Was a "star-wars" beam weapon used at the WTC?

[reprehensor]

These are excerpts from the "Letters to the Journal of 911 Studies" section at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”

By: James Gourley (January 9th, 2007)

Introduction

This paper critiques the work and thesis of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds suggesting that a "Star Wars" beam weapon was used in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers (referred to herein as the “WR thesis” or “WR paper”). The WR thesis is presented in a web-based paper entitled “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”, which can be found here. The central claim of the WR thesis is that the phenomena observed during the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 are only consistent with the use of some type of directed energy weapon, either originating from outer space or reflected from outer space (thus, it is referred to herein as a “space beam weapon”). The main arguments in the WR thesis are examined in this paper and a case is made that the WR thesis and its supporting paper contain several scientific flaws, including, the use of corrupted data, ignoring data that contradicts its claims, not considering more reasonable explanations for observed effects, and, in the case of the Kingdome demolition, incorrectly comparing data.

Reliance on Corrupted Data

One of the key points of the WR thesis is that the collapses of the Twin Towers should have produced ground shaking sufficient to cause a Richter scale spike larger than the spike generated by the demolition of the Kingdome in Seattle. Even assuming the WR paper is valid in all other respects, the WR thesis is based in part on faulty data, which invalidates a major part of the thesis, as will be demonstrated below.

The WR paper relies exclusively on seismic data readings obtained from the Lamont-Dougherty station at Columbia University taken during the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, the WR paper readily admits several times that this seismic data has been corrupted in some way. To quote from page 1: “It is almost as if the data from 9/11 have attenuated, that peak movements have been reduced by some kind of filtering process. Does this difference reflect real data, that is, differences in real phenomena accurately recorded? Or have the data been filtered asymmetrically or differently? Or have the data been completely manufactured? We do not know, but for the sake of the analysis we use the Richter values reported. Could they have been lower than reported? Yes.” It goes on later in the paper to state “Although these data seem to be corrupted by unknown filters…” and continues the analysis based on admittedly corrupted data.

Ignoring basic, fundamental tenets of scientific reasoning and analysis, the WR paper forges ahead with a “scientific” analysis that is based on admittedly corrupted and untrustworthy seismic data. The WR paper acknowledges it is using faulty (even possibly manufactured) data, yet presses ahead with the comparison to the Kingdome and asserts that space beams caused the destruction despite this fundamental flaw. All sections of the WR paper that rely in any way whatsoever on this admittedly corrupted data have no scientific value because reliable data is the foundation of any sound scientific analysis...

Continued...
http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters/b/scientific-critique-of-judy-woods-paper-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf

Why the damage to WTC Bldg.’s 3 and 6 does not support the beam weapon hypothesis and some correspondence with Dr. James Fetzer about it

Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer (January 26, 2007)

On Jan. 17, 2007 Dr. Steven Jones was a guest of Dr. James Fetzer’s, on his radio show. The discussion on the show centered mostly around the recent debate, in the 911 research community, over the actual mechanism which caused the destruction of the Twin Towers (other than the official story of plane impacts and fire, which is rejected by both groups involved in the debate). Additionally, there is debate over what caused the great collateral damage to the buildings and vehicles around them. The damage to the WTC complex bathtub, or perceived lack of it, is also a point involved in the debate. This debate has pitted the controlled demolition theory and the somewhat recently proposed beam weapon theory (which postulates that an energy or beam weapon could have been used to destroy the towers and cause damage to the adjacent buildings) against each other.

An archive of the Jan. 17th Steve Jones interview on Jim Fetzer’s show can be heard at

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/JimFetzer-StevenJones_20070117.mp3

One of the main reasons the beam weapon theory has seemed to have garnered support by some 911 activists, like Dr. Fetzer, is their attempt to reconcile in their minds the horrendous damage to WTC Bldg.’s 3 and 6, which were located directly adjacent to the towers. Bldg. 3 exhibited a large vertical slash through it and Bldg. 6 a large vertical hole after the collapse of the towers. The photos below show WTC3 during the collapse of Tower 2 and both WTC3 and WTC6 after the collapses of both towers...

