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.

 

I'm not convinced about DEW theories but...

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
This paragraph, which appears in a story about a stricken US spy satellite that's about to plummet to the earth, is likely to fuel the debate.

Source: The Times

The spokesman refused to speculate on the possibility that the satellite may be shot down by a missile to prevent any debris causing damage.

If the US government elected not to use that method to destroy the errant satellite, then it could opt instead to employ America’s new laser weapons for use against incoming missiles, which are now being tested on board a modified Boeing jumbo jet.




posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Now that is a pretty bizarre thing to say unless I'm missing something. As far as I was aware, the only way they could use lasers to fail missiles was to use them to heat up important circuitry and cause its sense navigation to go. How they could use the same technology to take out this falling satellite, or alter its course? Unless, like I said, I'm missing something.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

That's what I'm driving at and I'm surprised you're the only one who queried it.

They're appear to be talking here about using jumbo-borne laser weapons to basically destroy a satellite. That's a pretty neat piece of kit they're referring to.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
It is done as described at the following website links. Please scroll down to the words gamma-ray laser on the website:

www.sew-lexicon.com...

The following is a website authored by Michael Kotlarchyk, Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, NY. The article more throughly covers the effect of gamma ray used by DEW:

www.rit.edu...

I surmise at least someone people will find the information highly informative and applicable to 9/11/2001.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


The thing on the first link you were talking about sounds more like the conventional EM weapon I had in mind. Those are relatively low-power. The second link just looks like a physics text on electrodynamics. What specifically were you looking at in regards to interaction with steel in a way that can physically cut it?



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by OrionStars
 


The thing on the first link you were talking about sounds more like the conventional EM weapon I had in mind. Those are relatively low-power. The second link just looks like a physics text on electrodynamics. What specifically were you looking at in regards to interaction with steel in a way that can physically cut it?


Radioactive gamma rays emit enormous thermal and kinetic energy. Enough thermal energy to rapid erosion corrode what steel is not kinetically molecularly disintegrated. The effect of gamma ray is in the second article. It is definitely part of DEW in hard kill electromagnetic radioactive DEW. Molecular disiintegration as briefly stated at the first website and more in detail at the second. Then there is hard kill anti-particle DEW.

Yes, I do realize that the first website stated it could not be used under the stratospheric level. However, DEW is based in anti-particle disintegration, plus, anti-gravity. It can be done on earth because Dr. Hutchinson (the Hutchinson effect) proved in his lab it could be used under the stratospheric level. So has NASA.

DEW became "conventional" in Iraq as evidenced on Dr. Judy Wood's website. What was used on the twin towers is DEW, more aggressively researched and developed, due to Reagan's demanded Star Wars DOD and Pentagon progam, dating back to the 1980s:

www.drjudywood.com...

bbs.stardestroyer.net...



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I meant to ask where in your 2nd link it actually discusses all the things you're talking about. I have a feeling if I see what you're saying laid out formally with the explanatory diagrams and all the rest, as it would be if it's in that text you linked me to (in your earlier post), it might make more sense to me.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If you read the article, it is not going to be full of drawings and graphs. What it will do is basically explain the quantum mechanics concerning electromagnetic spectrum - part of the base of DEW research and development. It is 52 pages long, but moves along easily and well. To take anything out of context would not be particularly helpful or explanatory.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


After I responded, it dawned on me I am not certain exactly what you seek. If it is gamma ray information, the search on the .pdf is useful. You can ask for gamma ray, and the search will give you every section on gamma rays. What you are going to also need is the section on kinetic and thermal energy emited by ultraviolet rays. Gamma rays are only one of the ultraviolet radiation waves. Electromagnetic spectrum contains a variety of radiation waves.

I must apologize. The article has a great deal more diagrams and charts than I recalled. It also has a great deal of explanatory math equations, which you may find helpful as well.

This might provide helpful information concerning the power of gamma and x-rays:

arstechnica.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I didn't see anything really in the pdf that would be relevant to heating materials or cutting them with EM radiation, but again, maybe I just missed something important in there. I also have to wonder is how this beam would be hitting very exact places inside of the building, that require it to go through the building first without damaging whatever it entered through. To cut connections or slice columns the way we see them in photographs, it would make more sense to me to say that something placed inside the towers was the source of the energy, rather than something coming from outside. You could still be dealing with exotic weaponry, and I wouldn't at all be surprised. But I can't see how things like horizontal core column slices came about from a satellite just beaming down a wave with a lot of kinetic energy.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
With all due respect, and after reading what you wrote, I have to concede people do need at least a basic background of study in quantum mechanics, particularly electromagnetic spectrum, before it may be obviously noted. It is there.

