no understanding of this field.
Once again, at least we're well past the stage of arguing their existence.
Misrepresentation noted. No one has argued the existence of DEWs in general - at power and energy levels entirely incompatible with your claim.
As you have used the word work in its past tense form, I should like to congratulate you for getting out of that wicked arena. The MIC is a menace to America, all as Eisenhower specifically warned.
Well-poisoning, and incorrect anyway. I work for a company that does civil, commercial, and military work.
I here assert that elements of the MIC are certainly candidate suspects with respect to 9/11 because they had the capacity to carryout that operation in conjunction with rogue elements of the US military and/or rogue elements of its chain of command.
Handwaving. Do you, or do you not, intend to offer any specific evidence for this claim? Or do you merely intend to continue serving up a steady diet of magic unspecified death-rays wielded by unspecified bogeymen?
No, you are wrong again. I said you brought up SCs, not classified information. I mentioned that I do not have access to classified information. You brought up th issue of SCs, I do believe. However, the post record is what it is in this respect.
Meaningless word games. If you do not have a security clearance, you do not have access to classified information.

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly, your statement is irrelevant anyway. You said classified information was "not important". Therefore, you can offer evidence for your claim without regard to such information, or the clearances necessary to gain access to it.
You keep insisting on specific burdens on my part. It is as if you haven't heard or understood a damn thing I've said. I've told you that Dr. Wood is challenging the MIC elements in a specific context where the cause and effect issues are presented in conjunction with what was and was not done.
I have paid careful attention to everything you've said, including the self-contradictory parts (several), the incorrect parts (many), the parts that are simply handwaving (many), and of course the parts you are simply incapable of defining, such as what kind of weapon you are claiming you are used, and its general location.
You're not grasping the state of play of what is actually involved in the official legal challenges, in my opinion. It's all laid out at Dr. Wood's website, for those who care to look.
I have looked. You're simply regurgitating the same vague, ill-informed drivel Ms. Wood has posted.
I have also said the questions you're asking should be asked of those who -- to use your term -- ENGINEER DEW
Not my term. Kindly refrain from further misrepresenting what I have said.
and I have said that Dr. Wood has put herself in postion to command answers from SAIC and ARA.
Why doesn't Ms. Wood pester companies that actually make such weapons?
No BenBurch, you cannot get away with being disengenuous. You know damn well that half the people posting in this tread do not believe DEW even exist.
Doubly wrong. I am not BenBurch, and I challenge you to show one person who does not believe in weapons such as I have cited above.
Let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding. Do you now grasp that SAIC and ARA might well end up being asked those questions?
I understand full well that mentally ill people fixate on and pester such companies.
And, if so, do you, BenBurch, think THEY KNOW the answers to them?
Speaking of accuracy of understanding, why do you keep calling me BenBurch?
And, do you think they'll be obliged t tell the truth or do you think they'll be permitted to use "cover stories"? If they are permitted to use "cover stories" do you think Dr. Wood will be able to force disclosure that such practices are being applied? And, if so, will that force those companies to concede the cases? Or, do you think they can lie to the legal system with impunity and without consequence?
I think Ms. Wood will likely be laughed at, and hopefully provided with compassionate psychiatric care. That's about all that I think will happen, but I am neither a lawyer nor a psychiatrist.
[The links you provided didn't delve very deeply and didn't show much; but, thanks, anyway, for your contribution to the thread and in showing, however obliquely, what involvement ARA and SAIC have with DEW.
I'm happy to do research and provide you with the answers - in this particular case "some" and "maybe some", respectively. Oddly enough, you fixate on these companies, but have entirely ignored companies that actually manufacture such systems. Why is that?
It's Dr. Wood for your information
The honorific is not warranted; Ms. Wood is not a medical doctor, and this is not an academic setting. Furthermore, she has shown herself incompetent - bizarrely so - on this topic.
and you can continue to misapprehend what is actually taking place as much as you like. However, I have, in this and other posts, shown you what's at stake and what the real proof burdens actually center on.
I apprehend fully that you cannot even define your claim, nor correctly identify the relevant organizations, nor address the numerous errors of fact and self-contradiction I have identified, nor challenge the several analyses that have quantitatively shown your notions to be without merit.
Sooner or later you might begin to grasp that Dr. Wood is not obliged to either prove the things you assert she has to prove
I say you are a criminal. What? You want me to say what crime you committed? I am not obliged to tell you.
and that, instead, she gets to ask of SAIC and ARA the quCestion that you think she has to answer. Moreover, when she asks them, SAIC' and ARA's representatives will be under a legal requirment to tell the truth.
Fantasy.

[volatile]

Who put the weapon in space? And how?

[Drs_Res]

It MUST have been Marvin the Martian trying to blow up the earth.

[pomeroo]

Many, many organizations provide engineering and scientific support for directed-energy weapons. Neither company makes them.

Flatly incorrect. Kindly identify one poster here who does not believe weapons such as the Airborne Laser, Active Denial System, or Tactical High-Energy Laser exist in at least the developmental stage.

SAIC is involved in a variety of related research - not manufacturing. I cannot identify any particular associated role for ARA, though I would not be surprised if they do some modeling or other analysis.

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Neither SAIC nor ARA manufacture directed-energy weapons. You might as well say that the Federal Highway Safety Commission "manufactures" automobiles because it performs research on automotive safety. Your statement is simply wrong. and your fixation on these two companies I can only describe as bizarre, Not once have you mentioned any contractors actually involved in manufacture of such weapons, such as -

Airborne Laser: Boeing (airframe/system integrator), Lockheed-Martin (fire control system), Northrop Grumman Space Technologies (formerly TRW) (the laser itself).
Active Denial System: Raytheon (system integrator), Communications and Power Industries (microwave system)
Advanced Tactical Laser: Boeing (laser, system integration), L-3 (laser turret), HYTEC (structural elements)
Tactical High-Energy Laser and derivatives: TRW/Northrop Grumman.

Your handwaving opinion is irrelevant, since you have no experience in and no understanding of this field.

Misrepresentation noted. No one has argued the existence of DEWs in general - at power and energy levels entirely incompatible with your claim.

Well-poisoning, and incorrect anyway. I work for a company that does civil, commercial, and military work.

Handwaving. Do you, or do you not, intend to offer any specific evidence for this claim? Or do you merely intend to continue serving up a steady diet of magic unspecified death-rays wielded by unspecified bogeymen?

Meaningless word games. If you do not have a security clearance, you do not have access to classified information.

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly, your statement is irrelevant anyway. You said classified information was "not important". Therefore, you can offer evidence for your claim without regard to such information, or the clearances necessary to gain access to it.

I have paid careful attention to everything you've said, including the self-contradictory parts (several), the incorrect parts (many), the parts that are simply handwaving (many), and of course the parts you are simply incapable of defining, such as what kind of weapon you are claiming you are used, and its general location.

I have looked. You're simply regurgitating the same vague, ill-informed drivel Ms. Wood has posted.

Not my term. Kindly refrain from further misrepresenting what I have said.

Why doesn't Ms. Wood pester companies that actually make such weapons?

Doubly wrong. I am not BenBurch, and I challenge you to show one person who does not believe in weapons such as I have cited above.

I understand full well that mentally ill people fixate on and pester such companies.

Speaking of accuracy of understanding, why do you keep calling me BenBurch?

I think Ms. Wood will likely be laughed at, and hopefully provided with compassionate psychiatric care. That's about all that I think will happen, but I am neither a lawyer nor a psychiatrist.

I'm happy to do research and provide you with the answers - in this particular case "some" and "maybe some", respectively. Oddly enough, you fixate on these companies, but have entirely ignored companies that actually manufacture such systems. Why is that?

The honorific is not warranted; Ms. Wood is not a medical doctor, and this is not an academic setting. Furthermore, she has shown herself incompetent - bizarrely so - on this topic.

I apprehend fully that you cannot even define your claim, nor correctly identify the relevant organizations, nor address the numerous errors of fact and self-contradiction I have identified, nor challenge the several analyses that have quantitatively shown your notions to be without merit.

I say you are a criminal. What? You want me to say what crime you committed? I am not obliged to tell you.

Fantasy.


A beautiful job! You have thoroughly exposed a deranged fantasist.

[LashL]

If they don't need any luck, then why are you rooting for them so hard?

As I said, they don't need any "luck" to have both of the idiotic complaints dismissed. The complaints will fail because they are legally unsustainable. It is the results of the motions for sanctions in both pieces of litigation that I am more interested in.

I am not "rooting for them so hard". I do, however, have an interest in seeing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits smacked down and preventing additional ones, because they are a vast waste of time, money, and judicial resources. It's a pity that the NY courts do not automatically award costs against unsuccessful litigants who bring frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. If they did so, there would be far fewer of them.

By the way, then President Eisenhower, in January, 1961, admonished all of us to be extremely wary of the MIC. Too bad you didn't heed his warning.


Since, in 1961, I had not yet been born and given that I am not American, it is not terribly surprising that I missed that "warning". :rolleyes:


Viewpoints like yours help sustain a system that is bankrupting us and doing nothing except devising ever more hideous weapons of mass destruction, like DEW.