...As a mechanical engineer involved in the design of aerospace equipment I am quite familiar with both dynamic and static loads. One other interest I have here is that at one point in my career I worked for the company and engineering group that designed and built the antenna mast which sat atop the North Tower. The group that designed the WTC antenna mast belonged to RCA at the time it was built.

It is obvious, from the photos, that a huge amount of heavy debris, falling from great height, collided with the buildings immediately adjacent to the towers. It is probably safe to say that those grasping for an explanation of the damage to WTC3 and WTC6 do not appreciate the forces that would have been involved and the destruction that debris was capable of. While it is not entirely possible to know the exact magnitude of the forces it can easily be shown that they were tremendous, since the loads would have been impulsive. Impulsive loads are dynamic and they amplify the force involved to many times the weight of the impacting object...

Continued...
http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters/b/the-damage-to-wtc-bldg-3-and-6-debate-between-controlled-demolition-and-beam-weapons-by-tony-szamboti.pdf

Introduction To An Interview With Dr. Judy Wood Conducted At The National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on January 10, 2007 Regarding The Use Of Directed Energy Beams In The Demolition Of The World Trade Center Towers.

Letter, by Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D., Physics, submitted February 6, 2007

In order for the viewer to clearly assess the interview with Dr. Judy Wood, I would like to preface the video with two fundamental concepts which guided my questions as well as two pertinent photographs. I will submit a more comprehensive analysis in the very near future regarding the implausibility of directed energy beams demolishing the world trade center towers.

The Associated Massive Energy Scale

My first two questions in the interview pertain to the method and energy scale associated with the demolition of the World Trade Center towers. I will postpone the analysis pertaining to method for a later publication, and discuss here the massive amounts of energy required to vaporize steel.

It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers. I will leave the details for later, but suffice it to say that the energy is approximately 4x1014 Joules. If you consider that this amount of energy was pumped into the towers during a time span of roughly 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel would be 4x1013 Watts. This is four times the total power output of the entire earth, including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc.. This is with no loss. If you take into account losses from scattering and absorption in the atmosphere, reflection off aluminum and steel in the building, and inefficiencies from storing this huge amount of energy and generating photons, then the power required would swell to at least thousands of earths worth of power. The scenario becomes more bleak when considering beams of particles that have mass since the ionizion energies required to generate such beams would require additional massive amounts of energy in conjunction with the aforementioned inefficiencies.

Most of the energy required to vaporize steel is contained in the term relating to the latent heat of vaporization. This is the amount of energy required to vaporize steel once it is already at the boiling point. Since this is the dominating factor in the energy scale, this can be thought of as the energy required to break all the bonds which hold the steel together. Any magical method which hypothetically could be used to ‘dustify’ (a word evidently invented by Dr. Wood) the steel would necessarily involve breaking the bonds holding it together. In short, the energy required to ‘dustify’ steel, if such a thing were possible, would be about the same as the energy required to vaporize steel...

Continued...
http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters/b/interview-judy-wood-at-national-press-club-regarding-the-use-of-directed-energy-beam-in-the-demolition-of-the-wtc-by-dr-gregory-jenkins.pdf

Watch the Interview:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

[Zynx]

1. Riiiiiiight. And the impossibly large, physics-breaking satellite is...where?

Sadly, there will be people here who defend this total moonbat.

Nice to see the response article actually using real science.

[MervinFerd]

2. The International Space Station: Isn't that obvious?

There is a Cold Fusion Reactor (CFR) on board. The Space Shuttle had to be crashed because the crew knew all about the CFR and couldn't be allowed to talk.


(I actually didn't expect much defense of Wood; I may have to do that just for the fun of it.)

[Zynx]

3. Thread here, actually 107 replies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=139246&mesg_id=139246

Unfortunately, not all are dismissive...

