How Many People Have Actually Read Judy Wood's Directed Energy Weapon article?

[spooked911]

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

some of the interesting phenomena she discusses:

[petgoat]

1. Good work, spooked. Dr. Wood addresses a lot of issues

others ignore. The holes in the street were a new one on me.

[jberryhill]

17. So, you agree that there were no "pools of molten metal"

Here is what this "paper" says on the subject:


There are other reasons to doubt the stories of "pools of molten metal." First, the stories of molten metal come from interested parties like the head of Tully Construction and Controlled Demolition, Inc. Second, there are no photos of molten metal that we believe are reliable. Third, there are no photos of the solidified molten metal after it cooled either in place or being carried out. There's no evidence of molten metal before, during, or after. Fourth, the molten metal may be a cover story to hide the grim truth.

So there you have it - the "molten metal" thing is a cover story made up by OCT'ers.

[petgoat]

24. I didn't say that. I said Dr. Wood covered some issues everyone else ignored. nr

[jberryhill]

25. Well, which issues?

Her statements on the lack of molten metal pools seems to have been ignored by some. So don't leave us in the dark here.

[Big Pappa]

2. When were they hit

with the beams? Before or after the planes? And I guess these beams are invisible also.

[spooked911]

6. I take it that is a "no"

[CB_Brooklyn]

3. Useful Information...

Where is the Evidence for 20+ Miles of Steel Beams at Ground Zero?
http://www.911researchers.com/node/123


Evidence for Existence of Directed Energy Weapons
http://www.911researchers.com/node/25

[hack89]

4. You do realize, don't you ...

that the WTC were built in a huge hole in the ground - remember all those subterranean floors? That's where all your steel is - below street level.

[spooked911]

5. No, that's a point discussed in the article.

The basement regions were not collapsed in any major way.

How do you know the steel was in the subterranean floors?

[petgoat]

8. He knows the steel was in the basement just like I knew

"the four simultaneous attacks were all over in fifteen minutes and
NORAD had no time to respond."

I made it up, because it was the only thing that made sense.

When I found out it wasn't true, I opened my eyes.

[greyl]

9. .

We had agreed with the overall commander Mohamed Atta, may God rest his soul, to carry out all operations in 20 minutes -- before Bush and his administration could take notice. It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers. This gave us three times the time needed to carry out the operations, thanks be to God." - obl

Oh, I'm sorry, are we off the topic of Judy Wood's arguments? How did that happen?

[petgoat]

10. You are; we aren't. The subject of the missing steel is very much

on topic for Dr. Woods's argument.

[greyl]

11. I must have missed your argument in post #8.

No I didn't, there isn't one.

[MervinFerd]

12. Greyl, this whole Wood business is too f'ing stupid to even bother with.

There's no way to refute utter nonsense.

Let's just keep this one Bumped for the amusement value and to discredit the whole Truther movement.

I talked with "The Boss" about this and she agrees.

[petgoat]

15. Post 8 was about subsituting what made sense for what was. nt

[CJCRANE]

109. OBL'S statement adds to LIHOP

in that Bushco basically let the whole drama play out over 90 minutes without doing much to stop it.

If you add the 9/11 financiers with Bushco connections that's where the MIHOP possibility comes in.

All this stuff about space beams is irrelevant.

[MervinFerd]

13. ""How do you know the steel was in the subterranean floors?"

Jeebus f''ing Christ on a MoPed stark naked and eating a Snicker's bar!

Where else could it have gone? And WTF was that stuff they were hauling out of the pit for months on end? What's that stuff they show at the end of the Judy Wood interview?

O' Yeah! It was subjected to "Dustification" by unknown energy sources!

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously! Indeed.

Just keeping this one bumped, so anyone looking into this forum will get the -correct- impression.

[petgoat]

14. "Where else could it have gone?"

Right. My reasoning exactly when I created the
"four simultaneous aerial assaults" model out of whole
cloth. How else could the attacks have succeeded, fer
cryin' out loud?

When I challenged OCTers to provide pictures of unpulverized
concrete, all they could show me was basement floor slabs,
which were mostly unbroken with at least one large hole.

The floor slabs alone should have made a pile 37 feet high.
How high was the steel piled, and how high should it have been
piled?

How many tons of steel were hauled away.

Don't think I believe Dr. Wood's theory--I don't. But I think
it deserves some thought because it addresses issues, like the
energy deficit and the burned cars, that are not addressed by
other theories.

[hack89]

16. What energy deficit ?

as far a I know, the truth community hasn't even bothered to calculate the PE of the towers so how can they say there is an energy deficit?

Why would there be intact concrete floors? It was un-reinforced and subjected to enormous forces in three dimensions.

