It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DEW (direct energy weapons) used to take down 911 WTC

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
hello I have started this thread after replying to the similar post for the "Jury Trial !!! NO PLANES *ever* hitting *any* WTC & directed energy weapons used in WTC distruction" thread. After doing lots of research i must say that john lear is right, they did use DEW (direct energy weapons) I have included proof below of govnt docs explaining this technology please click link and also since i cannot copy the chart into here please go see the chart at the bottom of page 9 in this pdf. There was also bombs in the building like he said were used to further make sure the buldings were fully taken down plus to cut the beams into managable moving pieces being how long and thick they were

thermite was 100% used in the wtc because thats the only explosive that will cut such thick beams and then leave molten steal at the bottom, just google search "thermite found in wtc" and you will see the professor that tested debris samples and found thermite in the dust, that justs case closed proof all in itself there. well here is the proof of the beams, and i have included the govnt document also below.


undicisettembre.blogspot.com...

Typically, a military system classifies two types of attacks as possibilities. Firstly,
the so-called “soft kill” attack is considered to be the one that can blur satellite cameras,
destroy electronic systems or even degrade the solar arrays performance. With this type
of attack, a satellite continues to stay on orbit but is no longer able to provide any useful
information. In contrast, “hard kill” attack occurs when total destruction of the target is
expected. The type of attack selected each time depends upon the mission requirements.
In the absence of specific requirements, we can assume that the attack with the best
effectiveness on the target is the “hard kill” attack, as it gives us immediate feedback of
the damage of the targeted satellite.
In order to vaporize a material, a sufficient amount of heat has to be deposited on
it and for specific time duration. Figure 4 summarizes the general thermal properties of
the common metals that are used in the analysis and design of satellites. It may be
observed from the last column, that an amount of 10,000 joules of energy would be
adequate to vaporize most common materials. This is a good all purpose damage
criterion, useful as a measure of the amount of energy a ground-based laser (GBL)
weapon needs to deliver in order to damage a satellite.

"Start with page 9 for 1st and 2nd pdf, take notice to the pictures used"

stinet.dtic.mil...

stinet.dtic.mil...

stinet.dtic.mil...






[edit on 14-9-2007 by K-illuminati]




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
MYSTERY SOLVED.THANK GOODNESS.NOW LETS GET TO THE LONG OVERDUE PART-ADMINISTERING JUSTICE TO THE REAL GUILTY PARTIES!!!



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I must agree inpart that the level of destruction could not be attributed to conventional causation.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Why it took six years for like minds to gel is beyond me.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   
EMP style attack can explain why all cellphones were down. I couldnt make a call that day. The world should remember that.

Yea patnah, inside joke, K-Illuminati must be a Pac fan, this is a thread that is very interesting. The cell phones went out. Why doesn't any one talk about that? Oh the planes did it right. The explosion emitted thermal radiation which shut down cell phones throughout all 5 boros. People are sleeping.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by K-illuminati
I have included proof below of govnt docs explaining this technology


I'm having trouble finding the proof. Where is it and what specifically is being proven? The quote above is talking about energy requirements to destroy a satellite permanently (ie it will never work properly again) with heat delivered by some kind of energy beam (probably electrons or photons).

How much energy it takes to disable a satellite is irrelevant to the energy required to bring down the Twin Towers as suggested. What I want to know is where the beams hit, and where they cut the columns. That sounds like a good place to start, doesn't it?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
my simple friend, if you read all documents and read thread carefully where it says to go to page 9 on the links you can see a chart with how much energy to vaporize various metals! and a picture of a b-2 with a DEW shooting out of it over a citys sky!

[edit on 21-9-2007 by K-illuminati]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
EMP style attack can explain why all cellphones were down. I couldnt make a call that day. The world should remember that.

I think now, in all honesty, that cellphones were down because the networks were completley jammed that day. And when i say jammed, i dont mean that crap flavouring stuff, i mean real jam, homemade, bits and all!