[MervinFerd]

22. Yeah. Although I think two of the supporters are playing games.

I think we won't see much support here because the arguments are coming from another Truther faction and because the few who take this seriously are just not capable of anything more than ad hominem arguments.

But, we shall see. Sometimes it takes a few bumps to goad them into action.

[The Lone Groover]

4. Beam weapon theories are....

...boll*cks.

Concentrate on the easier stuff.

Like Bush foreknowledge, Cheney no shoot orders, PNAC New-Pearl-Harbor-isation and USAF apparent inability to intercept Flight 77 after being a known hostile aircraft/weapon for over 40 minutes.

WTC1/2/7 collapses are suspicious, but the truth movement needs to go for the jugular - the other stuff will follow.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Now wait a minute.

In the other thread, you said that it was anything an "OCTer" cobbled together that was bollocks. Now here you're saying that Beam Weapons theories are bollocks. Where does any "OCTer" approve of the Beam Weapon theory? How is that a part of the "official story"?

[The Lone Groover]

6. Wrong.. go away and learn how to read.

Really Boloboffin, you're not very good at this are you.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. The problem, I fear, is not in my ability to read...

...but your ability to express yourself clearly.

Try again over in that other thread. Practice makes perfect, after all.

[The Lone Groover]

8. No.. its you. n/t

[greyl]

9. Nah. nt

[The Lone Groover]

10. yeah.. it's him. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

11. As I've demonstrated, it's your broad characterization that caused the confusion.

You said "OCTers", when you meant "a single OCTer." You painted an entire segment of people with the actions of one member of that segment. Very confusing. Now you've expressed yourself more precisely and the confusion is eliminated.

[The Lone Groover]

12. Nope...

You know that's not a claim unique to that OCTer.

You're resorting to feebly trying to split hairs now.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Well, if you have examples of these "OCTers" making this claim...

...produce them.

[The Lone Groover]

14. Ask Greyl...

..he's always posting the conspiracy psychology stuff.

Conspiracy therorists apparently have a need to believe and will believe anything they are told.

Which is of course rubbish.

[greyl]

15. Who is Greyl? nt

[The Lone Groover]

16. nobody.

[greyl]

17. How do you know that for sure?

It may be that you haven't come across somebody who goes by "Greyl" yet.
Which leads me to wonder why you brought her or him up.

[The Lone Groover]

18. I think Greyl might be someone with a multiple personality...

..disorder.

But I'm probably wrong.

I'm not referring to you - obviously.

[greyl]

19. Having trouble making up your mind?

See ya.

[The Lone Groover]

20. who was that masked man? nt.

[vincent_vega_lives]

21. USAF?

CONUS air defense missions are executed by ANG units.

But you knew that right?

[The Lone Groover]

23. USAF, ANG - big deal

Are you down to hair splitting too?

Why did Flight 77 manage to fly as a known hostile aircraft/weapon for over 40 minutes and not be intercepted by ANG or USAF planes?

You see that's the real question, not whether The Lone Groover said USAF instead of ANG.

[vincent_vega_lives]

26. The fact that you think the error is "hair splitting"

only further proves your lack understanding of the situation.

Q: Which aircraft were designated ALERT status on 9-11-01?

Q: Have you seen Paul Thompson's Timeline? Read it and weep:

8:20 a.m.: Boston Flight Control Thinks Flight 11 May Be Hijacked?