[MervinFerd]

19. The one in Judy Wood's brain.

I hate to pile on to someone with an obvious deficit, but -she- has put herself in the public eye. Using her advanced degrees to sell balderdash.

[petgoat]

23. The energy deficit identified in Jim Hoffman's paper

"The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion
of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center."

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html

Hoffman uses the FEMA estimate of the potential energy of each tower:
4 x 10^11 joules or 111,000 KWH.

Gordon Ross calculates the kinetic energy of the falling tower
as 2.105 GJ.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html

<Why would there be intact concrete floors?>

I didn't say they'd be intact. But since there was no mechanism for the
expulsion of dust, even if they were dustified the dust should have remained
in place, particularly since it was restrained under carpet and vinyl flooring.

[hack89]

26. So have Hoffman's calculations been peer reviewed ..

so we know that they are valid? What other peer reviewed work has he done that would give anyone confidence that he knew what he was talking about? Have any of his work been published before?

[petgoat]

33. Jim Hoffman's paper has been under review for some time, so

for me the issue remains open. He said the dust clouds
required 10X the potential energy available in the towers.

Presumably the paper is under review because somebody had
some issues with his numbers, and I don't know where the
matter stands now.

The question remains open. Since Dr. Wood's theory is the
only one that can explain these energy deficits, Dr. Wood's
theory remains credible to me until another energy source can
be proposed, or until the energy deficit is shown to be
non-existent.

[hack89]

46. So where was it published?

isn't a requirement for peer review that a paper be published in a recognized journal?

[MervinFerd]

51. Journal of Irreproducible Results

O' NO! That one folded.

But, I will always treasure the paper entitled: Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown.

Truly a classic.

[petgoat]

53. Please Merv, the grownups are talking. Where's your Spongebob DVD? nt

[hack89]

57. So where was it published? nt

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

81. ;-)

[TheWraith]

100. No mechanism for the expulsion of dust? How about the air rushing out of the collapsing towers?

This is living proof of the saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing--pseudoscience being used to convey an aura of truthiness.

For starters, Hoffman cites the energy of each tower as 400 gigajoules. That's the equivalent of 1.2 million sticks of dynamite. Do you really believe that there's no energy there to produce a dust cloud, or that the carpet and vinyl flooring should have remained intact?

[hpot]

103. You Need Inertia

You would need massive inertia to explain the top floor's explosive behavior. Sorry, that theory is inapplicable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

You don't need to be a physicist to understand it takes an explosive force to pulverize and propel all that material shown in various pictures. I hope more people wake up to the reality of what really happened. Why can't the OCTers come up with a better explanation than friction from compressed air?

-Simple air friction doesn't blow people up into "kibbles n bits"
-Simple air friction doesn't blow people up into "kibbles n bits" & throw the remains across the street (onto rooftops of other buildings)
-Simple air friction doesn't pulverize concrete into fine dust
-Simple air friction doesn't propel large steel beams.

If the OCTers theories were true, anyone that uses a hair blower would be at risk of losing their scalp.

[MervinFerd]

18. Whatever. -Pleaase- stop with these attempts at humor. -Please-

Nobody can be this dense in real life.

Just please be serious.

[spooked911]

31. I asked for a reference that a significant amount of steel was below the ground

is that too much to ask?

Why should we assume that it was below ground?

Judy Wood nor I never said no steel was on the ground. The point was that there is less than expected. By my estimation there are far few too many core columns in the debris pile than there should have been-- it's not even close.

By the way, the ground zero clean-up was MUCH faster than expected-- consistent with less steel being there.

[petgoat]

34. There should have been ASCE members there, photographing

and logging every piece as it came off the pile, and
flagging those of interest. Every piece had a stamped
ID number. Thus the pieces from the impact floors
and from the region of the squibs could have been
identified and preserved.

The ASCE researchers were excluded from the site except
for a guided walk-through tour.

[LARED]

58. You think the ASCE members should have logged every piece

of steel as it came off the pile? Really? Do you know what the ASCE is?

Why would they do that? They are a society, not an investigative arm of the government. If the government did ask their assistance you would tell me they are tainted because if that relationship.

[AZCat]

59. More importantly...

how is anyone going to log all the so-called "stamped" pieces of steel? Sure, they were marked, but what happens when a piece breaks in half? How are you going to register the half that doesn't have the mark? Or what happens when the mark gets damaged to the point of illegibility when the piece falls the height of the building into a pile of debris?

And what are you going to do when you've collected all these pieces? Where and how are you going to assemble them? The CTers throw this stuff out there like the ASCE/SEA/NIST can actually do it, without any thought whatsoever of the feasibility of such an undertaking.