My viewpoint is that frivolous and vexatious lawsuits should be actively discouraged because they are a vast waste of time, money and judicial resources, and a huge drain on taxpayer dollars. Praytell, how exactly do my views on frivolous litigation help to "sustain a system that is bankrupting us*" and how do my views on frivolous litigation "[devise] ever more hideous weapons of mass destruction?

*Who is this "us" to whom you refer?

[LashL]

A beautiful job!

Seconded. Very nicely done, sts60.

[jammonius]

This question bears repeating.

Given that you believe that their legal obligation not to cover up the murders of thousands of people did not prevent them from covering up the murders of thousands of people, why do you believe that their legal obligation to answer questions truthfully will prevent them from answering questions untruthfully?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Your query is of interest to me both as a request for information and as a statement about you. I will deal with these in reverse order.

As a statement about you, one cannot help but infer that you are either a cynic in the sense that you have a Hobbesian viewpoint that embodies the "might makes right" principle. Do you cotton to "might makes right" and abide in it? If so, are you also one of those, like a least one other poster who roots for the MIC to prevail against Dr. Wood?

Kindly explain.

Your question concerning the tendency in legal proceedings to continue telling untruths is not unique to powerful elements of the MIC. The system is designed to ferret out truth from falsity. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. You agree?

[applecorped]

Your query is of interest to me both as a request for information and as a statement about you. I will deal with these in reverse order.

As a statement about you, one cannot help but infer that you are either a cynic in the sense that you have a Hobbesian viewpoint that embodies the "might makes right" principle. Do you cotton to "might makes right" and abide in it? If so, are you also one of those, like a least one other poster who roots for the MIC to prevail against Dr. Wood?

Kindly explain.

Your question concerning the tendency in legal proceedings to continue telling untruths is not unique to powerful elements of the MIC. The system is designed to ferret out truth from falsity. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. You agree?

Man, you are way beyond transparent.

[pomeroo]

Your query is of interest to me both as a request for information and as a statement about you. I will deal with these in reverse order.

As a statement about you, one cannot help but infer that you are either a cynic in the sense that you have a Hobbesian viewpoint that embodies the "might makes right" principle. Do you cotton to "might makes right" and abide in it? If so, are you also one of those, like a least one other poster who roots for the MIC to prevail against Dr. Wood?

Kindly explain.

Your question concerning the tendency in legal proceedings to continue telling untruths is not unique to powerful elements of the MIC. The system is designed to ferret out truth from falsity. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. You agree?


Now, about the R&D budget for those fabulous weapons...

What, still nothing? The military can't use them, but Bush and Cheney can??? Could you explain that?

No, we didn't think you could.

[SDC]

Your query is of interest to me both as a request for information and as a statement about you. I will deal with these in reverse order.

As a statement about you, one cannot help but infer that you are either a cynic in the sense that you have a Hobbesian viewpoint that embodies the "might makes right" principle. Do you cotton to "might makes right" and abide in it? If so, are you also one of those, like a least one other poster who roots for the MIC to prevail against Dr. Wood?

Kindly explain.

Your question concerning the tendency in legal proceedings to continue telling untruths is not unique to powerful elements of the MIC. The system is designed to ferret out truth from falsity. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. You agree?

Jeez Louise. Get out your Cliff Notes. That's a very poor summary of Hobbes. Please stick to topics which you have studied.

Ever actually read Hobbes? You know, Leviathan, all that jazz?

I doubt the military industrial complex has even heard of Ms Wood.

Eta: try Proj Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3207

[jammonius]

As I said, they don't need any "luck" to have both of the idiotic complaints dismissed. The complaints will fail because they are legally unsustainable. It is the results of the motions for sanctions in both pieces of litigation that I am more interested in.

I am not "rooting for them so hard". I do, however, have an interest in seeing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits smacked down and preventing additional ones, because they are a vast waste of time, money, and judicial resources. It's a pity that the NY courts do not automatically award costs against unsuccessful litigants who bring frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. If they did so, there would be far fewer of them.




Since, in 1961, I had not yet been born and given that I am not American, it is not terribly surprising that I missed that "warning". :rolleyes:




My viewpoint is that frivolous and vexatious lawsuits should be actively discouraged because they are a vast waste of time, money and judicial resources, and a huge drain on taxpayer dollars. Praytell, how exactly do my views on frivolous litigation help to "sustain a system that is bankrupting us*" and how do my views on frivolous litigation "[devise] ever more hideous weapons of mass destruction?

*Who is this "us" to whom you refer?

You are entitled to root for the MIC and you are entitled to your viewpoint. Your ostrich-like, self-imposed insousciance concerning the MIC is your choice. The very most that I can do is offer you up the salient portion of the 1961 address that contained a very specific, I dare say, prescient warning about the MIC. You may consider, or not, this warning as you deem fit. You know the old saw about "leading horses to water..." don't you; or, does that predate you as well?

“ A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."

This is former US Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Eisenhower_in_the_Oval_Office.jpg

[BenBurch]

Answer how it got into space, and why we don't see it, please?

[jammonius]

Now, about the R&D budget for those fabulous weapons...

What, still nothing? The military can't use them, but Bush and Cheney can??? Could you explain that?

No, we didn't think you could.

Another revealing post. You have specifically owned up to being prejudiced, rather than merely prone to rhetoric, in my view. Here's why. It's one thing to ask a question that you don't really want an answer for (rhetoric); it's another to ask one and then say, in advance, that you know the question can't be be answered; which may suggest that no answer will be accepted by you. Fine. I won't answer.

I will, however, invite you to think about whether you could answer it yourself.

Consider for instance the concept of "doomsday" weapons that might be conveniently defined as a weapon that will simultaneously destroy your adversary AND you because it is too powerful to contain.

Do you think the military would want such a weapon?

The MIC develops weapons that it then "sells" for a profit to government. In your experience, do companies that sell products for a profit often elevate the profit motive over and above all others?

Do you need any more hints?

[SDC]

Ben, sorry, but jammonius appears to be unwilling to address the secret of how this DEW got into position, much less any other real world matter. (Moi, I think the the DEW device was housed permanently in Perth Amboy, but I can't prove it. But leave us be honest, who could resist housing a DEW device permanently in Perth Amboy? I know I couldn't.)

Anyhow, unable to find any facts, jammonius has switched over to (ETA)vague political vaporizing. I look forward to the reemergence of Op Norwood, or whatever that was, or wasn't.

[LashL]

You are entitled to root for the MIC and you are entitled to your viewpoint. Your ostrich-like, self-imposed insousciance [sic] concerning the MIC is your choice.


What on earth are you talking about? I have set out quite clearly my views on frivolous and vexatious litigation, and I have said not a single word about the military industrial complex, let alone "root" for it.

Are you seriously as reading impaired as your posts indicate? Try reading for comprehension, for a change. On planet Earth.

[jammonius]

Answer how it got into space, and why we don't see it, please?


Yours is either a convenient misapprehension or a plain old, ordinary strawperson.

Dr. Wood never said the weapons are in space. However, there is room for some legitimate misapprehension here. Dr. Wood used the term Star Wars because that was the generic program in which emphasis upon the further develop of DEW was placed. One can understand, however, that Star Wars does, by definition, contain a connotation of space weapons.

Now, with that said, there are some forensic features of GZ that are consistent with weapons beamed from above. Among them are the vertical cuts seen in WTC 6 and 5 and straightness of the remnant of WTC 4, among others. Were the damage to those structures caused by falling debris, one would not have expected them to be so regular in shape; and, one would have expected the debris to be at the bottom of the holes. There was no accumulation of debris at the bottom of any of them. In fact, among the flatest of flat land that was GZ was the area where the remainder of WTC 4 should have been.

Granted, there's another thread on the flatness of GZ, but I am here referencing this issue in conjunction with there being some evidence of a beam from above. However, above does not necessarily mean earth orbit.

Thank you for your query BenBurch; and I apologize to sts60 for mixing that poster with you. I recognized the error in identification too late to correct it.

[jammonius]

Greetings sts60,

I think impasse has been reached. I don't htink you've said anything more in post #161 that had not been said answered said answered answered said earlier. You do not think SAIC and ARA manufacture DEW. I on the other hand differ; and, in any event, what you own up to ARA and SAIC doing is, in my view, sufficiently close to manufacture as to amount to a distinction without a difference.

Your posting of DEW manufacturers is accurate up to a point; but there are many others.

I suggest you look at the sponsors list at deps.org; and, if you find it appropriate, post up a comment on it and I will engage anew.

Sorry for the misnomer that confused you with BenBurch.

[BenBurch]

No, liar, not a strawman argument; You claim orbital DEWs. Show how they got there.

Or are you now gonna claim that they magically appeared from the Statue of Liberty?

[pomeroo]

Another revealing post. You have specifically owned up to being prejudiced, rather than merely prone to rhetoric, in my view.


For once, you are correct. I am prejudiced against America-hating loons who present absurd fantasies without a shred of evidence to support them.



Here's why. It's one thing to ask a question that you don't really want an answer for (rhetoric); it's another to ask one and then say, in advance, that you know the question can't be be answered; which may suggest that no answer will be accepted by you. Fine. I won't answer.



