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

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

So... all the columns laying around Ground Zero are only from the top part of the building? Or what? How much are you trying to say was vaporized, exactly?

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.

So in other words you're telling me that you looked at photos and then compared them to some theoretical amount of steel in your head that you think you should be seeing. Right? Or did you do an actual count or something? It looks like a LOT more than 2 or 3 floors worth of steel laying around to me.

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.

Maybe you just haven't looked hard enough in the photos? I've circled a big group of perimeter columns that peeled off together in the image below:



And are you sure you're looking at images from right after the collapses? Because they did start hauling that stuff out pretty damned fast.

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.

There were extremely small particles of iron and other building materials, and some things that point to radiation, but those pieces of information still leave a pretty broad range of possibilities as to what could have happened to those buildings.

We saw some of the exterior attached two steel walls exploding off the sides of the buildings we could see.

What specifically do you think provided the force in that case?

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.

Well that's a problem, because I know for a fact that the numbers can make a hell of a lot of difference. Just because things can happen doesn't mean they will. But even before going that far, quantum mechanics is made up of a bunch of theories that are mostly pretty unproven and just assumed to be correct for the sake of practicality, for as long as they tend to be consistent with actual experimental data. Same goes for all other sciences. But you don't see anyone re-writing Newtonian mechanics since quantum mechanics was discovered. If you want to super-heat something to fail it, or destroy something with kinetic energy, on a scale as large as the Twin Towers, you're still going to have to operate within a Newtonian scale of energies and powers in Joules and Watts at least from all the energy that's going to have to be transferred into the steel, and evoking quantum mechanics isn't going to change that.

Then I study what works from their formulas when it does. I know Einstein's worked as did Tesla's and Planck's.

They work for what they were meant to describe. That's as far as any theory or formula goes.

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.

I'll have to look over the other links tomorrow. But if EM radiation did that, then what did the massive pressures and heat from the bomb do?

A directed energy( radiation or particle based) beam is a line of sight weapon. In this case it would need to deliver enough energy to instantaneously vaporise massive cross-sections of structural steel so the energy would have been beyond measurement, probably in the gigawatt range or beyond.

Such a beam simply couldn't go un-noticed even if it was invisible at the point of origin due to ionisation of air and atmospheric molecules excited to the point of radiating their own visible photons and probably a strong blue corona of cherenkov radiation pointing right to the target. How would it penetrate the outer walls unseen or even the clouds of dust and smoke to vaporise the core exclusively?

Such a massive delivery of energy in terms of watt-seconds would produce a massive explosion due to the rapid expansion of superheated air and the vaporised target material itself.

And these things were not observed ?

reply to post by Larry L. Burks



Very interesting Larry, you wouldn't have any links for further reading by any chance.

When ever you heat elements.
It acts like a catalyst. It free up electrons. It causes atom to expand.
Steel will run like hot wax and form beads. A high temperature process.
When ever space becomes curved. Atoms become smeared out over time and space. This causes the electron to free up. A catalyst effect.
The electro magnetic effect is over ridden and atoms become rip from other atoms. Steel will run like hot wax and steel will break apart and bead up and from spheres.
Like those found in the dust by Jones.
Curved space can do this at room temperature. Like happen on 9/11
In fact Hawkins calls this process. An evaporation effect. The temperature may even get cooler.
Go read what Hawkins says about what happen to the atoms of objects that go off down the mouth of a wormhole.
This is why black hole found in the center of galaxies produce Gamma rays.
If all of the support columns turn in to dust at the same time.
The building will fall straight down. Like it did on 9/11.
Some of the building around The twin towers had this dust all over their sides.
It rained a few day later.
Water will cause iron to turn rust red.
The building that had the iron in the dust. Turned rust red.
Go look at the pictures on Judy's page.
Then you stand there and try and tell me that steel beam can't turn in to dust in a free fall. We have pictures of steel beams turning in to dust as they fall.
And if they are not turning in to dust.
(1)Why are those buildings blood red. In the pictures?
(2)Why are the steel beams turning into dust as they fall? In the pictures?
(3)Why is it the Jones is finding iron in the dust in that he tested.
(4) Only one thing known to man that can cause this kind of effect and evidence. At room temperature is. A wormhole.
Three strikes and you are out.

If they were using the gravitational field energy to turn steel beams in to dust.
You can't see the gradational field.
It is composed of plasma.
There are only a few places that we can see the plasma that makes up the gravitational field.
Simple light is in the fourth state of matter.
Plasma gun?

www.holoscience.com...


Pictures of wormholes.


www.ufoworkshop.0catch.com...


Go study plasma. This is where you will find the weapon system that they used to bring down the twin towers 0n 9/11. Fallow this trail. Copy and past, this into googles

Lyndon LaRouche relativistic beam weapon system.


Or go here


www.google.com...

LaRouche was the person that got the video on the evening news. That shows building turning into dust.

Thers ie a lot of energy being expended right here. It sounds like the folks in this discussion think that they are covering new ground. Your not. You are reinventing the wheel. Everything being discussed here was hashed out 5 years ago. Browse through some of the bigger older threads here and on other forums and you will see these same paragraphs word for word 5 maybe even 6 years ago. Anybody with even a tiny amount of clarity of thought and knowledge of the physical world can see that those buildings did not "collapse" at all , but that they were demolished and that something beyond conventional explosives was used.