8:21 a.m.: Boston Controller Suspects Something Seriously Wrong with Flight 11, but NORAD Not Notified

8:25 a.m.: Boston Center Starts Notifying Chain of Command

8:28 a.m.: FAA Centers Have Hijacking Conference Call; NORAD Not Notified

8:30 a.m.: FAA Hijack Coordinator Responsible for Contacting Military is Out of Contact

8:34 a.m.: Boston Flight Control Attempts to Contact Air Base Directly; Result Unknown

8:37 a.m.: Boston Flight Control Notifies NEADS, Against Normal Procedures; Timing Disputed

After 8:37 a.m.: NEADS Staff Unable to Locate Hijacked Planes on Radar Screens

After 8:37 a.m.: Otis Commander Phones NEADS for Authorization to Launch Fighters

8:38 a.m.-8:43 a.m.: NORAD Personnel Mistake Hijacking for Part of an Exercise

8:40 a.m.: Fighter Pilots Unofficially Told to Get Ready to Scramble After Flight 11

8:43 a.m.: NORAD Notified That Flight 175 Has Been Hijacked

8:46 a.m.: Flight 11 Hits the North Tower of the World Trade Center

8:46 a.m.: New York Flight Control Suspects Flight 175 Hijacking

8:46 a.m.: Fighters Ordered to Scramble to Flight 11 Nine Minutes after NORAD Notification

8:46-8:50 a.m.: New York and Boston Flight Control Conclude Flight 11 Has Hit WTC

8:48 a.m.: NORAD’s Colorado Operations Center Sees WTC Television Footage

8:49 a.m.: United Airlines Headquarters Learns Flight 175 Is Missing; NORAD Apparently Not Informed

8:50 a.m.: Last Radio Contact with Flight 77

8:50 a.m.: Boston Flight Control Informs NORAD That Flight 11 Has Hit WTC

8:51-8:53 a.m.: Flight Controller Declares Flight 175 Hijacked

8:52 a.m.: Fighters Ordered Toward the Crashed Flight 11

8:54 a.m.: Flight 77 Veers Off Course

8:55 a.m.: New York Flight Control Believes Flight 175 Has Been Hijacked; NORAD Reportedly Not Informed

8:55 a.m.-8:57 a.m.: Confusion at NEADS over Identity of Plane That Hit WTC

8:56 a.m.: Flight 77 Transponder Signal Disappears; NORAD Not Informed

8:56-9:05 a.m.: Flight 77 Disappears from Radar Screens

After 8:56-9:24 a.m.: Pentagon Emergency Center Knows Flight 77 Is Hijacked; NORAD Not Notified?

Before 9:00 a.m.: American Airlines Learns of Flight 77 Problems; Cancels All Flight Take Offs in the Northeast; NORAD Not Notified

9:00 a.m.: Northern Vigilance Operation Canceled; False Blips Purged from Radar Screens

After 9:00 a.m.: Indianapolis Flight Control Issues Alert to Look for Flight 77; FAA and NORAD Not Notified

Just Before 9:00 a.m.: Two Otis Fighters Take Off for Training Mission Over Ocean

Before 9:03 a.m.: Special FAA-Military Link Fails to Help Communication Problems

9:03 a.m.: Flight 175 Crashes into WTC South Tower; Millions Watch Live on Television

9:03 a.m.: New York Flight Control Informs NORAD That Flight 175 Has Been Hijacked; Timing of Notice in Question

9:03 a.m.: Fighters Do Not Have Shootdown Authority

9:03 a.m.: Boston Flight Control Tells FAA That Hijackers Said We Have Planes, FAA Suggests Notifying NORAD

After 9:03 a.m.: Boston Controllers Give Cockpit Security Alert to New England Planes and Asks FAA to Issue Nationwide Warning; FAA Fails to Do So

After 9:03 a.m.: Air Base Commanders Offer to Help NORAD; Timing of Acceptance Unclear

After 9:03 a.m: Secret Service Wants Fighters Scrambled from Andrews; None Are Ready to Fly

9:04 a.m.: Flight 175 Crash Leads to Confusion at NEADS; Some Think it is a Simulation

9:05 am (and After): Flight 77 Reappears on Radar, but Flight Controllers Do Not Notice

9:08-9:13 a.m.: Fighters Put in Holding Pattern over Ocean instead of Defending New York City