[petgoat]

61. Those involved in messy sciences like geology and biology

and archaeology take their samples as they can, and use brainwork as they must.

When a piece breaks in half, you log the half piece with the number, and you log
half pieces without numbers. If you get the chance, you line them up and mate them.

When the mark gets damaged you log what you can read, and use * wildcards for what you
can't. A process of elimination will allow you to home in on the number.

It seems to me that the steel from the impact zones would have been well worth assembling.

[AZCat]

64. Uh-huh. And the second part of my post?

Where exactly are you going to store and assemble this material until you can identify and analyze the various parts?

I agree that theoretically it would be a good idea, but I just don't think saving all the steel was feasible and I don't think the difficulty of doing it (feasible or not) is acknowledged by the CTers.

[petgoat]

69. "I just don't think saving all the steel was feasible "

Right. That's why I tossed JFK's brain in the burn bag. We can't save
all the brains in the world, and we'd soon be up to our earlobes in brains!

I said "flagging the pieces of interest." I would guess there would be
relatively few. Those from the impact floors, those showing fire
damage, those showing unusual damage. And those necessary to resolve
ID problems from damaged numbers and broken pieces.

I mean, what was the huge hurry to clean up Fresh Kills?

There were places near the water where steel could have been stored.
Liberty Park, for instance, Great Kills, maybe Rikers Island, Caven Point,
the industrial wasteland of Newark Bay, Floyd Bennet Field perhaps.

[AZCat]

80. Wow - what an asinine comparison.

Logic like this just brings the whole discussion down. I would like to think you are capable of better forming your arguments.

Let's look at what you said in post #34 of this thread:

petgoat
34. There should have been ASCE members there, photographing
and logging every piece as it came off the pile, and
flagging those of interest. Every piece had a stamped
ID number. Thus the pieces from the impact floors
and from the region of the squibs could have been
identified and preserved.

The ASCE researchers were excluded from the site except
for a guided walk-through tour.

You do realize that "flagging the pieces of interest" is exactly what SEANY did? Logging every piece (and doing as you suggest in post #61 - mating broken pieces together) would take an enormous number of man-hours and a considerable allocation of space, especially if the investigators are going to try to satisfy the requirements of every armchair engineer out there.

[petgoat]

88. Ah, you label the metaphor asinine, but provide no

specific criticism, and then you complain of logic breaking down.

Then you argue from the basis of expedience, rather than science,
about what should have been done.

Well I can argue from expedience too: Perhaps a couple hundred thou
allocated to cataloguing the steel would have obviated at least part
of a $20 million NIST investigation that failed to provide convincing
answers and will remain a corrosive monument in history to the decline
of this once-great nation.

SEANY's flagging was obviously not sufficient because they managed to miss
every single piece of steel that would have validated NIST's claims.

This is not about satisfying "the requirements of every armchair engineer"
or "preserving every piece of steel."

The destruction of the towers provided a great opportunity to advance
materials science. Instead of being exploited as such in an open manner,
the investigations were hampered by secrecy and inadequate funding.

[AZCat]

89. You want specific criticism? Fine.

Keeping JFK's brain would have involved no extraordinary effort, but keeping all the steel would have. Am I arguing from a basis of expedience? Of course, but it is ignorant to propose a project without considering how to accomplish it (and whether it is feasible). I don't know why that was apparent to you in the beginning, but I guess I have to spell such things out for you.

I'll tackle the rest of your claims one by one.

Then you argue from the basis of expedience, rather than science,
about what should have been done.

Well I can argue from expedience too: Perhaps a couple hundred thou
allocated to cataloguing the steel would have obviated at least part
of a $20 million NIST investigation that failed to provide convincing
answers and will remain a corrosive monument in history to the decline
of this once-great nation.

Aside from the rhetoric, just because the answers the NIST investigation provided are not convincing to you doesn't mean the professional communities involved don't find the answers illuminating. Perhaps if you asked some of those members for an opinion you might see why this is.

SEANY's flagging was obviously not sufficient because they managed to miss
every single piece of steel that would have validated NIST's claims.

"Obviously" you failed to read the NIST report, particularly when it discusses why it was unable to corroborate certain other evidence, even though it had the pieces from the critical areas.

TThis is not about satisfying "the requirements of every armchair engineer"
or "preserving every piece of steel."

Bullshit. The only way the CTers will ever be satisfied is if the NIST rebuilds the WTC towers (and building 7), slams planes into the towers and observes the results.

TThe destruction of the towers provided a great opportunity to advance
materials science. Instead of being exploited as such in an open manner,
the investigations were hampered by secrecy and inadequate funding.

