Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[sylvan8798]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Your delusions know no bounds.

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

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

[sheeplesnshills]

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (SAIC)

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[Macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

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

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

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

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

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

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968

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

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

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

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

Sorry I missed that. Mea Culpa.

[sts60]

Originally Posted by jammonius

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

No. As was explained at some length in the Directed-energy weapons and the WTC thread, ARA does not manufacture directed-energy weapons.

Originally Posted by jammonius

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

Unsupported personal opinion.


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

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

[Bell]

Originally Posted by sts60

And where was it supposed to have been?

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



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

More info.

[Macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Sorry I missed that. Mea Culpa.

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

[jammonius]

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968

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

Macgyver,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile,

all the best

[jammonius]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

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

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

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

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

[Macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by jammonius

Macgyver,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile,

all the best

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

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

[jammonius]

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bell]

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

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

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by jammonius

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

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

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

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

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Bell

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

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

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

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

[sheeplesnshills]

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

[/quote]

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

[TSR]

Originally Posted by TSR

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

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

Funny, that...
.

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

[GlennB]

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

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



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

[sylvan8798]

Dust hanging from the front of 90 West Street.

90west.jpg

[Thunder]

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

that is all.

[jammonius]

Originally Posted by Thunder

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

that is all.

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

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

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

Pun intended!

[A W Smith]

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

Edited by LashL:

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

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by sts60

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

[TSR]

Originally Posted by TSR

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

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

Funny, that...
.

.
Maybe I'm on ignore?

Could someone please quote me so Jamm sees this?
.

[sylvan8798]

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

[sts60]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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

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

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

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

This claim has been quantitatively analyzed by four separate posters - myself, myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch. Each analysis has shown how unphysical is the silly notion that directed-energy weapons "dustified" the WTC structures.

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

Originally Posted by Oystein

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

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

Originally Posted by Oystein

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

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

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

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

[sheeplesnshills]

Quote:

jammonius;5815194]

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

Posted By:LashL

Have a look see:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/...1demobelow.gif

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

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

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

[Macgyver1968]

Jam,

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

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

[sylvan8798]

How about a giant belt sander?

Now, where's that photoshop expert?

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

How about a giant belt sander?

Now, where's that photoshop expert?

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

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

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by jammonius

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

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

surprise...surprise.

folks who ignore evidence are not worth debating with.

[Bell]

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

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

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Bell

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

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

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

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

that is why its pointless to debate them.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Bell

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

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

He could look at a picture of that ship ....

http://nygoe.files.wordpress.com/200...s-new-york.jpg

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by TSR

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

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

He does not do science, he does delusional fantasy; and he does it so good.

[dudalb]

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

[LashL]

Originally Posted by GlennB

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

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

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/g...sivedetail.jpg

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

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

Dust hanging from the front of 90 West Street.

Attachment 17558

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

[W.D.Clinger]

From the April and May 1998 issues of The mini-Annals of Improbable Research (mini-AIR):

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

Investigator Dave Thomson:

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

[Bell]

Originally Posted by LashL

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...5036df19bb.jpg

Do you also notice how flat the pile is?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Bell

Do you also notice how flat the pile is?

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

[Scott Sommers]

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

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

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