9:08 a.m.: American Airlines Thinks Flight 77 Hit the WTC

9:09 a.m.: NORAD Said to Order Langley Fighters to Battle Stations Alert; Pilots Say This Happens Much Later

9:09 a.m.: Indianapolis Flight Control Tells Local FAA Flight 77 Is Missing, but FAA Headquarters and NORAD Are Not Yet Told

(9:09 a.m. and After): Numerous False Reports of Hijacked Aircraft

9:10 a.m: Washington Flight Control Sees Unidentified Plane, Apparently Fails to Notify FAA or NORAD

9:12 a.m.: Flight 77 Attendant Has Confirmed Hijacking, American Airlines Learns

9:21 a.m.: Boston Air Traffic Control Center Mistakenly Tells NEADS Flight 11 Is Still Airborne

9:21 a.m.: One Langley Pilot Claims to Be Put on Battle Stations Now, Not 12 Minutes Earlier

(After 9:20 a.m.): FAA Administrator Frustrated That Military Is Not Involved in Teleconference

9:23 a.m.: NEADS Wants Fighters to Track Phantom Flight 11

(9:24 a.m.): Langley Fighters Are Ordered to Scramble; but One Pilot Claims the Order Is Only a Battle Stations Alert

9:30 a.m.: Langley Fighters Take Off Toward Washington; They Could Reach City in Six Minutes but Take Half an Hour

(9:30-9:37 a.m.): Langley Fighters Fly East to Ocean Instead of North to Washington; Explanations Differ

9:34 a.m.: FAA Mentions in Passing to NORAD That Flight 77 Is Missing

9:34 a.m.: NEADS Sergeant Notices Langley Jets are Off Course

9:35 a.m.: Flight 93 Attendant Warns United Airlines About Hijacking; Account Spreads but Not to NORAD

(Between 9:35 a.m. and 10:35 a.m.): NORAD Commander Spends 45 Minutes Driving to Operations Center

9.36 a.m.: Military Cargo Plane Asked to Identify Flight 77

(9:36 a.m.): Cleveland Flight Control Wants NORAD Notified; FAA Command Center Says People Are Working on It

9:37 a.m.: Flight 77 Crashes into Reinforced Section of the Pentagon

[The Lone Groover]

34. Hair splitting...

...it doesn't matter who got the job.

Now you tell me how a known hostile aircraft/weapon can fly in US airspace - whilst being tracked - for over 40 minutes and not get intercepted by the people supposed to be protecting US airspace!

I don't care who claims NORAD wasn't informed (there's a lot of ass covering going on there) - the time line is not clear is it!!

For over 40 minutes it was known that Flight 77 was a potential flying bomb - yes a bomb! Not just a "traditional" hijacking - and nobody managed to intercept it.

It's outrageous.

Who got fired?

Who got promoted?

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. I thinks you are making a lot of hindsight 20/20 assumptions

Who knew "Flight 77 was a potential flying bomb" and when is the question you need to ask.

The fact of the matter is it was a systems fault. A procedure needs to be in place that ALL players understand and is exercised regularly to work out bugs and find potential dead ends. Prior to 9-11 there was NO SUCH SYSTEM between NORAD, NEADS, the airlines and the FAA. Sure there was a procedure, but not everyone knew it, and it was based on past criteria, and flawed in that not everyone had a common operating picture. 9-11 simply overwhelmed a flawed system.

Look at the minute by minute tim line carefully. You can see the system collapse and confusion take hold.

That said, I think this : "Who got fired?" is a valid question.

[LoZoccolo]

24. I think MIHWAP might offer a different perspective on this because it also could have been...

...a bean weapon.

[MervinFerd]

37. A -bean- weapon? What kind of bean?

[LoZoccolo]

40. As the scientific method is tentative, I am leaving that open to hypothesis and experimentation.

It may have been some sort of bean bag gun like they use for riot control, or beans right out of some kind of food service can with a high-powered spout attached to it. But one thing that the scientists all agree on is that beans burst when you put them in the microwave; this can be determined at hope with even a consumer grade oven.