If you actually knew anything about materials science you would understand why there wasn't anything about the collapses that the materials science community didn't already know. More importantly, what exactly do you consider "secret" about the investigation?

[petgoat]

90. There you go again.

:banghead:

Nobody suggested retaining all the steel. Retaining all the steel would be like retaining
all the brains in the world. Destroying the steel that told the tale was like destroying
JFK's brain.

Then you suggest that finding NIST unconvincing is unreasonable when professionals find
it illuminating--a meaningless term in this context.

The only way the CTers will ever be satisfied...

That stale argument doesn't even qualify as a straw man. It's a straw guinea pig.

Speaking of rebuilding the towers for tests, why doesn't somebody build three stories of
floors, perimeter columns, and core-side anchors; flood em with flaming jet fuel, and see
if they can get saggy floors to buckle the perimeter columns? Pretty please?

It's pretty obvious why not. They know the glove won't fit.

what exactly do you consider "secret" about the investigation?

That ASCE researchers were not allowed on the site except in a guided tour, that they
had difficulty getting access to the blueprints, that the steel was destroyed before
the samples that would have told the tale could be preserved.

[AZCat]

91. The results of the NIST study are not considered to be...

unconvincing by professionals in the associated communities. Don't take my word for it - go ask a few yourself. My point is simple - just because you don't have the technical background to understand the NIST report doesn't mean that it isn't unconvincing - it just means that you don't understand it. The same point applies to your question about rebuilding a section of the towers, and your point about the steel samples being destroyed. I repeat again (because that seems to be necessary) - you don't know what you are talking about. So if we're going to point out anyone who is "going again" it is you.

[petgoat]

92. The NIST report is Bush Science. It frames the questions

dishonestly, it makes up the data it wants, it fudges the experiments,
and it ignores its own experiments when they don't provide the desired
results.

Why don't you write a book explaining to those of us who are too dense
and uneducated to understand why you don't need steel samples to back
up the temperatures you reverse-engineered from the fact of the collapse,
and there's nothing even unfortunate, let alone suspicious, about the
premature destruction of the steel?

Why don't you write a book explaining why it was just too complicated
to log the id numbers of the steel as they came off the pile?

Why don't you write a book explaining why it's completely impractical to
build a 40' X 70' X 80' test bench to demonstrate the supposed mechanism
of the collapse?



Keeping JFK's brain would have involved no extraordinary effort, but
keeping all the steel would have.

That your "specific criticism" of my "asinine" metaphor was completely
off the mark suggests that you'd better leave the abstract reasoning
to others.

[AZCat]

99. IOW, "Bush Science" equals anything petgoat doesn't understand.

I'd write a book, but for two reasons:

1. Whatever I wrote you still wouldn't understand because these aren't issues for laypeople. You need at least some fundamental understanding of engineering principles to engage in productive discussion about the collapses of the towers (an understanding that you have yet to display).

2. The NIST already went to the trouble to lay it all out. Again, if you'd read it (and understand it, although I know this is tough for you) you would find answers for your questions or at least explanations of your questions are irrelevant or wrong-headed.

You clearly don't understand what would be required for cataloging the steel as it was removed from the debris pile (even if it wasn't all saved), and that failure to understand is reflected in your perception of the metaphor.

Get a clue, petgoat, or you're just going to continue to look foolish.

[TheWraith]

101. You're misinformed.

"Speaking of rebuilding the towers for tests, why doesn't somebody build three stories of floors, perimeter columns, and core-side anchors; flood em with flaming jet fuel, and see if they can get saggy floors to buckle the perimeter columns?"

Because that would mean nothing, any more than the "experiment" some CTer did using chicken wire and cinder blocks. When you don't have the structural damage, you don't have the level of stresses, and you don't have the building's contents--particularly the plastics, which would have provided another boost to the fire--then it's not an experiment that has any applicabilty to the real world situation. You might as well build a model house out of Legos, then pour water on top of it and call it a flooding simulation.

So it would be expensive, have no actual meaning, and even if they did it, it wouldn't satisfy people who don't want to believe any more than the thousands of computer simulations have.

"That ASCE researchers were not allowed on the site except in a guided tour, that they had difficulty getting access to the blueprints, that the steel was destroyed before the samples that would have told the tale could be preserved."

None of that is actually true. The ASCE people had free access to the site, since they were part of the Building Performance Assessment Team. If you do a little research, you'll find out that they spent six days in early October going over the site and taking samples, as well as having collected reports from others before that.

More to the point, the steel was not hastily destroyed as you try to imply. In fact, it was available for months afterward.