That sort of simpleminded disingenuousness might work on the twoofer sites, but, as you've noticed, it gets you nowhere here.
You won't answer because there is no possible answer you can fabricate that won't be laughed out of existence. Your imaginary weapons would require a significant percentage of the DOD's budget. The idea that they have been developed in such secrecy that absolutely no one outside the Bush-Cheney crime family know about them is beyond preposterous. Are the Clintons aware of the existence of these fabulous weapons? How about the Democrats on various defense-related committees?




I will, however, invite you to think about whether you could answer it yourself.



I thought about it for a half-second and I can tell you that your futuristic beam weapons do not exist. Their energy requirements, as shown by real scientists, cannot possibly be met. The notion that they can be used for criminal purposes, but not for legitimate military ones is, in a word, insane.



Consider for instance the concept of "doomsday" weapons that might be conveniently defined as a weapon that will simultaneously destroy your adversary AND you because it is too powerful to contain.


Do you think the military would want such a weapon?


Of course not.




The MIC develops weapons that it then "sells" for a profit to government. In your experience, do companies that sell products for a profit often elevate the profit motive over and above all others?

Do you need any more hints?


No, I most definitely do need or want any more hints, falsehoods, fairy tales, lunatic speculations, or empty rhetoric. I need the first bit of real evidence from the shameful gaggle of liars and fools that constitutes the fantasy movement.

[sts60]

Greetings sts60,

I think impasse has been reached.
I agree than an impasse of sorts has been reached, but its specifically because you have not answered any of the questions put to you, and you have assiduously avoided even defining the nature of your claim. Unless this changes, there's nothing to talk about; your claim, such as it is, is indistinguishable from an appeal to magic.
I don't htink you've said anything more in post #161 that had not been said answered said answered answered said earlier.
Incorrect. In post 161 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3785898&postcount=161), I brought up several new points:
- challenged your claim that many posters here do not think DEWs exist;
- noted that I could not identify any specific role for ARA;
- identified major contractors associated with real DEW programs;
- corrected your incorrect assertion about my current line of work;
- and made a couple of other clarifying statements previously not mentioned.
You do not think SAIC and ARA manufacture DEW. I on the other hand differ; and, in any event, what you own up to ARA and SAIC doing is, in my view, sufficiently close to manufacture as to amount to a distinction without a difference.
Your view is uninformed, and you are twisting the definition of "manufacture" to the point of meaninglessness. Furthermore, I provided evidence to support my point of view; where is yours? A computer-generated image of WTC buildings colored in red? That's your evidence?
Your posting of DEW manufacturers is accurate up to a point; but there are many others.
*Chuckle* Going on 17 years in aerospace, and you think I didn't know that? Tell me, where you even aware of the roles of those major contractors before I posted that?
I suggest you look at the sponsors list at deps.org; and, if you find it appropriate, post up a comment on it and I will engage anew.
Diversionary. Besides, you haven't engaged yet. Why don't you start by telling us what sort of DEW do you think was used, and where do you think it was (ground? air? low orbit? high orbit?)
Sorry for the misnomer that confused you with BenBurch.
No problem. Of course, you've never seen us together, have you? ...But which one of us is the mild-mannered alter ego?

[sts60]

Dr. Wood never said the weapons are in space.
Then where are they? Ground? Air?
However, there is room for some legitimate misapprehension here. Dr. Wood used the term Star Wars because that was the generic program in which emphasis upon the further develop of DEW was placed. One can understand, however, that Star Wars does, by definition, contain a connotation of space weapons.
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)) have offered quantitative and specific analyses bounding the directed-energy weapon/WTC claim, each clearly demonstrating its utter infeasibility. Do you have anything other than a generic appeal to the concept of "Star Wars" systems?

[jammonius]

QUOTE]

[QUOTE]For once, you are correct. I am prejudiced against America-hating loons who present absurd fantasies without a shred of evidence to support them.


You do not have a right to define patriotism for me and you damn sure do not have a right to dress your ass in the flag. Take it off immediately. It belongs to all of us and if you suggest otherwise ever again, and I mean ever, I will snatch it away from you immediately and leave you exposed butt naked.

I thought about it for a half-second

About average for you, right?

No, I most definitely do need or want any more hints, falsehoods, fairy tales, lunatic speculations, or empty rhetoric. I need the first bit of real evidence from the shameful gaggle of liars and fools that constitutes the fantasy movement.[/

No, you will not receive further hints. You have given inadequate thought to those already given.

[jammonius]

Then where are they? Ground? Air?

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)) have offered quantitative and specific analyses bounding the directed-energy weapon/WTC claim, each clearly demonstrating its utter infeasibility. Do you have anything other than a generic appeal to the concept of "Star Wars" systems?

Well, at least you've figured out that it is proper to refer to Dr. Wood. I assume you realized that by doing otherwise you were only revealing information about yourself and saying nothing whatever about Dr. Wood. That is good for you. I was going to remind you that you were revealing yourself as being disrespectful, potentially misogynistic and, perhaps, jealous, amongst other traits, had you continued along that line.

I addressed the forensic approach for deducing their location in a prior post.

The "studies" you have referenced are, in my view, so hopelessly flawed as to be utterly useless. And I mean that sincerely.

They are assumption riddled in such a way as to quite frankly give scientific methodology a bad name.

They are the functional equivalent to that branch of study that conclusively demonstrates tat bumble bees cannot possibly fly; and for all the same reasons: They ignore the reality.

Taken to the logical conclusion, your studies result in the finding, the inevitable finding, that the Twin Towers are still there.

Here's why: If DEW are not energetic enough to have destroyed the WTC complex, then what chance would kerosene have of pulverizing steel, concrete, rebar and every last person, place and thing in them in 10 seconds, leaving a debris pile in the range that has been delineated in the debris pile thread?

Answer: None whatsoever.

Please redo your studies so as to get rid of the grotesque assumptions contained therein and repost.

[Dave Rogers]

Here's why: If DEW are not energetic enough to have destroyed the WTC complex, then what chance would kerosene have of pulverizing steel, concrete, rebar and every last person, place and thing in them in 10 seconds, leaving a debris pile in the range that has been delineated in the debris pile thread?

/kerosene/ gravity

Dave

[Grizzly Bear]

I was going to remind you that you were revealing yourself as being disrespectful, potentially misogynistic and, perhaps, jealous, amongst other traits, had you continued along that line.

Where the heck did that come from?

The "studies" you have referenced are, in my view, so hopelessly flawed as to be utterly useless. And I mean that sincerely.

They are assumption riddled in such a way as to quite frankly give scientific methodology a bad name.

They are the functional equivalent to that branch of study that conclusively demonstrates tat bumble bees cannot possibly fly; and for all the same reasons: They ignore the reality.
You clearly have immense ignorance... I've read Mackey's paper and much of his discussion is relevant to the material I've been covering in my design classes. I fail to see what 'details' of those papers give scientific methodology a bad name.


Here's why: If DEW are not energetic enough to have destroyed the WTC complex, then what chance would kerosene have of pulverizing steel, concrete, rebar and every last person, place and thing in them in 10 seconds, leaving a debris pile in the range that has been delineated in the debris pile thread?

This statement says a lot about you... Not only is your assumption that the official story says 'Kerosene' pulverized the building contents flat out wrong, it's a flat-out lie that no truther I've ever spoken to has matched. You seem to fail at realizing what 12 stories, and 29 stories worth of tower respectively does when the columns fail at any single floor and crushing building contents with upwards of 100,000 to 150,000 tons of force (adding more with the application of the dynamic loads).


Answer: None whatsoever.

I wonder why, perhaps 'jet fuel AKA kerosene' was never stated as having 'pulverized' an entire building.... Where exactly did you read this up? Gravity.... important concept

[WildCat]

then what chance would kerosene have of pulverizing steel, concrete, rebar and every last person, place and thing in them in 10 seconds, leaving a debris pile in the range that has been delineated in the debris pile thread?
3" rebar on 4' centers?


:boxedin:

[Furi]

Here's why: If DEW are not energetic enough to have destroyed the WTC complex, then what chance would kerosene have of pulverizing steel, concrete, rebar and every last person, place and thing in them in 10 seconds, leaving a debris pile in the range that has been delineated in the debris pile thread?

Answer: None whatsoever.

:eek: so now that gravitational acceleration and momentum laws are :rule10: I need to know how I stay in my seat whilst I type, and why eggs smash when I drop them onto the kitchen floor but not onto a pillow from the same height, please I am afraid to walk home incase I drift off floor.

[Dave Rogers]

The "studies" you have referenced are, in my view, so hopelessly flawed as to be utterly useless. And I mean that sincerely.

They are assumption riddled in such a way as to quite frankly give scientific methodology a bad name.

Then you will have no problem in stating their specific flaws. This, it seems to me, is an entirely appropriate thread in which to do so.

Your first stated flaw - that if DEW could not have destroyed the Twin Towers, no other cause could do so - is rejected, on the basis that several studies have shown the gravitational potential energy stored in the WTC structures to be greatly in excess of the energy requirements for destruction of the structure to the degree observed.

What's your second?

Dave

[Furi]

3" rebar on 4' centers?
Space Bea... Oh wait..