[MervinFerd]

42. Yes! You're on to something!

Maybe the Towers were filled with --beans-- and then a microwave beam hit the towers causing the beans to --explode--!!

BEANIFICATION!!!

[sweetheart]

25. No, a beam weapon is not 360, a fusion bomb is

one of these:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0510/0510071.pdf

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm

[MervinFerd]

30. Do you think a fusion bomb brought down the towers? Cold fusion?

[sweetheart]

31. like in the white paper i posted

The white paper explains the kind of weapon.

I believe there were 2, one set at the plane strike position, possibly in the
utility floors, or in a computer room... and another in the subbasement, the easiest
for those would be to have the bombs would be to have them in cars in the basement,
and the spherical blast waves would appear on the roof 9 stories up, making
holes like this:


Watch the demolition real slow and concentrate on where that mushroom-head explosion comes from,
what floor is that? It looks like the plane strike point. I believe they planned for the
nukes to be more obvious, and to use WMD's as an immediate pretext for war across the ME.
Consider how perfectly having terrorists with suitcase nukes fits in to the modified viersion
of the 19 hyjakkers story to serve a different causus belli. I'm sure the only reason
we were spared it, is that they think they can keep the use of nukes secret, and nobody
will be able to do any physics, and they can destroy all learning and knowledge about physics
and physical science before they die so that nobody will find them out.

This is a google earth image taken from 'wtc-2 upper fusion detonation-ground zero' towards
the FDR. The website following, shows the cars with the melted engine blocks on the FDR,
and cars toasted all around the trade centers... but the FDR vaporizings appear especially
directional:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html

[MervinFerd]

36. Oh. OK. That explains everything.

[CB_Brooklyn]

27. I was banned on the Randi Rhodes site for posting this response

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=107186&view=findpost&p=1076476

Let's see if DU believes in freedom of speech, especially when it's based on factual information:

--------------------------
First, it should be noted that reprehensor is a moderator at 911Blogger, a site that censors scientific research regarding DEWs and TV-Fakery. Therefore anything he says must be examined very carefully.

The same holds true for Steven Jones'. It has already been proven
http://www.911researchers.com/node/125 (yes, proven) that Jones is purposely misleading the "truth movement" and distracting people from the real 9/11 evidence. Therefore, any "scientific" papers on his Journal site must also be examined with the utmost care.

From James Gourley's paper:
The central claim of the WR thesis is that the phenomena observed during the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 are only consistent with the use of some type of directed energy weapon, either originating from outer space or reflected from outer space (thus, it is referred to herein as a “space beam weapon”).

The above quote, from a paper residing on Steven Jones' "Journal for 9/11 Studies" website, contains an outright lie. This outright lie is for the sole purpose of discrediting Judy and Morgan's paper, by "turning people off" to their work. W&R have NEVER said that the energy beam must have come from space.

W&R have NEVER used the term "space beam". The "space beam" term was first used by Steven Jones. There is documented proof of this here.
http://www.911researchers.com/node/90

Another quote:
Ignoring basic, fundamental tenets of scientific reasoning and analysis, the WR paper forges ahead with a “scientific” analysis that is based on admittedly corrupted and untrustworthy seismic data. The WR paper acknowledges it is using faulty (even possibly manufactured) data, yet presses ahead with the comparison to the Kingdome and asserts that space beams caused the destruction despite this fundamental flaw. All sections of the WR paper that rely in any way whatsoever on this admittedly corrupted data have no scientific value because reliable data is the foundation of any sound scientific analysis.