[petgoat]

60. ASCE did the FEMA report, I guess you didn't know. nt

[LARED]

62. That not quite true, now is it?

In the wake of the attack a group of engineers from the the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) volunteered to invistigate the structural responses of the WTC buildings to the September 11 attack. Eventually FEMA took over the investigation of the ASCE volunteers, dubbing them the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT).

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

[MervinFerd]

63. Yes, it's too much to ask.

Jeebus F'ing Christ riding a red gelding naked except for cowboy boots and eating a tangerine!

You want somebody to ---document--- that steel was not "dustificated" by Death Beams from Space during the colllapse??????

Jeebus holy shit! If there is a bigger crock of BS anywhere in the world, I'd like somebody to point it out.

Could we also get documentation of the absence of Romulan Disruptor Cannon in the International Space Station?

[petgoat]

67. The reaction to my request for pictures of unpulverized

concrete was pretty similar. "Everybody knows there's gobs of broken concrete
all over ground zero." Wrong. Nobody could provide a picture of concrete,
except the floor slabs of the basement.

The floor slabs alone should have made a pile 37 feet high. With steel interpolated,
you'd think we'd have a pile much higher than that.

It wouldn't be difficult to do some quick and dirty calculations of how high the pile
should have been.

[MervinFerd]

71. "do some quick and dirty calculations of how high the pile should have been"

Yes. Should not the people making extraordinary claims have done this before spring their theory on the world?

Unless Dr. Wood can provide some (even a stupid) explanation of how tons of steel and concrete could just disappear, she remains a pathetic nutcase.

And the reputations for intelligence of the people defending her will not improve.

[petgoat]

73. Who has explained the pulverization of the concrete, except

through the invocation of impractical gazillions of tons of TNT?

That the dustification of the steel can not be explained does not
mean it didn't happen. I agree, Dr. Wood should calculate how high
the debris pile should be rather than claim that there isn't one.
Still, why don't you calculate it, just for fun.

Don't forget the 37 feet of floor slabs.

[MervinFerd]

82. No explanation is needed.

From a previous post by an actual engineer:

The concrete was unreinforced slab. It broke into pieces while falling 1000 feet.

It's only a single unpublished and uncredentialed individual who maintains that the concrete was "pulverized".

This is a mystery without a question.

[petgoat]

87. It didn't break into pieces. Where are the pieces?

It was pulverized into dust in mid air. Open your eyes.

[MervinFerd]

94. Some was pulverized; some was in pieces. What's hard about this?

[MervinFerd]

95. Some was pulverized; some was in pieces. What's hard about this?

[petgoat]

96. There are no pieces of concrete. Show me the pieces. nt

[MervinFerd]

104. Show me the beam weapon. Show me "dustificated" steel.

Show me to the bathroom.

[MervinFerd]

7. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

I've read it.

[Big Pappa]

20. Beam me up Scotty!

:bounce:

[MervinFerd]

21. Maybe the towers were -transported- into space!!

Could the steel in the Twin Towers be orbiting the Earth?

Beamed there by top-secret transporter technology?

"Just asking questions" (tm)
"You can't prove it's not true!" (tm)

[Big Pappa]

22. When did

we start building the Int. space station? Hmm. You may be right.

[MervinFerd]

27. Good point. There are a lot of really -odd- looking components...

on that station.

And wasn't the Challenger coming back from the Space Station when it crashed? Could this be a coincidence? I think not.

[petgoat]

35. Please guys. This ain't the (very) amateur comedy hour. nt

[MervinFerd]

45. You think it is -funny- that steel from the WTC -could- be part of the ISS?

I don't.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

28. Yet more PROOF

of the Romulan MIHOP theory.

[MervinFerd]

29. Yes, a Romulan Disruptor might well account for "Dustification"

Disrupt the bonds that hold matter together and it just flies apart.

Like toast in a microwave.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

30. why wasn't the "molten steel" tested for disruptor residue?

A glaring omission as far as I'm concerned and points to MIHOP. Is BushCo working with the Romulans, or is BushCo a front for the Tal Shiar?

[MervinFerd]

38. Yes, there would be a distinctive "energy signature".

It would show up on the Tri-Corder immediately.

Clearly a coverup.

[spooked911]

32. so you read the article or not?

[petgoat]

36. They don't "read" "articles". They just throw spitballs, nt

[MervinFerd]

41. You can''t disprove it. Why do you always dismiss new ideas?

Just because the MSM won't cover the possibility of Romulan Disruptors, you can't even open your mind to the possibility. You just constantly repeat the standard Truth Movement orthodoxy and cannot conceive of new ideas.

[petgoat]

43. I am open to new ideas when they

have some evidence to support them and when they have some bearing
on explaining reality.