I think I'll Join you
:boxedin::boxedin:

[sts60]

Well, at least you've figured out that it is proper to refer to Dr. Wood.
You may be Ms. Wood as far as I know; there is no functional difference between your claims and hers.
I assume you realized that by doing otherwise you were only revealing information about yourself and saying nothing whatever about Dr. Wood. That is good for you.
I merely addressed a claim - or rather, the lack of a claim - you brought up.
I was going to remind you that you were revealing yourself as being disrespectful, potentially misogynistic and, perhaps, jealous, amongst other traits, had you continued along that line.
Hogwash. I respect competency regardless of gender. I respect neither incompetence nor the bogus use of credentials to lend an air of authority outside of one's area of knowledge. I have already pointed out why the honorific is not warranted, and I am not interested in your diversionary attempts at ascribing motives to me which do not exist.
I addressed the forensic approach for deducing their location in a prior post.
If you have specifics for "deducing their location", then you can provide an estimate for said location. Where? In the air? In low orbit? In high orbit?
The "studies" you have referenced are, in my view, so hopelessly flawed as to be utterly useless. And I mean that sincerely.
Handwaving. What specific flaws do you claim?
They are assumption riddled in such a way as to quite frankly give scientific methodology a bad name.
Handwaving. The assumptions are clearly stated, and bound specific cases. Do you have a specific claim about the assumptions?
They are the functional equivalent to that branch of study that conclusively demonstrates tat bumble bees cannot possibly fly;
LOL! You can't even name "that branch of study". And you're wrong anyway; aerodynamics does not claim that bumble bees cannot fly.
and for all the same reasons: They ignore the reality.

Taken to the logical conclusion, your studies result in the finding, the inevitable finding, that the Twin Towers are still there.
The Twin Towers are observed to have been destroyed, following impacts by fast-moving aircraft and subsequent heavy fire. The only thing here not observed is a directed-energy weapon of any sort.
Here's why: If DEW are not energetic enough to have destroyed the WTC complex, then what chance would kerosene have of pulverizing steel, concrete, rebar and every last person, place and thing in them in 10 seconds, leaving a debris pile in the range that has been delineated in the debris pile thread?
Are you really so unobservant that you cannot grasp that building collapses were due to a combination of impacts and content fires as well as by the jet-fuel fires? Or are you being deliberately disingenuous in this grotesque misrepresentation?
Please redo your studies so as to get rid of the grotesque assumptions contained therein and repost.
Do you have any specific challenge to the assumption and calculations, or do you simply intend to keep up an endless stream of vague complaints?

Not that it's really relevant, but here's kerosene at work:
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/KSC-69PC-442_t.jpg

[BenBurch]

jammonius does appear to be a non-de-guerre for Dr. Wood. Likes arguing in the third person though as she can then deflect anything she cannot answer with a hand wave; "You'll have to ask Dr. Wood."

[sts60]

Well, it doesn't really make a difference; jammonius' claims (such as they are) are essentially regurgitations of Ms. Wood's web site. I don't particularly care if they are two separate people or simply one using an alias.

[jammonius]

/kerosene/ gravity

Dave

In what proportion and to what effect?

And, what happens with the gravity factor in assessing destruction by DEW?

Note, too, that a 10 second destructive interval for an edifice that stood 1360+/-ft is <1 second longer than it takes an object free falling in a vacuum to hit the ground.

Yes, indeed, the gravity factor does need to be looked at, carefully, I might add.

As for kerosene, that is a gritty middle distillate fuel, not even flammable, let alone generating sufficient heat to pulverize steel. In fact, steel is used to enclose kerosene base fires, as in say, your oil burning furnace (as you know, kerosene and home heating oil are almost identical substances, the one has certain types of cleaning additives, the other a different sort). Kerosene cannot achieve more than about 50% of the temperature needed to do anything to steel, let alone pulverize it instantaneosly. Kerosene cannot ever do that.

DO posters agree?

[jammonius]

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/KSC-69PC-442_t.jpg

Thank you for that. Now, please indicate what impact the kerosene shown above is having upon the steel and the concrete onto which it is depositing its fury?

Or, let me put it thi way, sts, would you agree with me that the awesome display of kerosene that you posted is not doing any damage whatsoever to the concrete, much less the steel it is coming into contact with?

[Disbelief]

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/KSC-69PC-442_t.jpg

Thank you for that. Now, please indicate what impact the kerosene shown above is having upon the steel and the concrete onto which it is depositing its fury?

Or, let me put it thi way, sts, would you agree with me that the awesome display of kerosene that you posted is not doing any damage whatsoever to the concrete, much less the steel it is coming into contact with?

Add in structural damage and other combustibles. Why do you think kerosene was the only flammable present?

[Dave Rogers]

Note, too, that a 10 second destructive interval for an edifice that stood 1360+/-ft is <1 second longer than it takes an object free falling in a vacuum to hit the ground.

Please, not the old "Twin Towers fell too fast" canard. Many people, myself included, have calculated the expected collapse times based on a reasonable set of assumptions. Nobody has yet to come up with a result which disagrees with the measured 12-16 second collapse time.

And please, not the old "9-11 commission report says the South Tower fell in 10 seconds" canard. It's abundantly clear from the context of the statement that it isn't intended as an accurate measurement of the collapse time, but as an order-of-magnitude indication.

If you factor in the gravitational energy and determine the energy required from a DEW to bring about the observed collapse, the answer is zero. That's why people without absurd preconceived opinions don't bother considering the possibility that the collapses were assisted by DEW; they simply weren't needed.

Yes, indeed, the gravity factor does need to be looked at, carefully, I might add.

It has been, extensively and thoroughly, and is well understood.

As for kerosene, that is a gritty middle distillate fuel, not even flammable, let alone generating sufficient heat to pulverize steel. In fact, steel is used to enclose kerosene base fires, as in say, your oil burning furnace (as you know, kerosene and home heating oil are almost identical substances, the one has certain types of cleaning additives, the other a different sort). Kerosene cannot achieve more than about 50% of the temperature needed to do anything to steel, let alone pulverize it instantaneosly. Kerosene cannot ever do that.

It has never been suggested that kerosene either pulverised steel, or was the sole combustible material responsible for the collapses. The major causes of the building collapses were impact damage, possibly removal of fireproofing, kerosene fires and building contents firec accelerated by kerosene. The major causes of partial pulverisation of concrete and complete pulverisation of drywall and plaster were gravity-driven collapse. The major causes of pulverisation of steel were not investigated because steel was not pulverised.

DO posters agree?

That you're making up strawman arguments about pulverised steel? I suspect so.

Dave

[Apollo20]

Jammonius:

Why do you claim that steel was "pulverized"?

Could you explain what you mean by pulverized in the context of what happened to the concrete, the gypsum wallboard, the glass, etc.

And by the way, the WTC dust contained less than 2 weight percent of Fe and some of that was from impurities in slag wool and concrete.

[Furi]

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/KSC-69PC-442_t.jpg

Thank you for that. Now, please indicate what impact the kerosene shown above is having upon the steel and the concrete onto which it is depositing its fury?

Or, let me put it thi way, sts, would you agree with me that the awesome display of kerosene that you posted is not doing any damage whatsoever to the concrete, much less the steel it is coming into contact with?

Well a lot of the pad 39 stuff I got when looking for construction and post launch damage was mostly due to the shuttle launch damage (why did I anticipate your question hmmm), but sts knows his way around the resources a lot better than I, I am sure he would also be able to list the speed and velocity of the stack that was also accelerated, but then again pressure from kerosene combustion wouldn't be enough to do anything, such as propel a rocket at great speeds... or even :o an aircraft turbine, so I am sure the explosion of a huge injection of fuel into an area not purposefully designed or hardened to withstand such energy imputs would be most stressed.

I will see if I can find the expected SSKP of the later revision SS18 silos again, you know the ones designed to withstand multiple strategic nuclear warhead hits 220-400kt, but you have to ask were these blast pits and silos engineered with exactly that purpose in mind? did they use the same standards of materials? were they a little different from your local ready cast and precast merchants? or did they just call O'Reilleys 'cause they do it cheaper than Stubbs?

[sts60]

Thank you for that. Now, please indicate what impact the kerosene shown above is having upon the steel and the concrete onto which it is depositing its fury?
The exhaust plume for the Saturn V stack impinged upon a steel flame deflector weighing approximately 600 tons1,2 and coated with a replaceable ceramic ablator3, which diverted the exhaust into two 58-foot wide flame2 trenches lined with reinforced concrete and firebrick. A water deluge1 system dumped approximately 10,000 gallons of water onto the deflector over about a half-minute period. The Launch Umbilical Tower base and deck received an additional approximately 30,000 gallons of water over the same period. The deluge system provided not only cooling but also suppression of acoustic energy which could otherwise have inflicted significant damage to the vehicle and ground equipment. An additional 20,000 gallons per minute was supplied to the LUT base and deck for several more minutes after launch, and an additional several thousand gallons per minute were used to fog the tower for cooling through nozzles at several levels.