W&R used the available scientific data. The data fit in with the other information which is why they used it. But as honest scientist & researcher, W&R admitted the data might be faulty. This is quite contrary to Steven Jones' use of altered photos, and hiding the fact that they were altered, in his paper. Documented proof of this is here.
http://www.911researchers.com/node/147



From Tony Szamboti's paper:
It is obvious, from the photos, that a huge amount of heavy debris, falling from great height, collided with the buildings immediately adjacent to the towers. It is probably safe to say that those grasping for an explanation of the damage to WTC3 and WTC6 do not appreciate the forces that would have been involved and the destruction that debris was capable of. While it is not entirely possible to know the exact magnitude of the forces it can easily be shown that they were tremendous, since the loads would have been impulsive. Impulsive loads are dynamic and they amplify the force involved to many times the weight of the impacting object


No it is not obvious. Falling material from the towers will not make vertical slices in the buildings. In addition, the building material was gone. Where did it go?


quote from Greg Jenkins paper:
This is four times the total power output of the entire earth


So? Directed Energy Weapons will obviously have very high outputs.


Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins have direct ties to Los Alamos laboratories, where directed-energy weapon research is conducted.

Jenkins' previous work was funded by the NSA:
http://www.csr.umd.edu/csrpage/publication...nnualreport.pdf
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne/reprints/ybco_prl.pdf
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne/reprints/au_prb.pdf

"ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9705129 and by funding from the NSA."



Those papers from S Jones (a distractor) and linked in reprehensor's post (a 911blogger mod who promotes censorship) are full of misleading information and are designed to trick and distract people. I'd advice any readers to take a careful look at the information. 91Blogger is censoring DEWs and TV-Fakery the same way the corporate media censors 9/11 Truth. I wonder why this is.



Further analysis here:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/p...ons-please.html
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/s...justice-on.html
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/d...nal-of-911.html
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/m...sor-joness.html
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/l...that-could.html

[MervinFerd]

28. Carlos Castaneda: A Separate Reality/ nt

[greyl]

29. Several of your links aren't working.

All those at the bottom, and the first Jenkens pdf.

[CB_Brooklyn]

32. sorry about that

http://www.csr.umd.edu/csrpage/publications/Annual%20Report/annualreport.pdf

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/proper-citations-please.html
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/scholars-for-911-truth-and-justice-on.html
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/double-standards-at-journal-of-911.html
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/my-concerns-about-professor-joness.html
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/little-wheel-that-could.html

[LARED]

33. Thank you

quote from Greg Jenkins paper:
This is four times the total power output of the entire earth

Your response

So? Directed Energy Weapons will obviously have very high outputs.

A new classic, it's right up there with combustable steel logs.

[MervinFerd]

35. Unclear on the concept, you think? nt

[LARED]

50. It is becoming difficult to know if

it's real or a gag. Is it really possibly to write that without pausing for a moment to consider the magnitude of what you're saying.

It's like saying I'm going to drink the entire contents of Lake Superior tomorrow, You say huh?, They say yeah, I know it will take me a long time to finish it off.

[MervinFerd]

52. Liberal Arts Majors? Not good at quantitative thinking.

There's a graduate thesis in Sociology or Abnormal Psych in this.

[eyl]

38. I'm speechless n/t

[eyl]

39. Someone please tell me

that Woods isn't representative of the average American engineer's grasp of physics.

[MervinFerd]

41. Ok: Wood does not represent the Average American Engineer's grasp...

of anything.

Besides Wood, the BBC program (posted here in a thread by Greyl) shows interviews with principal figures. These people, truly have become a pathetic band. Except for Dylan Avery who is beneath contempt. Alex Jones could wind up leading a cult in Guyana; he's too whacked out to become dangerous. Fetzer is just crazy; no charisma.

Wood? How-on-earth does this woman get -anyone-, however whacked out, to take her seriously?

[The Lone Groover]

43. Ad hominem is all you got? nt

[MervinFerd]

44. Have you watched the BBC documentary; read the OP in this thread?

I've "got plenty" and these guys are a pathetic band.

Except for Dylan Avery, who is a small-time con-man grifter who sells lies he didn't think up to ....ummmm... "people with less than superb grasp of reality." And maybe Alex Jones, who is also a con-man but probably actually believes his bullshit.

