interesting. i just want this thread to show up in my 'my ats' page, so i'm responding.
the bump won't hurt, either.

i personally think beam weapons are a pretty good fit for the destruction observed.

Originally posted by billybob
i personally think beam weapons are a pretty good fit for the destruction observed.

How? What's the failure mechanism? Does it superheat the steel or what?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by billybob
i personally think beam weapons are a pretty good fit for the destruction observed.

How? What's the failure mechanism? Does it superheat the steel or what?

well. i think of a piece of metal in the microwave.
i don't know what a beam weapon could do. would depend on the portion of the energy spectrum that was being excited, i guess.
don't get me wrong.

i am 'bad', because i don't throw arguments out just because they don't make complete sense to me.

i think a beam weapon could be 'tuned' to affect certain materials, like metal, MAYBE.
i don't think it has to be in space though. like any kind of 'bomb', it could be parked on the loading dock inside a truck.

there is simply too much we don't know about advances in science, in my opinion, to rule out nearly ANYTHING simply because it is 'beyond our ken'.

i just am pretty sure that there was an incredible force of destruction, and only a heavily preloaded building, or an exotic weapon can account for the DISSOLUTION of the towers.

i don't know, though. those 'demolition waves' really look like conventional weaponry. it's the 'sparkling', 'flashes', 'exploding cars', and 'steel turning to dust'(along with all the filing cabinets and people that were evaporated) and whatnot that, to me, don't really fit a conventional demolition scenario.

CB, reread my post, and then try to answer my question, please. In other words, please be coherent. Thanks.

Originally posted by billybob
well. i think of a piece of metal in the microwave.
i don't know what a beam weapon could do. [...] there is simply too much we don't know about advances in science, in my opinion, to rule out nearly ANYTHING simply because it is 'beyond our ken'.

Well the reason I asked is because I can post pictures showing exactly where most of the columns failed, and therefore give a rough idea as to how most of them failed, and I'm pretty confused as to how any of it lines up with molecular excitation of any kind.

They look more like some kind of explosive was set into the floor (smooth, even cuts into the steel at locations other than the welds), and a small portion of core columns are warped and twisted around smooth curves that I've heard (non-conspiracy theory) experts say could only result from exposure to unbelievable ambient temperatures. Same goes for a massive beam covered in sulfidation recovered from WTC7.







Most of the perimeter columns, for example, failed right at the bolts, still in groups of three by the spandrel plate, and no visible damage at all to the bolt holes. How is this consistent with any kind of molecular excitation being the failure mechanism of these columns? I think we'd agree that it's an unnecessary reach. Those columns probably didn't need any devices for the most part once they started failing when the floors and core was being destroyed, because the bolts were being snapped when the columns started rotating on top of each other, unsupported by their neighbors when the corner connections and spandrel plates were failed. I'm not saying this was the case with all perimeter columns, but it looks like most of them. I have an aerial or satellite photo that even shows a large grid that appears to be still connected.







Judy Wood also claims that some upper percentage of the towers were completely vaporized. She also claims that the towers fell at the acceleration of gravity, which is ridiculously easy to disprove, but nonetheless, here is an image debunking the former claim:




Doesn't debunk it on its own, but it does coupled with any video showing WTC1's collapse from the North: these columns were ejected laterally some 600 feet from one of the upper floors of WTC1 as it collapsed, and after they came to rest photos were taken that show the same kinds of failures at the bolts as most other perimeter columns. In other words, the steel wasn't vaporized. It's still sitting right there, and it came from an upper floor.

A big chunk of WTC1's steel antenna is still intact, too, btw, for what it's worth:




So we have intact columns in almost pristine condition laying all around Ground Zero. Allegedly some percentage of the total steel was vaporized. Where are the partially vaporized columns? Was the beam smart enough to only vaporize whole structural units at a time?

Specifically, if anyone can lend credibility to this theory, I'd like to see partially vaporized steel from a perimeter column that isn't sulfidated or hasn't been contaminated in the process by another nearby chemical, as if there were extreme ambient temperatures doing the work and not a beam that only excites steel or etc. The reason I ask this condition is because I wouldn't be surprised if a miniature nuclear reaction was generated in the cores to cause instantaneous failures, even if a controlled, stable reaction that was simply used to generate some form of radiation that could fail the core instantly (and in reality, if any such beam weapons exist as Judy Wood half-describes, they would probably at least have to be powered by that kind of technology, if not better, because the energy required to vaporize the amount of steel Wood alleges is greater than the entire instantaneous power output of the entire world combined).

I've looked through thousands of Ground Zero debris images in maintaining the image library at Studyof911.com; to date I haven't seen a single such image. But I would be very interested if anyone has such evidence, which I don't think is too unreasonable to ask for given the theory being proposed here.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by bsbray11]

bsbray11:

You ask questions that are not very relevant.

i.e. "Failure mechanism"? What's the purpose of getting into details such as this when the weapons in question are classified?