When mass panic erupts on a national or even regional scale, dont expect to be able to call your loved ones off a cellular. You'd be very lucky to get through.


This week's tragic collapse of the Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis triggered another collapse of sorts: a jam-up of the cellular phone networks in the area. Bystanders and survivors tried to phone loved ones, only to find that they couldn't put the call through

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...
Melted the bridge too? Im sure i could find more examples that didnt involve something collapsing. If you wish.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by K-illuminati
my simple friend, if you read all documents and read thread carefully where it says to go to page 9 on the links you can see a chart with how much energy to vaporize various metals!


My simple friend, those figures are in Joules per gram. How many grams are you vaporizing again? And do you even know how much energy 1 Joule is?

Looking through the rest of the document, they also give detailed explanations of relevant types of lasers, and they show different types of scattering that results from the beams actually hitting materials. These beams are photon and electromagnetic beams and function under all known laws of physics; there is nothing mystical or supernatural about them.



and a picture of a b-2 with a DEW shooting out of it over a citys sky!


How does a single picture convince you of anything when you think the footage of planes hitting the towers was faked, from so many different angles, different news sources, etc.?

These weapons exist, but not to demolish buildings, or vaporize tons of steel. Sensitive electronic equipment can be compromised by just taking out a small area, and even that requires insane amounts of energy that only the military can produce practically.

They originally tried developing these weapons by directing the radiation from nuclear bombs back in the 1960's. That's the energy scale we're dealing with, just to vaporize small amounts of matter remotely.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   
The density of steel is given here by multiple sources as being around 7.8 g/cm^3:

hypertextbook.com...


Iron is the closest material to steel on the list provided in that PDF, and it requires 6300 Joules per gram. That's 49,140 Joules of energy required per cubic centimeter of vaporized steel. When you start vaporizing enough to sever a single core column, or multiple core columns, you quickly approach megatons of energy. You might as well put mini-nukes in the core, which I consider a hell of a lot more likely than energy beams doing it.


For the hell of it, here's a single perimeter column's dimensions:




The perimeter columns were generally much smaller than the core columns.


We can break the column cross-section up into 4 rectangles and add each of their areas together to find the equivalent total cross-sectional area of steel for this column.


(9 inches x 0.875 inches) + (14.5 x 0.875) + (13.5 x 2.5) + (13.5 x 2.5) = the total cross-sectional area

= (7.875 square inches) + (12.6875 sq. in.) + (33.75) + (33.75)

= 88 square inches of total cross sectional area, or 516 square centimeters (square root of 80 is 8.944, times the conversion factor of 2.54 is the square root of 516, ~22.716, so the linear length times linear length = exponential area -- check it on Google if you think I did any of this wrong)


Now I'll assume that, to completely sever this column, a cut is made through it horizontally 0.5 cm thick.

So we have a volume of steel, 516 square centimeters multiplied by the thickness of 0.5 cm, or 218 cubic centimeters.



Now that we're back in cubic centimeters, and we know steel has a mass of 7.8 grams per cubic centimeter, and that it requires somewhere in the ballpark of 6300 Joules to vaporized a single cm^3 of steel, we have

218 cm^3 x 7.8g/cm^3 x 6300 J/g = 10,712,520 Joules, just to vaporize a 0.5 cm slice through a single perimeter column. Check the units, they all cancel out via division except the Joules.

With high explosives this isn't so hard to accomplish, but with photon or electron beams, ie trying to do all this heating just with a light beam, you start to realize how inefficient these things would be at destroying buildings.

Greg Jenkins did a calculation for how much energy it would take to break all of the chemical bonds of all of the steel that Judy Wood claimed was dissociated, and when you divide it by the time the towers fell (power = energy / time), you get a power requirement that is greater than what the entire world's electrical generation could accommodate combined. If this stuff exists then it's almost required that pure fusion reactions or some kind of sustainable nuclear reaction or other exotic source of energy must be used. And if this is the case then, as I said, you might as well load up the core with mini-nukes.