Now, of course, the RP-1/LO2 propellant mixture energy went largely into providing 7.5 million lbf thrust and thus pushing a few thousand tons rapidly into the sky (you know, the rocket thingy). But, even despite the heavy construction of the facilities, purpose-built to endure the launch conditions, the cooling and acoustic-suppression systems, and the transitory nature of the launch, there was certainly some damage. The facility required refurbishing after each launch. I don't know how much, exactly; coming up with a specific description would require additional research. If you're interested, I'll provide you with an hourly rate...

Or, let me put it thi way, sts, would you agree with me that the awesome display of kerosene that you posted is not doing any damage whatsoever to the concrete, much less the steel it is coming into contact with?
No, of course not; but the point is irrelevant anyway. Are you comparing the effect of approximately fifteen seconds' worth of rocket launch on facilities described above to the effect of high-speed airliner impact, and subsequent jet fuel and contents fires, on a skyscraper? Really? If you'd like to do so, feel free to start another thread.

On this thread, we're still waiting for you to specify your claim, or to offer any specific objections to the studies refuting your premise, or to address the numerous other errors and self-contradictions in your claims.

Sources:
1. NASA TMX-65237, Apollo/Saturn V Facility Description, Vol. II: Launch Complex 39 Facility Description, NASA/KSC: 1 October 1966.
2. Apollo press kits (e.g., Apollo 13 press kit, available at http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-13/docs/apollo-13-press-kit.txt)
3. Saturn V News Reference (Facilities), NASA: December 1968 update.

[pomeroo]

You do not have a right to define patriotism for me and you damn sure do not have a right to dress your ass in the flag. Take it off immediately. It belongs to all of us and if you suggest otherwise ever again, and I mean ever, I will snatch it away from you immediately and leave you exposed butt naked.


You're cute when you bark like a dog.

Aren't you the America-hating loon who called Harry Truman's decision to save five million Japanese and one million American lives a "war crime"?

Aren't you the America-hating loon who pretends, against all reason and evidence, that the U.S. government employed imaginary weapons to commit a mass murder for no discernible purpose?

You despise this country and everything it stands for. Nothing disgusts me so much as loony-leftists who spew their mindless poison and then pretend to act offended when they get called on it.





About average for you, right?


Normally, I'd require a full second, but for the likes of you, that would be overkill.



No, you will not receive further hints. You have given inadequate thought to those already given.


You're damn right I won't receive hints or anything else. You are a transparent fraud promoting an insane thesis. You are incompetent to address the objections raised by real scientists and engineers. You have given NO thought to the nonsensical snake oil you peddle.

[sts60]

As for kerosene, that is a gritty middle distillate fuel, not even flammable,
Irrelevant; it is combustible.
let alone generating sufficient heat to pulverize steel.
We already understand that you cannot specify what you actually do believe. Is it too much to ask that you refrain from grotesquely misrepresenting the thing against which you are so vaguely arguing?
In fact, steel is used to enclose kerosene base fires, as in say, your oil burning furnace (as you know, kerosene and home heating oil are almost identical substances, the one has certain types of cleaning additives, the other a different sort). Kerosene cannot achieve more than about 50% of the temperature needed to do anything to steel, let alone pulverize it instantaneosly. Kerosene cannot ever do that.
Factually incorrect. The maximum temperature of combustion of Jet A is 980 degrees C.

Of course, the energy which did the damage to the Towers came from several sources, namely, the impact of an airliner at high speed, the energy released by atomized jet fuel, and the energy released by a variety of materials burning in the towers. That is clear enough, even if you do not agree with the conclusion, that you should be able to recapitulate that scenario without further mangling it.
DO posters agree?
You haven't come close to describing what you think happened. You're doing an even worse job of describing the scenario you don't think happened. Your characterizations are so far detached from observed reality that "wrong" hardly serves to describe them.

If you would like to argue about kerosene, however, feel free to start another thread. This thread is about your general premise that directed-energy weapons destroyed the Towers.

What kind of directed-energy weapon do you claim did so? You've indicated you have specific information pointing to their general location. Where were they?

[applecorped]

Don't sugarcoat it pomeroo.

[sts60]

Not that being the thread-starter gives me any authority, but I'd prefer to leave such arguments about motivation out of this thread. IMO, they serve only as diversions. We have already seen jammonius' attempt at poisoning the well (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html) with the digressions about the "Military-Industrial Complex" rather than developing her own claim or addressing rebuttals. Challenges about patriotism from either side do nothing to advance the discussion.

What type of directed-energy weapon does jammonius think was used? Where were they, approximately? jammonius has claimed that there are DEWs in orbit; what evidence does she have for that claim? Etc., etc.

[sts60]

Duplicate. Bad space-dog! No biscuit!

[Dog Town]

What type of directed-energy weapon does jammonius think was used? Where were they, approximately? jammonius has claimed that there are DEWs in orbit; what evidence does she have for that claim? Etc., etc.

I'll give you this, you are persistent! You have noticed Jam repeatedly telling you this will not be answered by him/her? They have a saying about trying the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. Just say'en...

But good luck.

[sts60]

Well, it's like this. jammonius asserted in no uncertain terms that DEWs were used to destroy WTC 1 and 2, and that she would engage in a discussion thread about DEWs. So I created one for her, and have asked her some very simple questions in order to understand her claim. If she is incapable of, or completely unwilling to answer even the simplest questions (what kind? where does she think they might have been?) about her premise, then how can anybody really "engage" on it? I'm simply taking her promise at face value, and hoping that she'll attempt to develop and defend her DEW premise.

[Dog Town]

Well, it's like this. jammonius asserted in no uncertain terms that DEWs were used to destroy WTC 1 and 2, and that she would engage in a discussion thread about DEWs. So I created one for her, and have asked her some very simple questions in order to understand her claim. If she is incapable of, or completely unwilling to answer even the simplest questions (what kind? where does she think they might have been?) about her premise, then how can anybody really "engage" on it? I'm simply taking her promise at face value, and hoping that she'll attempt to develop and defend her DEW premise.

Tis a noble cause indeed, you champion. I just don't think it will ever happen.
I am eager to see you succeed. Again, good luck.

[pomeroo]

Don't sugarcoat it pomeroo.


Tell me the truth: am I becoming a wimp?

[Max Photon]

Tell me the truth: am I becoming a wimp?


Let's see......

blimp
chimp
gimp
limp
pimp
simp...

...to tell the truth, I don't think you've evolved that far.

[pomeroo]

Let's see......

blimp
chimp
gimp
limp
pimp
simp...

...to tell the truth, I don't think.


Fixed it for you.

[TheRedWorm]

So what we have here is someone that doesn't know what the DEWs are capable of, where they are, how they could reasonably have arrived there, how they are powered, how they operate, nor anything, really, about these DEWs, but for some reason knows that they are responsible for the collapse of WTC 1 & 2? Does anyone but me find this a little bit strange, or am I just drunk again?

[Dog Town]

So what we have here is someone that doesn't know what the DEWs are capable of, where they are, how they could reasonably have arrived there, how they are powered, how they operate, nor anything, really, about these DEWs, but for some reason knows that they are responsible for the collapse of WTC 1 & 2? Does anyone but me find this a little bit strange, or am I just drunk again?

O' I'm with ya...on both counts!;)
Cuz what's wrong with both?

[TheRedWorm]

Hey, around half my posts are while drunk, only time I have a easy going enough attitude to deal with truthers! :D

[Mr. Skinny]

Fixed it for you.
Ron, please don't alter people's posts like that.

[Apollo20]

Mr. Skinny:

About altering posts... I agree with you .... I believe it's against forum rules!

[jammonius]

http://phunkadelic.org/duck.jpg

I've located what I think is a cross-over issue between this and the debris-pile thread. The issue is WTC 3.
It appears from the above Lidar data that WTC 3, which, like WTC 7, is almost never discussed in terms of what could have caused that building to self-annhilate since no plane hit it, that WTC 3 has its own pile, separate from WTC 2 and there was no signficant spillover from one to the other. And, as WTC 3 wasn't soaked in merely combustible kerosene and had no smack from a jetliner to cause it to completely disappear, this is something that looks mysterious and not adequately accounted for by the standard version of what happened. We know, with certainty, that WTC 3 completely disappeared. But there's no reason for that to have happened.

The Lidar data, as dressed up by poster phunk, led that poster to clearly draw and depict discreet debris piles for WTC 3 and 2, with no spill over from the one to the other. The circles closed in phunk's rendering. In fact, you can actually say there's a buffer zone seen in the lidar where one pile ended and the other began.

So, absent the dynamics of fuel and impact, there's good reason to infer exotic weaponry, in a distinct and discreet attack upon WTC 3 as the reason for its disappearance down to next to nothing.

I do wish ktesbios would rejoin us. That poster with his/her nine and twenty years in some specialty or another might be helpful to this discussion.

Clearly, the effects seen with respect to WTC 3 require consideration -- by those who don't want to face it -- of a discreet destructive phase for that building because there's no real way to attribute its disappearance to mere sympathy for the loss of its once tall neighbor.

[beachnut]

Clearly, the effects seen with respect to WTC 3 require consideration -- by those who don't want to face it -- of a discreet destructive phase for that building because there's no real way to attribute its disappearance to mere sympathy for the loss of its once tall neighbor.
There was not beam weapon used to destroy the WTC. The beam weapon idea is tied with thermite, AP, nukes, and other methods which ignore the terrorist action on 9/11.