[edit on 19-7-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

Well, CB, I'm going to claim that Jesus brought both towers down by some classified Israeli ritual, and that's the TRUTH! And Steven Jones is DISINFO! Because he's MORMON! Wake up and see the TRUTH!! But I can't prove it of course. What's the point in trying to prove it? It's the truth anyway. It couldn't have been anything else, even though I don't really have an idea of what I'm talking about.


I ask again, show me a partially vaporized column.

Not allowed to disclose some of the technology used. Original scenario, towers were full, tipped over sideways, killing more than 70,000 people. We took them down with a combination of maser(s) and conventional explosives. My concern is true motive. Was the primary purpose robbery? Greatest heist of gold and silver in history.Islamic perps were funded by neo nazis. Same guys who tried to take out the federal reserve bank some years prior? Whom we let get away?And is there a link to the Bush family? Want to see bank accounts.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
If you look at the debris plummeting down as the tower collapses you will notice it trailing smoke all the way down. No flames. Just smoke. What's going on?

Does it look like this?:






The steel in the first image could possibly be "smoldering" because of neutron activation, but not much is actually vaporizing, and that wouldn't come in a beam from space, but more likely from some kind of nuclear device. The cloud left standing would be explained by that too, especially since it was more brown in color, which could be explained by sulfur reactions in the air that are also associated with nuclear reactions, and the sulfidated steel and steel with smooth, fracture-less curves that appear to have been created during exposure to extreme ambient temperatures.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well, CB, I'm going to claim that Jesus brought both towers down by some classified Israeli ritual, and that's the TRUTH! And Steven Jones is DISINFO! Because he's MORMON! Wake up and see the TRUTH!! But I can't prove it of course. What's the point in trying to prove it? It's the truth anyway. It couldn't have been anything else, even though I don't really have an idea of what I'm talking about.

Perhaps if you rephrase the above without the double talk, people would understand what it is you're trying to say.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I ask again, show me a partially vaporized column.

I can't show something that did not exist.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Specifically, if anyone can lend credibility to this theory, I'd like to see partially vaporized steel from a perimeter column that isn't sulfidated or hasn't been contaminated in the process by another nearby chemical, as if there were extreme ambient temperatures doing the work and not a beam that only excites steel or etc.

Did ipsedixit's photos qualify?

One thing about your photos: the cuts look too clean... could these have been made after the fact by the clean-up crews with thermite cutters?

And, a question I would pose to Dr. Wood, since she is apparently a molten-metal denier (that & the no-plane sympathies, I really don't understand why she goes there)...
Insofar as Mr. Garcia writes...

we have conducted laboratory tests to evaluate the effects of laser energy on different materials. For the most part, those materials have been metals, not concrete structures. Effects on metals are from the heat generated by an intense beam of coherent light, which cause the metals to weaken and split. Given sufficient heat, metals would melt (become liquids) and, given significantly more heat, could turn to gases.

there are your molten metals. So, will she be changing her views on this issue?

Originally posted by 0ivae
Did ipsedixit's photos qualify?

No. Look at them and look at what I'm asking for. The closest thing was a smoothly buckled set of three perimeter columns, as if they were heated to being soft. The rest showed failures as I described them, failures at the bolts for perimeter columns. I saw in one image shearing at the spandrel plate on one set of columns.

One thing about your photos: the cuts look too clean... could these have been made after the fact by the clean-up crews with thermite cutters?

No, believe it or not, most of the core columns apparently failed that way. And there's evidence to suggest that it wasn't at the welds, either.

we have conducted laboratory tests to evaluate the effects of laser energy on different materials. For the most part, those materials have been metals, not concrete structures. Effects on metals are from the heat generated by an intense beam of coherent light, which cause the metals to weaken and split. Given sufficient heat, metals would melt (become liquids) and, given significantly more heat, could turn to gases.

The problem is that generating a beam with 100% energy efficiency (ALL energy going ONLY towards failing the steel in the towers), then you still have to generate more instantaneous power than all of the generators in the world combined could produce.

And the lasers aren't able to go through steel, to cut other steel, without cutting the first steel that it went through! Ie, there aren't failures on the roof or the floors in between, but one floor of the towers gives way and just up and drops onto everything below. If it was a space beam then why the hell were the top floors still intact with such a incomprehensibly power-consuming beam going through them?

Not to mention, as I'm trying to show, there is no physical evidence left over from the tower rubble to suggest the towers were brought down by immense energy in a beam. Generally speaking, perimeter columns failed at the bolts and core columns were cut evenly at the floors.


Out of all the leftover steel columns and beams, not one is partially vaporized? Who thinks its very likely that a space beam came down and 100% obliterated some columns, and didn't even scratch any others? CB put it best himself when he said "I can't show something that did not exist." That's kind of science's major underlying principle thus far: to be able to show things that do exist. That's science.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by bsbray11]