When they have neither, I don't waste my time.

Your all-new-ideas-are-equivalent notion is simple Fox News
there-is-no-science,-only-opinion b.s.

[MervinFerd]

44. Can you provide --even one-- shred of proof that Romulan Disruptors were

not used to destroy those towers?

Just one bit of -proof-.

You are just prejudiced against the idea because the MSM considers it "Loony" and you are not willing to even -consider- the possibility that the Romulan command might attack the US without provocation.

"Denial" is not a river in Egypt.

[petgoat]

47. Proof is rare in my world. I deal in evidence.

The lack of evidence that there are any Romulans leads me to
discount hypotheses involving them.

Fiction is not evidence. You could as easily provide evidence
for angels as Romulans.

[MervinFerd]

49. "First you find out what happened; then you decide how it happened."---

Approximate quote from Dr. Judy Wood.

Dr. Wood --proved-- that the steel in the towers was subjected to "dustification". There is no known or theoretically possible way to "dustify" steel.

Romulan Disruptor Rays disrupt steel.

THEREFORE, the towers were destroyed by Romulan Disruptor Rays.

YOU CAN'T PROVIDE ONE SHRED OF PROOF IT'S NOT TRUE!

[petgoat]

54. The Romulan Dustification Ray is simply a variation on the

Invisible Jewish Elves gambit, otherwise known as the poo pie topping play.

[MervinFerd]

55. "Invisible Jewish Elves"?? Please stay on topic. We are discussing...

Romulan Disruptor Rays.

[petgoat]

75. It is on Topic. Romulan Disruptors=Invisible Jewish Elves= Poo Pie Topping

You take a perfectly good pie, like the notion that unknown parties
planted explosives in the WTC towers after midnight, or the notion
that exotic weapons that might exploit the magnetic or crystal nature
of steel to cause ts destruction.

You take that perfecly good pie and you put a poo topping on it,
making the unknown parties invisible and jewish and non-human or
making the exotic weapon the creation of a fictional race,
and you try to claim that the entire pie is poo.

It's a juvenile tactic.

[MervinFerd]

37. Yes I read it. --Definite-- proof of Romulan Disruptor fire.

How could anyone doubt it?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

39. They can't disprove it

Also why won't the US authorities release their "evidence?" If the Romulans weren't involved then surely they'd want to prove that to everyone.

Why is there absolute silence in the msm about the Romulan theory? We're just asking questions, why are people afraid of these questions? Why are people doing the msm's job by trying to shut-down debate on Romulan/BushCo MIHOP? Yeah, like this is all a big coincidence. :eyes:

[petgoat]

48. There's no need to disprove it. There's no evidence for it. nt

[Anarcho-Socialist]

50. But doesn't it make you suspicious?

It's obvious that BushCo at the behest of the Tal Shiar would have covered up the evidence. The possibility has not been thoroughly investigated which surely suggests that BushCo wishes to avoid an investigation of its links with Romulus.

[petgoat]

52. There is no evidence that Tal Shiar exists outside of fiction.

You may as well invoke angels.

[MervinFerd]

56. Please provide evidence Tai Shiar does NOT exist.

Fiction often reflects Deep Reality.

I am a believer in Deep Reality. With Deep Reality, I can prove things without actually providing any facts.

[jberryhill]

65. 68% of the American Public Believes In Angels

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=618

Well, well, well... so angels are now "fiction".

There are eyewitness accounts of angels. You discount these?

[petgoat]

66. OK, poor example. You may as well invoke Mighty Mouse as Tai Shiar. nt

[MervinFerd]

68. What's the difference between Romulan Disruptors & Dustification Beams?

There is no claim that Romulan Disruptors are anything except fiction.

Dustification Beams -are- fiction, but the authors claims they are real.

Why is one more plausible than the other?

[petgoat]

70. Romulan Disruptors are fiction. There are no Romulans.

The existence of secret exotic high-energy weapons of some kind
is an entirely reasonable speculation. There is no reason to
suppose they had to operate from outer space.

[MervinFerd]

72. Exotic weapons that could "Dustificate" tons of steel and concrete....

are every bit as fictitious as Romulan Disruptors.

Very basic physics determine the quantity of energy necessary to "dustificate" steel (or concrete). That quantity is enormous and could not be supplied by an earth-bound power grid, much less an orbiting satellite. Further, there is no known -form- of energy that would not target steel and concrete. This is complete fiction.

[petgoat]

74. You are claiming knowledge of what is not possible in secret

military labs in the most highly funded and technologically
sophisticated military establishment in the history of the
world--that is, when you're not pretending to be an
eight-year-old.