The irony of the name 9/11 "truth" movement, is emphasized each time you try to imply, mass was vaporized.

[Jontg]

Lasers. Lasers destroyed the World Trade Center. Lasers.
...
(begins rant)
Sweet Moses on a stick, this is the most ridiculous farce since 1-inch. Jammy, honey, you're either a pathetically obvious troll or a complete twelve-cylinder whacko, and everyone on this thread--no, this forum--knows it. Just reading your ravings is giving me a headache, and each has already been... no, dissected isn't the proper word, you can't dissect a freaking prokaryote. Which is exactly what your argument thus far has been--an amorphous heap of BS with no definition or substance, barely even qualifying as thought, let alone a coherent thesis. You bleat about how you don't have to answer our questions, so why are you even posting here, you blithering imbecile!?
(ends rant)
...
Wow, there's spittle on my screen.

[sts60]

I've located what I think is a cross-over issue between this and the debris-pile thread. The issue is WTC 3.
Feel free to start a separate thread discussing WTC 3, or...
So, absent the dynamics of fuel and impact, there's good reason to infer exotic weaponry, in a distinct and discreet attack upon WTC 3 as the reason for its disappearance down to next to nothing.
... feel free to discuss the specific characteristics of a DEW which support this assertion, and the specific evidence you observe at WTC 3 for it. This, of course, brings up a few very basic questions such as:
- what type of DEW do you claim did it?
- where, roughly, do you claim it was? On the ground? In the air? In low orbit? In high orbit?
You've also compounded your claim by earlier suggesting that WTC 7 was also destroyed by a DEW; in fact, you suggested that a different type of DEW was used there than on WTC 1 & 2. Now you're suggesting WTC 3 as well. This brings up a couple more fundamental questions:
- how many DEWs do you think were involved?
- how many different types do you think were involved?

That would be a start to actually defining your claim.


ETA: It's discrete, not "discreet". Picky, I know, but for some reason, I find that very annoying.

[Viper Daimao]

sorry to ask stupid questions here, but can someone explain what the picture is supposed to be, besides someone drawing a duck (seriously, it's called duck.jpg) and claiming it's evidence of a dew.

[sts60]

Debris pile discussion ---> over here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3790182#post3790182).

[phunk]

sorry to ask stupid questions here, but can someone explain what the picture is supposed to be, besides someone drawing a duck (seriously, it's called duck.jpg) and claiming it's evidence of a dew.

The original image is a color-coded lidar map of ground zero, showing elevation as color. I simply outlined the different colored regions to make it easier to see, as the different shades of yellow would be hard to differentiate for someone with a cheap monitor or color blindness. It shows (yet again) that jammonius' claim of gz being flat is wrong.

[jammonius]

Well, it's like this. jammonius asserted in no uncertain terms that DEWs were used to destroy WTC 1 and 2, and that she would engage in a discussion thread about DEWs. So I created one for her, and have asked her some very simple questions in order to understand her claim. If she is incapable of, or completely unwilling to answer even the simplest questions (what kind? where does she think they might have been?) about her premise, then how can anybody really "engage" on it? I'm simply taking her promise at face value, and hoping that she'll attempt to develop and defend her DEW premise.

sts60,

I have a suggestion I'd like to make concerning the energy requirment and/or DEW skeptics articles that you have linked us to, including, if I understand correctly, one that you did.

Why don't you post up one or more of those articles piecemeal in this thread. Take us through it, segment by segment and show us the impracticality of DEW and/or the impossibility of the energy requirment, step-by-step. I can commit to commenting as you go along in that process.

However, up to now, what you've basically done is said "you're wrong, read this". Screw that. That process does not lend itself to message board dialogue.

Maybe I should have made this suggestion earlier on; however, I thought sooner or later you'd post up your proof because I made it very clear to you that I was not going to allow you to engage in rhetorical questioning, wherein you reserve the right to declare everything I say is wrong and demand more proof. Screw that.

If you've got a position on something that you think proves something or another, then lay it out here and let us discuss it.

I don't accept as a given that you've proven the impracticality of DEW because the event itself -- the destruction of the WTC complex -- provides unrefutable evidence of unconventional, powerful weapons having been used. That is the only way to explain the completeness of the destruction that took place. That is an elementary reality that most people inwardly know to be true. However, the emotional need to avoid having to consider that elements of the US power structure did this to us is simply still too strong for a lot of people.

If you post up your article(s) piecemeal, I'll participate in dialogue. If you say, go read this and then come back and admit you're wrong, I will continue to disregard any such request. I hope you understand that in doing so, I'm not avoiding anything other than allowing you to try to pull off a cheap trick.

[jammonius]

The original image is a color-coded lidar map of ground zero, showing elevation as color. I simply outlined the different colored regions to make it easier to see, as the different shades of yellow would be hard to differentiate for someone with a cheap monitor or color blindness. It shows (yet again) that jammonius' claim of gz being flat is wrong.

phunk,

50% of your own graphic is at 0' level. 30% is at 25' up to 50'. I have thanked you for doing the graphic and I have explained my analysis of it.

GZ was, indeed, flat and your document confirms as much.

Yet again, the emotional attachment to concluding GZ was not flat is very strong. I know that. However, there's no real argument left with respect to the graphic you provided. That document speaks for itself and it speaks volumes.

[WildCat]

I don't accept as a given that you've proven the impracticality of DEW because the event itself -- the destruction of the WTC complex -- provides unrefutable evidence of unconventional, powerful weapons having been used. That is the only way to explain the completeness of the destruction that took place.
This is where you go horribly, off-the-cliff wrong.

[Arus808]

phunk,

50% of your own graphic is at 0' level. 30% is at 25' up to 50'. I have thanked you for doing the graphic and I have explained my analysis of it.

GZ was, indeed, flat and your document confirms as much.

Yet again, the emotional attachment to concluding GZ was not flat is very strong. I know that. However, there's no real argument left with respect to the graphic you provided. That document speaks for itself and it speaks volumes.


this is where you show that you are outright lying or just trollling. pick one.

[Rika]

While I was joking earlier about Gundam SEED based Super Beam Weapons, uh.. that's because I find the concept that we have DEW in orbit that could fire without leaving clear trails laughable. DEW weapons are quite real ,but I don't believe one could have fired on the WTC without leaving footprints of it's passage.

[Viper Daimao]

phunk,

50% of your own graphic is at 0' level. 30% is at 25' up to 50'. I have thanked you for doing the graphic and I have explained my analysis of it.

GZ was, indeed, flat and your document confirms as much.

Yet again, the emotional attachment to concluding GZ was not flat is very strong. I know that. However, there's no real argument left with respect to the graphic you provided. That document speaks for itself and it speaks volumes.

So even though you say there were huge piles of debris where the towers were, you say ground zero was flat because there was no debris a safe distance from the towers?

[phunk]

phunk,

50% of your own graphic is at 0' level. 30% is at 25' up to 50'. I have thanked you for doing the graphic and I have explained my analysis of it.

GZ was, indeed, flat and your document confirms as much.

Yet again, the emotional attachment to concluding GZ was not flat is very strong. I know that. However, there's no real argument left with respect to the graphic you provided. That document speaks for itself and it speaks volumes.

As I said in the other thread, of course a lot of the picture is at street level, the picture is of a wider area than just the rubble pile. You're including space that isn't part of the pile in your crude calculation of the flatness of the pile.

[pomeroo]

Ron, please don't alter people's posts like that.


You are, of course, quite right. I have never altered anyone's post before, but I wanted to tweak Max. We had--I thought--signed a peace treaty through private e-mails. I regarded his post as unnecessarily and unexpectedly nasty, as well as being devoid of substance. I didn't want to make an issue of it, and I suppose I responded to childish behavior with more of the same.

[DGM]

We know, with certainty, that WTC 3 completely disappeared. But there's no reason for that to have happened.




http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17074485c02bb6c5fb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12671)

Um, No! Your not even trying any more.

[sts60]

sts60,

I have a suggestion I'd like to make concerning the energy requirment and/or DEW skeptics articles that you have linked us to, including, if I understand correctly, one that you did.