Also I think the cell phones going out was "officially" attributed to the antenna on WTC1 going down, because it was in pretty heavy-duty usage before it was destroyed. Not saying I buy this but it answers your question of why no one talks about it, StreetCornerPhilosopher.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Azriphale
 


Wow, cell phones were down in MN also?? I didn't know that! I don't buy it, the phones were jammed and all, how many people were making calls? 300,000 in that one 15 mile radius?? Not even. It's not plausible.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
reply to post by Azriphale
 


Wow, cell phones were down in MN also?? I didn't know that! I don't buy it, the phones were jammed and all, how many people were making calls? 300,000 in that one 15 mile radius?? Not even. It's not plausible.



And why would they need to use an EMP attack to to turn off the cell phones? they would just cut it off from the source. besides if they used emp everything would be affected including the so called weapons you are talking about so its not really a buyable theory is it!



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Guess not according to you. Whoever you are. Lots of new members seem to be responding to many of my posts.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   
And new members responding to your posts is some sort of a conspiricy? Read the link i posted earlier. The networks cannot handle the strain of so many people calling at the one time.

Theres nothing for you to buy, networks going down because of the strain is a fact. Not directed energy....lol. Its suspicious that jane standley could report live that wt7 fell before it did with this so called EMP/DE. And all the other news channels reporting live and the helicopters circling the wtcs..... Do you see what im saying here?


Thread has offically been derailed.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   
The total lack of knowledge of even basic physics in this thread is disturbing. I didn't read all the posts but DEW knocked out the WTC? Did we just forget about the fact a plane crashed into it? Or are we going to play the hologram card on that one... because someone forgot to tell all the people on the fourth plane that actually crashed before it got to it's target, they were flying on a hologram. Eating holographic peanuts, and fighting holographic terrorists. I'm glad a DEW type beam made a perfect impression of a jet in the side of the WTC. You can see where the engines and wings went through. That's convienent. Or are we going to play the let's hit it with a DEW then crash a plane into it to cover it up card? What would the point of that be? Just from a political standpoint if nothing else, why a conspiracy? All it accomplished was killing over 5000 people and making the government look like a bunch of morons. If we wanted to go to war we had the WMD card to play, it served no pupouse for our government to do that. You really think it is more likely our government flawlessly carried out a supertop secret plan in broad daylight to kill 5000 of it's own citizens. I think it's much more likely our government just screwed up and let the terrorists get away with it. There are people out there who want to harm us. That's not a conspiracy. Was Pearl Harbor a cover up too?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by b309302
Was Pearl Harbor a cover up too?


What if it was, and it was allowed to happen so that we could finally get enough people riled up to go fight the Germans? Would you cry if that were the case, too? It was awfully convenient that all those aircraft carriers were out on exercises that morning, if you ask me, and it's not like there haven't been several investigations into Pearl Harbor anyway. I wouldn't at all be surprised, but I'm not going to get online and whine to everyone that the thought bothers me and isn't what the news and politicians have been telling me and my family and friends for x number of decades. Wake up.

You go through school being mechanically taught from history books that are dumbed-down and simplified and don't even cite their sources, and then continue your life being "informed" by electronic boxes with pictures and sounds of people that don't even know you, and that you don't really know. If you want to be honest, we hardly actually know anything at all, any of us. Everything you think about 9/11 is based on what you saw and were told on TV, and faith. That's all. And all you're doing is complaining. Use some logic in your posts at least.

I posted some physics/engineering-related stuff above if you want that kind of discussion (with the image of the column cross-section and dimensions). I love those kinds of discussions.


[edit on 21-9-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
The OP must give credit where credit is due to bsbray's lengthy post, leading to this conclusion:


Originally posted by bsbray11
...and when you divide it by the time the towers fell (power = energy / time), you get a power requirement that is greater than what the entire world's electrical generation could accommodate combined.


I think the kids these days call that "getting PWNED."

The problem I'm dealing with now is that I'm completely torn when I want to taunt someone who vomits this theory into yet another thread:

1)
Do I reference the virtual impossibility of a directed energy weapon with the power to cut through ONE column of a building, much less several?