[spooked911]

78. Indeed

[jberryhill]

84. Here's the thing about "what's possible" and secret labs

It's not as if weapons scientists live in some different universe from the rest of us, or went to engineering school at some secret academy. Long before, say, stealth airplanes were rolled out of a hangar for the press, it's not as if it was any great mystery in the technical community generally that various contractors were working on research into the radar signatures of composite materials, and a lot of the basic work in radar absorption was focussed on anti-reflective technology for a long time. It was no great mystery why.

Maybe it has something to do with the types of social contacts one has had over time. I graduated with a doctorate in electrical engineering. Do I know people who work at DoD labs and at such places as Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, EG&G and so on? Sure. Anyone with an advanced technical degreee does, because that's where a lot of the work is. Do any of them talk about what, specifically, they do. Of course not. That's not allowed. But questions along the line of what, generally, is being investigated at these kinds of places is not any kind of secret. In order to do weapons research, you still have to attend technical conferences, engage academic researchers, and engage in the normal conversation that goes on in one's field. You can hire a bunch of smart guys and give them money out the wazoo - it doesn't make them any smarter. They still have to interact with the larger technical community. You can hold an edge on certain technologies, but not generally in the government labs so much as in the private ones. Over the last couple of decades the lag behind the most advanced "secret" technology and that which is generally known has shrunk more than it has expanded.

What Wood's article says is two things:

1 - "Here are things that look odd to me"

2 - "Since 1945, things like microwave ovens and high powered lasers were invented"

Therefore, the WTC collapse was the result of microwave ovens and high powered lasers.

Now, poking a hole sufficient to damage a missile in flight with a laser under experimental conditions, such that the missile then breaks up, is one thing. Vaporizing two of the largest buildings on earth has utterly no relationship to microwave ovens, laser beams, or other forms of directed energy weapons such as pain field transmitters and other gadgets which have never really been shown to be practically useful for any large scale purpose.

So you can keep asking "have you read it" until the cows come home, but I don't know what it is you want by that. The "text" such as it is, is pretty sketchy, and there are no solid conclusions of anything in particular.


Nor do we make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it was HAARP, what kind of acelerator was used, nor do we claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts were in the weapon.

I like that last bit. Sarcasm is an important element of academic research, and it takes away from the fine conclusion of "We don't know WTF happened, but it had to be a directed energy weapon."

I love "sound waves". I'd like to see the generator for that sound wave machine. I'd like to see Wood at least attempt a back-of-the-envelope calculation on how much energy is required for what she attributes to this electro-acoustic-opti-maybe-but-something-different beam machine.

But if there is a beam weapon that turns steel into dust, there are a coupla sure bets on the table. One is that it took more than one guy with a pile of money in a cave at Los Alamos to conceive, design, research, and build it. Another thing is that any of the team that worked on it would know it when they saw it. And three is the same old three that you can always count on - someone is going to talk.

We have a White House here that devolves into a fingerpointingfest over who revealed the name of one intelligence agent. But they're all hanging tough on this one? I don't believe it.

[petgoat]

85. "someone is going to talk."

It was forty years before it came out that the Tonkin Gulf incident
was faked--even though hundreds of sailors knew it.

It was forty years before Operation Northwoods came out.

Your assumption is not justified.

Secrecy is the basic fact of professionalism in military research.

I suspect that frequently the basis of security clearance is
blackmailability. You want your secrets kept, you keep our secrets,
and everybody gets along fine. You do want to get along fine, don't
you? Indira Singh got that lecture. "You've got a good gig here,
lots of money. Don't blow it."

[MervinFerd]

93. Mr. Goat, please stop with the fake obtuse act! Please.

Nobody is as dumb as you pretend to be.

Tonkin Gulf-- a PR stunt. Never was an investigation, never was physical damage, never was physical evidence, never was a major research project. Gun boats -did- get too close. Some sailor -did- get excited. The rest was BS and that was plain from the start.

Operation Northwoods-- a piece of paper. Sat in a file. Never went anywhere.

As JB explained, a major research project would involve hundreds of very smart people interacting with their professional colleagues over many years. You just CANNOT be dense enough to think that is comparable to Tonkin Gulf and Northwoods.

Just could not happen.

[jberryhill]

102. Another basic fact of military research

...is developing and testing weapons that are eventually deployed.

If you want to believe that the military has developed a steel dustification ray capable of disintegrating 80 stories of building, while in the meantime no weapon, not even a smaller cousin designed for opening holes in tents, has been deployed, you are entitled to that belief.