Why don't you post up one or more of those articles piecemeal in this thread. Take us through it, segment by segment and show us the impracticality of DEW and/or the impossibility of the energy requirment, step-by-step. I can commit to commenting as you go along in that process.
I'll repost it for your convenience in the next post, and you can bring up any specific comments or objections at any step you wish.
However, up to now, what you've basically done is said "you're wrong, read this". Screw that. That process does not lend itself to message board dialogue.
A gross inversion of reality. I have asked you specific questions about your premise; I have prepared quantitative analysis and repeatedly linked to that of others; I have made specific objections and comments to other statements of yours, and I have provided evidence or indicated relevant personal experience as appropriate. I have asked you repeatedly for basic clarifications of your premise or specific objections to my rebuttals, yet all you have offered is a stream of diversions and vague complaints.
Maybe I should have made this suggestion earlier on; however, I thought sooner or later you'd post up your proof because I made it very clear to you that I was not going to allow you to engage in rhetorical questioning, wherein you reserve the right to declare everything I say is wrong and demand more proof. Screw that.
I originally provided my quantitative analysis here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762857&postcount=311), and have reminded you of it something like a dozen times. I am at a loss to understand how any English-literate participant in this thread could claim I have not yet posted my analysis.
If you've got a position on something that you think proves something or another, then lay it out here and let us discuss it.
Projection noted. I have done so, in exhaustive detail, first in the "debris pile height" thread and then here, in the very thread I created for your convenience. And after all this time, you cannot be troubled to even specify what type of DEW you think was used.
I don't accept as a given that you've proven the impracticality of DEW because the event itself -- the destruction of the WTC complex -- provides unrefutable evidence of unconventional, powerful weapons having been used. That is the only way to explain the completeness of the destruction that took place.
Appeal to incredulity noted. Feel free to continue that argument on the "debris pile height" thread.
That is an elementary reality that most people inwardly know to be true. However, the emotional need to avoid having to consider that elements of the US power structure did this to us is simply still too strong for a lot of people.
Begging the question.
If you post up your article(s) piecemeal, I'll participate in dialogue. If you say, go read this and then come back and admit you're wrong, I will continue to disregard any such request. I hope you understand that in doing so, I'm not avoiding anything other than allowing you to try to pull off a cheap trick.
As a courtesy, even though I have already posted my analysis and repeatedly called your attention to it, I will repost it immediately following. You may offer specific objections to any part or parts you wish; I have been asking you to do so for days.

[sts60]

Let's take a crude look at what it would take to vaporize about one percent of the roughly 96,000 tons of steel in each of WTC 1 and 2.

For the sake of convenience, we'll use one metric ton (1000 kg), which is actually 1100 "short" tons. Again, it's a little over one percent of the steel in one of the buildings.

I'm also going to use the heat of vaporization for iron. I know this is just an approximation for that of steel, and I don't know whether it's high or low. But I'm sure it's good enough for an order-of-magnitude estimate.

Fe, Heat of vaporization: 349.60 kJ/mol
Fe, Atomic mass 55.847 => 1 mol Fe = 55.85g
=> Heat of vaporization = 349.60 kJ/(mol * 55.85 g/mol) = 6.26 kJ/g

Energy needed to vaporize that much iron = 6.26 kJ/g * 109g ~ 6.3*109 kJ = 1.7*106kWh.

But this power must be delivered over only about 10 seconds - let's make it 20 to be very generous:

Power required = 1.7*109Wh / (20s / 3600s/h) = 310*109W (310 gigawatts).

jammonius has repeatedly offered as support for her claim a picture of the Air Force's Airborne Laser (ABL), which is being integrated into a converted 747. The Missile Defense Agency's fact sheet (http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/laser.pdf) notes that the ABL, a megawatt system, has delivered its energy over a ten-second period, which is about the right length of time - but only in a lab test. Not in flight. So jammonius' example isn't even operational, and it's the most powerful DEW system in development.

The operational ABL is supposed to be able to take up to 40 shots, up to 5 seconds each, with its chemical-oxygen-iodine laser (COIL) (which itself weighs something on the order of 18,000 kg). I don't have the output power (I wouldn't be surprised if it's classified), but let's generously say it's 10 MW. Thus, the ABL that jammonius is so fond of showing as support for her claim has a beam power five orders of magnitude too small for our limited scenario.

But power is only one of the problems. The total energy needed, even in the very limited, purely theoretical (100% efficiency) scenario, also shows how laughably disconnected jammonius' scenario is from reality. Using our generous 10MW beam power guess for ABL, it can deliver 40*5s*10MW = 2000MWs, or 2*109Ws ~560,000 Wh ~ 560 kWh.

Thus, the energy available to the ABL system for one flight is, very roughly, three-tenths of one percent of what is necessary to theoretically vaporize roughly one percent of the steel in one of the Towers. And it hasn't even flown yet.

And that doesn't take into account system efficiency, atmospheric attenuation, or attenuation from all the smoke and dust from the towers - which, as I mentioned earlier, would have lit up blindingly from that kind of beam hitting it. Or the fact that no orbital track will take an alleged tower-zapping satellite back "in range" an hour later. (If you speculate a geosynchronous satellite, your atmospheric attenuation and beam-spreading issues become even more ludicrous.) Or the other issues associated with the construction, launch, operation, efficiency, and visibility of such a system. Or the problem of generating and using the power needed. (See R. Mackey's excellent post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102) exploring a range of such topics.) Let alone the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for its existence, or that the observed reality doesn't match the claimed mechanism, or that jammonius can't even describe what the "directed energy" is. The whole DEW-zapping-WTC scenario is nothing more than a particularly delusional handwave.

ETA: See also the analyses by myriad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354) and BenBurch (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3756906&postcount=208) - which I have also repeatedly drawn to jammonius' attention.

[van_dutch]

I'm glad you brought up the ABL sts60, I was going to bring it up. Your post covered quite well the points I was going to make. That is a quite generous estimate about the efficiency and power of the ABL. The value you calculate to vaporize that amount of iron is power delivered to the target. Adding in losses due to absorption by the atmosphere, spread, and tracking would shoot up the necessary power for the source to generate very quickly. That being said, those effects make it even more implausible and ridiculous.

I did some more reading on the ABL and they are planning to try to actually shoot down a missile in 2009. An older, less powerful system did bring down some missiles in the 80's. I know it is not the best source, but according to wikipedia (I am trying to find the article that is cited), the ABL "produces enough energy in a five-second burst to power a typical American household for more than an hour." Here is a link to the original article in which that is mentioned http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123045745.

In other words, the laser currently being developed for shooting down missiles is many orders of magnitude below what would be required to bring down the towers with a similar system. This begs the question, if the technology existed for such a powerful system, why would the government waste billions of dollars to create a less powerful one?

[bonavada]

I moved this to here from the "debris pile" thread.

Below was part of jams (non) answer to my question about the DEW that he asserts destroyed WTC7. Jammonius acknowledges the fact that WTC left behind "the highest debris pile" I wanted to know, if that building was also destroyed by DE weaponry, why wasn't it disintegrated in midair as per his claims regarding WTC1 + WTC?


You might want to find out what you can about the calibration aspect of DEW. They can be variously tuned for lethality effects, materials interactions and so on.

Please jammonius give me a reputable source where I can learn specific information about the type of weaponry with the ability to destroy such a building in the manner you espouse. Specifics such as capabilities, manufacture and deployment. I am genuinely interested in learning such details. Details which could prove the honesty of your endeavour here.

BV

[sts60]

Thanks for the link and comments, van_dutch. I was intentionally generous for the ABL, giving the benefit of the doubt to jammonius' side of the numbers, as it were. (Not that jammonius has actually offered any numbers on this topic, or even specified what kind of DEW she thinks was used, but...)

According to the Department of Energy (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp), the average U.S. home used 920 kWh in a month (2006 values). At 30 days/month and 24 hours/day, that equals roughly 1.28 kWh in a one-hour period. Over a 5-second period, that's (1.28 kWh / (5 s / 3600 s/h)) = 920 kW. So that would indicate that the ABL laser will deliver about a megawatt - I seem to have been generous by about an order of magnitude!

And, of course, the ABL is not even operational yet. jammonius was quite fond of showing a picture of it for a while, but a picture of a flashlight would have been equally convincing.

[Mr. Skinny]

You are, of course, quite right. I have never altered anyone's post before, but I wanted to tweak Max. We had--I thought--signed a peace treaty through private e-mails. I regarded his post as unnecessarily and unexpectedly nasty, as well as being devoid of substance. I didn't want to make an issue of it, and I suppose I responded to childish behavior with more of the same.
Well, thanks for responding.

I just think it's bad form to do that. 'Nuff said.



I'll wager Max would accept your apology.

And BTW Jay and the Americans rock!

[Max Photon]

Pomeroo, think nothing of it; I didn't even know you did anything wrong, I asked for it. (I actually thought it was funny. I also thought Mr. Skinny's response was a subtle play....too subtle perhaps for even the author himself.)

And sorry if I'm teasing you too much. Consider it a sign of affection, and the fact that you leave a trail of prefabricated humor building blocks wherever you go.

Okay.....from now on I am going to be totally serious-

like.

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo, think nothing of it; I didn't even know you did anything wrong, I asked for it. (I actually thought it was funny. I also thought Mr. Skinny's response was a subtle play....too subtle perhaps for even the author himself.)

And sorry if I'm teasing you too much. Consider it a sign of affection, and the fact that you leave a trail of prefabricated humor building blocks wherever you go.

Okay.....from now on I am going to be totally serious-

like.



Please don't be totally serious. Under such circumstances, there would be absolutely no reason to keep you around. ;)

Our peace treaty is still intact.

[jammonius]

Let's take a crude look at what it would take to vaporize about one percent of the roughly 96,000 tons of steel in each of WTC 1 and 2.

For the sake of convenience, we'll use one metric ton (1000 kg), which is actually 1100 "short" tons. Again, it's a little over one percent of the steel in one of the buildings.