2)
Or do I focus on the underlying idiocy of the "holographic planes" theory?

Decisions, decisions. It's like being an alcoholic on a brewery tour!!

As for the whole cell phone jamming bit...you need to let that go. I'll add another instance of a network going down due to a flood of concerned callers:

The February, 2001 earthquake in Seattle. This incident is BEANS compared to the disasters in New York and Minnesota, and I couldn't place a cell phone call into WESTERN WASHINGTON for almost a full day.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
There is enough evidence to point to the fact that the planes crashes themselves would have been insufficient to bring down the towers. It is A FACT that there was molten metal for weeks afterward in the ruins, eyewitnesses can verify this. In one of the pictures of a 9/11 research video (I believe one of them was Zeitgeist - an EXCELLENT documentary that every person wishing to liberate themselves from tyranny should watch), there was a beam still standing amongst the ruins that had been cut diagonally - the cut is EXACTLY the same way thermite is used to demolish buildings (the diagonal cut ensures the safe and swift collapse of the building).

Therefore thermite was used in the demolition of the WTC towers (on top of whatever else was used).

There IS a bunch of theories and evidence out there claiming that the planes themselves never hit the towers, that they were actually (a)missiles, (b)planes attached with missiles, (c)energy weapons (this one I haven't heard before until today) and that the 'planes' themselves were either (a)disguised to look like planes, (b)holograms, or (c)doctored into the footage (as even 'live' news has a delay that allows oversight). While I tend to believe that it was (a)missiles with the deceitful use of (c) doctored video (there is OVERWHELMING evidence that the planes themselves were doctored in, I will attempt to find one video in particular which showed the nose of one of the planes going entirely through the building and coming out the other side in pristine condition!), I keep an open mind and hear all the evidence out there so I can continue to make logical and rational decisions regarding this atrocity.

So let me make this observation to all of you who TRULY wish to expose the lie that has been propagated to us and for those who intend to bring forth a peaceful revolution into our lives:

ARGUING OVER GUESSWORK WILL ONLY DIVIDE US!

It is imperative that we, the ones lucky enough to have searched for and found the truth, band together and expose the lie to the masses AS ONE VOICE!

There is NO DIFFERENCE between missiles being used in lieu of planes or energy weapons being used in lieu of missiles! WE HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO KNOW THAT THE 9/11 TRAGEDY WAS NOT ONLY STAGED AND PLANNED FOR, BUT ALLOWED TO HAPPEN FROM WITHIN!

The truth of the matter is there is much unknown to us. It is entirely likely that the ones propagating the lie have technology and means available that the ordinary man has not been made aware of. A 'Shadow Government' can only exist when their means, doctrines, and abilities are kept secret from the public at large! It is deadly for our nation (indeed our world!) to dismiss something as impossible too quickly! And it is just as deadly to believe in every far-out possibility that is given out there! WE KNOW THERE IS MUCH DISINFORMATION ON ALL SIDES!

Unraveling the entire story and finding the ultimate truth might mean giving up possible improbabilities and embracing probable impossibilities. Be open, be vigilant, and be discerning. It might have been futuristic technology, and it might not. It might have been entirely conventional technology, and it might not. When we argue over known unknowns it only divides our ranks further and allows tyranny to dribble in slowly...

If anyone here TRULY desires a peaceful world in where we are all liberated individuals that can pursue our happiness any GOD BLESSED way we choose - WE STICK TOGETHER, SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER, STOP OUR SILLY BICKERING, AND AGREE ON THE FACTS!

Do you want to change the world and your life for the better?
Or do you want to be right?



six

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Good job bsbray..Hats off to you...The DEW are not going to like this very much...You goverment shill you.....lol



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAce
 


Thank you. The planes were the decoys to shift the mind of the masses away from the TNT, C4, and/or DEW.

To prove the aim of this thread, we must first overcome and answer the questions raised from the cell phone disturbances both in NY that day, and in MN after the bridge collapse.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join