No EM-beam based weapon is going to penetrate a huge dust cloud composed of the material it is designed to destroy. It is the fundamental problem that has always been encountered with using high-powered lasers to destroy things - the vapor produced by initial ablation of the material interferes with the beam. It's a far cry from poking a hole using a short signal directed at a speeding missile, which is easily de-stabilized to begin with.

[piobair]

76. Maybe Nebula was right,

The steel just caught fire and burned up.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

40. Yes I did

PROOF!!!1

I am emailing this to Alex Jones right now.

[MervinFerd]

42. Yes, -definite- proof.

There is no known method of "dustification" of steel and vaporizing steel would require enormous quantities of energy.

Since it is -proved- that the steel is missing, the only possible explanation is Romulan Disruptor Technology.

The only place the disruptor could be located is the International Space Station.

What a wonderful thing Science is! We can deduce such enormous things on such a tiny investment in facts.

[spooked911]

77. Yes, "dustification" of steel sounds far-fetched

but as far as I can tell, there was quite a bit of steel missing from ground zero, not to mention the seismic signal was lower than expected for the collapse.

[petgoat]

79. Non-scientists seem not to understand that assembling all the evidence

that is consistent with a given theory is not the same as espousing
that theory.

Until you get the data all sorted out, how can you have an opinion?

Maybe there are explanations other than Dr. Wood's exotic energy beam.
Suppose some oxidizing agent painted on the core columns in the
elevator shafts, or something in an aerosol.

[MervinFerd]

83. No shit!

"As far as I can tell"? steel was missing?

And you know this, how?

And on the basis of this weak argument, you are willing to postulate a complete unknown, unprecedented and theoretically impossible technology.

Right.

OK.

Moving right along now.

You are pulling our leg again, right?

[William Seger]

86. Where have you looked?

[MervinFerd]

97. Good point. Maybe it was lost under WTC 7. Or eaten by Steel Beatles.

[CB_Brooklyn]

106. Metal Turned To Dust

Scroll to 1:26:55 in the following video to see a metal bar partially turned to dust using Zero Point Energy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7485732493597773138&q=zero+point

[eyl]

107. From wikipedia entry

on the Hutchinson Effect:

There is no acceptance of Hutchison's claims among mainstream scientists, even among those who study non-mainstream physics. In a posting to the newsgroup sci.physics.research, Marc Millis, who formerly ran the now defunct Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program for NASA, wrote:

This "Hutchison Effect" has been claimed for years, without any independent verification - ever. In fact, its originator can't even replicate it on demand. This has been investigated more than once, been part of documentaries on the discovery channel, but still never seems to pass critical muster. This is in the category of folklore. In general, the "American Antigravity" web site caters to such folklore and its enthusiasts.

Hutchison later admitted to being "creative" with the footage, citing pressure from the Discovery Channel to create material for the show and an inability to legally reproduce the original effect, according to Tim Ventura of American Antigravity.<13>

In 2005, Hutchison admitted that he hadn't actually reproduced his effect since approximately 1991. The earlier levitation footage from the 1980s is genuine, he says. But this footage has been characterized as looking like it was taken in a booth with an upside-down camera.

[CB_Brooklyn]

108. wikipedia cannot be trusted

Zero Point Energy is real

Cold Fusion is real


But the global elite don't want us to know it because it would remove our dependency to oil.

See here for an open letter to the world by Dr Eugene Mallove. He asked for money to fund research of the items listed above. A few months later, he was murdered.
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/obituaries/2004/EugeneMallove/LastMessage040513

[eyl]

110. And you're basing this on?

ZPE is a valid physical concept, but there are no confirmed, reproducible known ways to utilize it (and it's likely very small in any event).

Ditto (except more so) for cold fusion.

Understand, scientists don't work in isolation. While actual devices might be classified, if anyone had cracked the substantial theoretical barriers which exist, it would be headline news.

[CB_Brooklyn]

111. read through the cold fusion section of this article

Check out all the links. Put everything in context, and you'll see:

http://www.911researchers.com/node/125

[eyl]

113. Please

Pons & Fleischmann weren't discredited by Jones; they were discredited because no-one could replicate their experiments and because serious errors were found in their measurements.

That article you pointed me to just asserts they discovered cold fusion; that's not proof they did so.

[CB_Brooklyn]

98. Video Presentations

Judy Wood speaking at the forum 9/11 Search for Truth in Seattle October 28, 2006.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8344867178250739868



Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. speaking at the forum 9/11 Search for Truth held in Seattle October 28, 2006.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3169393398194799716



Wayne Madsen speaking at the forum "9/11 Search for Truth" on October 28, 2006 in Seattle.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3208287110924085472

[MervinFerd]

105. ...whilst their brains are sucked out through their eyes.

[StrictlyRockers]

112. Those of us who have brains to be sucked....