It discusses the effects of gamma ray corrosion and disintegration the more intense the gamma rays and other radioactiviy effect from DEW. It is rather a technical article, but I found it an easy read and quite explanatory. I did consider it might be more difficult for some posters, which is why I placed the other website link on as well. I thought maybe people would be interested and begin doing their own basic advanced studies.

In the past, when I post more basic links to a subject, I have been told I "talk down to people". I wanted to avoid doing that, which is why I posted both links.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


bsbray,

From what little seeps out about DEW, they are by no means only satellite based. Check this post which quotes from Sandia labs citing that they had developed compact, portable DEW, and that they helped out the Brits with just that to destroy a cave complex in Afghanistan in 2002. They note that it was the largest 'explosion' the Brits had set off since WW II.

I'm very much in agreement with Coughymachine, the little you read of DEW makes you stop and wonder.



[edit on 29-1-2008 by gottago]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by OrionStars
 


The energy will penetrate walls and the exterior of human bodies. If we notice the buldings, it starts high and continues downward. That means someone can be running a broad laser beam the width or length of a building all the way down to the ground. Or could be running it the length or width of nothing but the cores, and expect gravity to do the rest. Which did not happen in the case of the twin towers. The beam can be any length, width, depth, height anyone sets it. It is invisible to the naked eye, as long as there is no contrast color surrounding it.

Lasers can penentrate solid objects. No different than medically used gamma and x-rays on our human bodies. We do not see those either but we see the results on film.

As the weight was dropping before also being disintegrated, the outside double steel walls were exploding outward off the buildings, on the sides we could see. What was happening to them on the sides we could not see? Were they being disintegrated as well?

How many sections of the outside facade and exterior tube wall sections were actually found fully or partially intact? Compared to what was on the buildings before almost complete disintegration. That matters a great deal in proper analysis and evaluation of what actually did happen on 9/11/2001.

When I saw photos of what is supposed to be the immediate aftermath, there were nowhere near enough facade and exterior frames section to equal what was actually used on both those towers. Nor were the entire piles, of either building tall, wide, deep or high enough to attempt to reconstruct even three stories of either tower, in part not whole.

Where did all that highly redundantly used steel go? It was not hauled off, because it was not there to haul off, according to photos purported to be the immediate aftermath of two completely dropped twin towers.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by OrionStars]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   
It is true.
The thinks that you are talking about. Don't get leaked out to the public.
The places where it has been leaked are far and few in between.
You are close. But not right.
Black hole. Close.
Wormhole. Right.
Man made wormholes.
Dr. Judy Wood.
The new stuff this month. That you find on Judy's page. Is close.
She is on the right track.
Curved space can do every thing that happened on 9/11.
You can go out and build one of these worm hole beam weapon system in your back yard. A stand a lone system that doesn't need a out side power source.
And produce all the effects that was produces on 9/11.
Gravity can make steel run like hot wax or turn in to dust at room temperature.
9/11 = One million tons of concrete and steel. Turned in to toxic nano size dust particles. With in ten seconds. At room temperature.
The amount of energy to do this. Goes right off the charts.
The same amount of energy for the hole universe to have a gravitational field.
Is the same amount of energy it takes to form a wormhole.
Which is also the same amount of energy it would take to manipulate gravity.
And as we all know. Is the same amount of energy it would take to produce the physical evidence found on 9/11.
Do we have such a beam weapon system that can turn building in to dust. Sure.
In 1986 when they were trying to fund the star war program.
They show a video on the five-0 clock evening news.
It was a two story building that turn in to dust with in the blink of a eye.
The brag back then was. This weapon system is so powerful that you could cut a battle ship in half with. It was so powerful that you could cut a skyscraper in to with it.
To prove their point. They show the video on live T.V. to every one in America.
But because they show the video on the evening new.
They now can not say that they don't have a weapon system that can produce the energies to turn a building in to dust.
I rest my case.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Instead of just saying I can't understand it but you can, why don't you give me some terms or numbers or something from the relevant formulas if you found it so easy to comprehend?

[edit on 30-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Lasers can penentrate solid objects. No different than medically used gamma and x-rays on our human bodies. We do not see those either but we see the results on film.


That's my point. Have you ever looked at where the perimeter columns actually failed, or the core columns actually failed, in photographs of Ground Zero? If so, how do you reconcile those failures (clean horizontal slices in core columns and failures at the bolts in perimeter column sections for the most part) with an EM beam that you say is destroying the towers by either thermal energy or kinetic energy, if the beam is passing through all this junk on the way down but apparently leaving it intact? Why does the kinetic energy not destroy the roof before the impacted floors start falling? Where is the beam coming from?