I'm also going to use the heat of vaporization for iron. I know this is just an approximation for that of steel, and I don't know whether it's high or low. But I'm sure it's good enough for an order-of-magnitude estimate.

Fe, Heat of vaporization: 349.60 kJ/mol
Fe, Atomic mass 55.847 => 1 mol Fe = 55.85g
=> Heat of vaporization = 349.60 kJ/(mol * 55.85 g/mol) = 6.26 kJ/g

Energy needed to vaporize that much iron = 6.26 kJ/g * 109g ~ 6.3*109 kJ = 1.7*106kWh.

But this power must be delivered over only about 10 seconds - let's make it 20 to be very generous:

Power required = 1.7*109Wh / (20s / 3600s/h) = 310*109W (310 gigawatts).

jammonius has repeatedly offered as support for her claim a picture of the Air Force's Airborne Laser (ABL), which is being integrated into a converted 747. The Missile Defense Agency's fact sheet (http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/laser.pdf) notes that the ABL, a megawatt system, has delivered its energy over a ten-second period, which is about the right length of time - but only in a lab test. Not in flight. So jammonius' example isn't even operational, and it's the most powerful DEW system in development.

The operational ABL is supposed to be able to take up to 40 shots, up to 5 seconds each, with its chemical-oxygen-iodine laser (COIL) (which itself weighs something on the order of 18,000 kg). I don't have the output power (I wouldn't be surprised if it's classified), but let's generously say it's 10 MW. Thus, the ABL that jammonius is so fond of showing as support for her claim has a beam power five orders of magnitude too small for our limited scenario.

But power is only one of the problems. The total energy needed, even in the very limited, purely theoretical (100% efficiency) scenario, also shows how laughably disconnected jammonius' scenario is from reality. Using our generous 10MW beam power guess for ABL, it can deliver 40*5s*10MW = 2000MWs, or 2*109Ws ~560,000 Wh ~ 560 kWh.

Thus, the energy available to the ABL system for one flight is, very roughly, three-tenths of one percent of what is necessary to theoretically vaporize roughly one percent of the steel in one of the Towers. And it hasn't even flown yet.

And that doesn't take into account system efficiency, atmospheric attenuation, or attenuation from all the smoke and dust from the towers - which, as I mentioned earlier, would have lit up blindingly from that kind of beam hitting it. Or the fact that no orbital track will take an alleged tower-zapping satellite back "in range" an hour later. (If you speculate a geosynchronous satellite, your atmospheric attenuation and beam-spreading issues become even more ludicrous.) Or the other issues associated with the construction, launch, operation, efficiency, and visibility of such a system. Or the problem of generating and using the power needed. (See R. Mackey's excellent post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2086102#post2086102) exploring a range of such topics.) Let alone the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for its existence, or that the observed reality doesn't match the claimed mechanism, or that jammonius can't even describe what the "directed energy" is. The whole DEW-zapping-WTC scenario is nothing more than a particularly delusional handwave.

ETA: See also the analyses by myriad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3763995&postcount=354) and BenBurch (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3756906&postcount=208) - which I have also repeatedly drawn to jammonius' attention.


Let's take a crude look at what it would take to vaporize about one percent of the roughly 96,000 tons of steel in each of WTC 1 and 2.


And therein lies the crucial fallacy that renders the so-called "vaporization" analysis uttrly useless.

It starts with a hypothetical construct in a context where two things are known:

1--The effects of the destruction of the WTC complex are visible. Therefore, the actual analytic process should reference those effects. Stating them, listing them, cataloguing them and understanding them.

You have not done that.

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 for the visible destructive effects, it is absolutely crucial and highly relevant to assess the energy available through those sources in order to place any alternative assessment into its proper perspective.

You have not done that, either.

The operational ABL is supposed to be able to take up to 40 shots, up to 5 seconds each, with its chemical-oxygen-iodine laser (COIL) (which itself weighs something on the order of 18,000 kg). I don't have the output power (I wouldn't be surprised if it's classified), but let's generously say it's 10 MW. Thus, the ABL that jammonius is so fond of showing as support for her claim has a beam power five orders of magnitude too small for our limited scenario.

This is useful and merits further review and expansion based on what can be publicly located. For instance,the 40 shot 5 second interval issue is interesting. We know that the Twin Towers were zapped in 10 seconds each, so that would make 2 hots possible, more or less, unless there were an array of ABLs out there. [See Patricia Ondrovic's statement for possible confirmation that there was an array out there]

Another key issue here consists in knowing what kind of hole an ABL COIL hit causes. What diameter, for instance. A close look at GZ reveals circular holes that are 24' and 36' in diameter. We knbow, too, that DEWs are calibratable, that is to say the beam is variable.

So, in this respect, sts60, you are definitely advancing the possibilities for better understanding.

For that, I express gratitude.

I've got to stop now. Business beckons. I will return to this.

[sts60]

And therein lies the crucial fallacy that renders the so-called "vaporization" analysis uttrly useless.

It starts with a hypothetical construct in a context where two things are known:

1--The effects of the destruction of the WTC complex are visible. Therefore, the actual analytic process should reference those effects. Stating them, listing them, cataloguing them and understanding them.

You have not done that.
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.
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 for the visible destructive effects, it is absolutely crucial and highly relevant to assess the energy available through those sources in order to place any alternative assessment into its proper perspective.

You have not done that, either.
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.
This is useful and merits further review and expansion based on what can be publicly located. For instance,the 40 shot 5 second interval issue is interesting.
That is a very generous estimate, mind you, and does not include minimum interval possible between shots (I don't know that figure).
We know that the Twin Towers were zapped in 10 seconds each, so that would make 2 hots possible, more or less, unless there were an array of ABLs out there. [See Patricia Ondrovic's statement for possible confirmation that there was an array out there]
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.
Another key issue here consists in knowing what kind of hole an ABL COIL hit causes. What diameter, for instance. A close look at GZ reveals circular holes that are 24' and 36' in diameter. We knbow, too, that DEWs are calibratable, that is to say the beam is variable.
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.
So, in this respect, sts60, you are definitely advancing the possibilities for better understanding.
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.
For that, I express gratitude.

I've got to stop now. Business beckons. I will return to this.
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.

[DGM]

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?

[TjW]

[/qimg]http://phunkadelic.org/duck.jpg[/qimg]

Jammonius:
I see this as clear and indisputable evidence that the WTC complex was destroyed by the Soul Cake Duck. She instantaneously laid heavy non-melting chocolate eggs throughout the upper blocks. This quickly overloaded the structure, resulting in the collapse.
For the people investigating the collapse, the eggs did not exist, because they did not believe in the Soul Cake Duck. As we all should know, if you do not believe in the Soul Cake Duck, you do not receive chocolate eggs from the Soul Cake Duck. (I will not address, at this time, what you receive if you do believe in the Soul Cake Duck.)

I'm perfectly willing to put this substantive claim up against your vague handwaving.

I have stated what destroyed the complex: an anthropomorphic personification from a popular author's imagined universe.
I have been specific about what kind of anthropomorphic personification: the Soul Cake Duck.
I have been specific about how it destroyed the complex.

You have done none of these things. You do not have a claim.

[jhunter1163]

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

[Bananaman]

I haven't read all this thread, because to be honest, the idea proposed is bollocks.

We're not living in a Star Wars movie, we're living in 2008 where children still starve and most people regard a mobile phone as advanced technology.

If anyone, as the title of this thread suggests, imagines that some sort of laser beam ******** brought down the twin towers, or any other similar bullcrap theory, then as I've already said, and been told off off about, they're living in Wizard of Oz land.

Bananaman.

[sts60]

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?
DGM, I'm not a laser guy. I believe the beam director on the ABL is 1.8 m in diameter but I don't know the beam spread/focusing characteristics.

[R.Mackey]

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?

The width depends on mission. The beam will spread over distance, limited by optical size and optical quality. Paradoxically, the smaller the beam is when it starts, the faster it spreads. Think of it as a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle issue -- you are defining beam position with higher precision, so you are forced to give up precision in the beam's "velocity," actually diffraction.

So if you're working in the lab, and your optical path length is a dozen meters or so, you can work with a very tight and efficient beam. If your range is hundreds of kilometers, you will deliberately use a beam that is initially larger to help control the spread.

I'd have to know more about the ABL's planned mission, i.e. engagement range, to guess about the beam width. In press reports they speak of the beam being "about the size of a basketball," which feels correct.

[Bananaman]

R. Mackey, I have to applaud your ability to remain straight-faced and rational when confronted with total crap. (How you don't show your giggling muscles showing defeats me.)

I wish I had the same cool and rational response as you, replying in a way that tried to explain why nonsense is nonsense.

Unfortunately I tend to just say, "what a load of bollocks".

Bananaman.

[R.Mackey]

R. Mackey, I have to applaud your ability to remain straight-faced and rational when confronted with total crap. (How you don't show your giggling muscles showing defeats me.)

I wish I had the same cool and rational response as you, replying in a way that tried to explain why nonsense is nonsense.

Unfortunately I tend to just say, "what a load of bollocks".

Bananaman.

It's easy. I only respond if there's something to be learned, and hang the context in which it's spoken.

Most of the time, anyway. :D

[Drs_Res]

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?