[The Lone Groover]

45. OK... ad hominem is all you got. nt

[MervinFerd]

49. Have you watched the BBC documentary; read the OP in this thread?

The facts are entirely clear; there is no further need of argument.

The unavoidable observations that Wood is befuddled, Avery is a creep, and Jones is a demagogue have nothing to do with the facts of the case. But, they do bear upon the rational approach to dealing with them.

[eyl]

53. OK, you want something more detailed?

1) As noted, it would take a massive amount of energy to vaporize the steel in the WTC. Wood tries to get around this, first by talking about different processes of heating and energy transfer (e.g. laser wavelengths, fires, or resistive heating). But she ignores thatit doesn't matter. The energy is massive when you have an ideal case - 100% energy transmission, no losses (IOW, 100% efficiency). This is the energy you need. The differences between the heating methods are in their efficiency, which only increase your energy requirement.
2) For some reason, she proposes evaporation as an alternate explanation. But besides the fact that evaporation is a phenomenon which occurs in liquids, not solids - a major gaffe right there - the energy requirement is essentially the same, since it's basically the same process.
3) Then she discusses "dustification". She seems unable to give anything approaching a precise description of the process; when asked about the experiments they conducted, she just answers that they used "energy".
4) All this shows a problem in her methedology; she wants to start with "what", move on to "how", and so on. But when her "how" is impossible (for all practicle purposes, anyway), it's time to stop with it. In analogy, if I'm investigating a murder, and the victim was stabbed to death, it's a waste of my time to look for guns.
5) Another couple of points, which occured to me regarding the DEW theory but weren't addressed as far as I saw. Such a weapon, by its nature, focuses the energy at a specific point. If you're feeding energy into, say, a girder, because the speed at which heat propagates in the girder is finite, most of the heat will escape rather than traveling along the girder, until you punch a hole through it; after that most of the energy will "bypass" the girder through the hole instead of heating it. You'd need a beam the diameter of the WTC to pull this off (asumming you're beaming the energy from directly above or below it, otherwise you need an even wider beam), so you could heat all of the girders uniformly (actually, this still wouldn't work, since you'd have to melt your way through the outer layers to get to the inner ones). That makes your already stupendous energy costs much bigger.
Second, if you're beaming this much energy through the atmosphere, it's going to be very noticable. Yet there are no indications anything like this happened.

In short, Wood shows an appaling lack of knowledge of basic physical principles, as well as any respect for the practicalities of her theories.

[MervinFerd]

54. This is like applying logic and physics within a fantasy novel.

There are no rules, no laws of nature that can't be changed.

Very strange world these people live in.

[LARED]

48. No she does not

She has had her share of problems. She came out of a long term coma, had a close friend that was killed recently. In short she is a person that needs help, not to be shoved into the spotlight by a bunch of con men and grifters.

[CJCRANE]

46. I don't know what to make of all this.

But one possibility I thought of re. CD, is that the buildings were set up to be demolished anyway and the hijackings were merely to get the attention of the public. That way even if the hijackings failed the buildings could still be demolished and blamed on al-Qaeda (it would simply be put down to a more successful version of the '93 bombing).

That's just an idea. I don't have any particular attachement to it as I've always believed that the money-trail is more important than the technical arguements.

[MervinFerd]

47. Four times the electrical output of the entire Earth?

CJ,

What's to figure out here? To vaporize all the steel in the WTC in 10 sec would require more energy than could possibly be delivered. Simple physics. Besides the fact that the steel -was- still there and required many months of work to haul away. Wood looks at an elephant and wonders why the giraffe is colored grey.

"Controlled Demolition" is only marginally more rational. The arguments for it "dustify" on contact with informed criticism.

As you say, the real story is elsewhere; these "technical arguments" are a distraction. If I were a believer in conspiracy theories, I would think they were invented by You-Know-Who to discredit critics of the administration. But, hey, I'm not a believer.