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I think the answer to the contradicting observable phenomenon on 9/11 is an answer in itself. Every aspect of the operation involved multiple and contradictory methods, then to add to this confusion some "evidence" indicating other methods was introduced , again- by multiple methods, sometimes physical, sometimes with CGI trickery etc. all of which being part of the plan to obfuscate rather than lie. To keep people steppin' and fetchin' rather than being able to follow one line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. These Fu@&ers were VERY clever indeed.The real problem is that while all of us are slowly catching on to the core lies , they are already years ahead of us. Dont forget either, not to be paranoid, but there is a reason we are having this conversation right now, they are using the internet as a huge fishing net to scoop up information on every person who has even the slightest tendency to catch on.......

The timea ahead are going to be very interesting indeed.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

That's my point. Have you ever looked at where the perimeter columns actually failed, or the core columns actually failed, in photographs of Ground Zero? If so, how do you reconcile those failures (clean horizontal slices in core columns and failures at the bolts in perimeter column sections for the most part) with an EM beam that you say is destroying the towers by either thermal energy or kinetic energy, if the beam is passing through all this junk on the way down but apparently leaving it intact? Why does the kinetic energy not destroy the roof before the impacted floors start falling? Where is the beam coming from?


How could we? The buildings were disintegrating in front of our eyes when viewing video of that event? There was no sign of failure to observe except disineigration. Then all of a sudden it is rapidly disintegrating. The exterior 3-story high exterior wall sections were literally being exploded outward, directly due to the buildings disintegrating out from under them. Thus, breaking their attachments.

They can disintegrate everything non-organic in their path, including entire buildings. Organic matter may well not be affected the same way buildings and other non-organic solids are affected by DEW. The laser does not simply cut supports. No one cuts supports horizontally and expects those supports to slide off one another to drop down.

We watched as it started at the top, and then took out the top of the buildings and disintegrated them as well. I have no idea what survived. So much of the steel left became almost unrecognizable in photos presented in these discussions.

The photos of the WTC aftermath is why I know there was not enough steel left to reconstruct even two floors much less three of only one tower.

That is why I ask what happened to all that steel from the perimter wall frames, the facade sections, and all the other redundant steel used in both buildings. It simply was not there. What did they haul off missing so much steel from both buildings? When the granular particles were analyzed, the results were astounding, for the amount of iron and radioactive elements used in radioactive weapons, such as DEW. The following was provided by gottago in another discussion:

pubs.usgs.gov...

The above site has charts of the elements found in granular debris, not intact pieces of steel.

We saw some of the exterior attached two steel walls exploding off the sides of the buildings we could see. What were they doing on the sides we could not see? How much of all that double steel wall was actually located? How much intact core support was located? How much of the steel framing inside the core supports was located? How much of the redundant steel supports of the floors was located? How many steel staircases were located? How many elevator cars? Etc.

Since FEMA did not allow NIST but a few selected pieces of 1 and 2 marked "Saved", and independent peers began screaming foul when they were not allowed to peer review NIST's lab work, complete with some shared samples, how would any of the the rest of us know what exactly was found intact, and what was not? We are the mercy of those directly involved for any feed-back. When science becomes pseudo-science, we further are at the mercy of disrepubable, unethical people calling themselves "scientists".

All we have left is the science we can use to evaluate what we actually saw as possible vs impossible. What else is there left for us and qualified professionals excluded from the inner circle controlling it all, including what will be reported and what will not by selective exclusion, which could prove to hamper the "official" reports?

As for formulas, I have no use for the formulas for what I study. I study cause and effect of physics and quantum mechanics, including electromagnetic energy. I leave the math up to those who enjoy working to prove their hypothetical formulas. Then I study what works from their formulas when it does. I know Einstein's worked as did Tesla's and Planck's.

This is are what math formulas are to me. If soneone wants to know how much energy is needed, the formula tells him or her what is needed have to reach that exact energy level. They are like a recipe. I do not need the recipes to undestand cause and effect. If I need specifics, I need a recipe/math formula to reach that specific level of energy.

The following is an excellect article on anti-gravity and electromagnetic energy. The work to harness that began in the latter 19th century with x-rays, and what may be the earliest known laser beam experimentation by Tesla:

www.americanantigravity.com...

The following is an 1986 article from the New York Times on Reagan's "Star Wars" program:

query.nytimes.com...

If people are looking for actual disintegrated buildings, then I highly recommend looking at close-up ground shots of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They were full of disintgrated buildings after the US dropped electromagnetic radiation bombs on those cities. The horrific gamma ray effects can be seen on the bodies of people dead and alive in Japan at that time.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
The aftermath of electromagnetic radiation energy on Hiroshima's buildings:

en.wikipedia.org...:Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg

More comparison of the twin towers to the effects on Nagasaki and Hiroshima:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   
The following is why WTC site has been aptly named (Nuclear) Ground Zero:

www.gensuikin.org...

The term Ground Zero was coined because of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join