I got suckered into old habits recently trying to help folks along the truth path incrementally and not making the "big leap" and instead discussing possibilty of holograms etc.. etc.. And it frustrates me because I had resolved not to do this and yet it is sometimes irresistable as you see people struggling in the mud alongside the truth path.

Now, with that being said, what were the conclusions reached so long ago?

A: There were no airplanes involved.

B: The WTC towers were demolished using a combination of conventional explosives and also some mini directional nuclear devices in the basements.

The conventional explosives were employed to make it appear that the buildings were "collapsing" from the top down by cutting every hanger bolt on the floor trusses at the OUTSIDE column connections only , thus packing the mass of the building into a tall "christmas tree" as the floors draped around the core and at the same time creating a curtain of dust to hide the effects of the nuclear devices as this "christmas tree" was incinerated making 90% of the mass of those buildings disapear. The outside columns then tumbled down covering up the sizzling leftovers of the rest of the buildings. I personally struggled with the logistics of using conventional explosives to turn the floors completely to dust for a long time until I realized that what was really done was cutting the oustide bolts only, in the process turning the perimeter of the floors to dust and the rest was done as the core was gravity fed into the nuclear furnace below to be vaporized. Kind of like feeding a christmas tree into a wood chipper.

C: WTC 7 was demolished in the conventional method, using high explosives to cut up the structure and letting it collapse into a big pile.

This was done this way to show people what a building getting demolished looks like thereby causing a mental conflict when trying to figure out what happened to the Towers. WTC 7 was also used as a trash can to get rid of a lot of evidence, to tie up loose ends.Honest CIA and FBI agents who were on to the plot and many operatives, their sinister job completed and who were now a liabilty,along with many hapless eyewitnesses, seeking to tell their story to the FBI, and whose accounts and videotapes would contradict the official story were in there. "You say you saw no airplanes and you have a very clear video tape to prove it? Step right this way and agent Auschwitz will take care of you." *POOF* no more witness. Their names were just added in with the rest of the victims.

The credit for the vast majority of this unified theory of Black Tuesday largely belongs to one person , Mike Marriot. He was the first one, to my knowledge, to correctly deduce what happened, especially the reverse/forward psychology aspects.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by ItsHumanNature]

Originally posted by bsbray11

So... all the columns laying around Ground Zero are only from the top part of the building? Or what? How much are you trying to say was vaporized, exactly?

I am not certain what you mean by "all the columns". When I looked at all the photos of what was left, I did not see enough to try to put two floors of another tower back up relative to all the steel that went into both buildings. I do not know how better to describe the difference between what used to be there and what was left.

So in other words you're telling me that you looked at photos and then compared them to some theoretical amount of steel in your head that you think you should be seeing. Right? Or did you do an actual count or something? It looks like a LOT more than 2 or 3 floors worth of steel laying around to me.

How was it theoretical? We know how much steel was in the buildings when they were completed. Did you see enough steel left to start rebuilding and complete two towers again or even close to it?

Maybe you just haven't looked hard enough in the photos? I've circled a big group of perimeter columns that peeled off together in the image below:

And are you sure you're looking at images from right after the collapses? Because they did start hauling that stuff out pretty damned fast.

I have studied photos and other documentation for over 6 years with concentration on WTC. I did not see all the steel you imply you see. Since you indicate you saw enough steel, could you please point out all the steel you saw left after it was over beyond the photo you embedded? What you show in the photo is only part of the outside. Where is all the steel from the inside? What you picutre might partially covered about 10 stories on one side of the outside. Where is the rest of the outside for all the walls up to over 1350' for two towers?

There were extremely small particles of iron and other building materials, and some things that point to radiation, but those pieces of information still leave a pretty broad range of possibilities as to what could have happened to those buildings.

What do you think is the reason? Can you narrow down from any broad possibilities? I have already narrowed it down to what I surmise happened. However, I am open to suggestions of some other specific possibility.

What specifically do you think provided the force in that case?

Anti-gravity and electromagnetic radiation aka DEW laser beam.

Well that's a problem, because I know for a fact that the numbers can make a hell of a lot of difference. Just because things can happen doesn't mean they will. But even before going that far, quantum mechanics is made up of a bunch of theories that are mostly pretty unproven and just assumed to be correct for the sake of practicality, for as long as they tend to be consistent with actual experimental data. Same goes for all other sciences. But you don't see anyone re-writing Newtonian mechanics since quantum mechanics was discovered. If you want to super-heat something to fail it, or destroy something with kinetic energy, on a scale as large as the Twin Towers, you're still going to have to operate within a Newtonian scale of energies and powers in Joules and Watts at least from all the energy that's going to have to be transferred into the steel, and evoking quantum mechanics isn't going to change that.

With all due respect, if you want numbers and math formulas, you will need to contact the people designing DEW and working with quantum mechanics. I have nothing to do with anything concerning atomic energy except study the laws and principles involved in physics and quantum mechanics. As far as I am concerned, I wish there had never been any harnessing of such destruction of the ecology of this planet. Harnessing energy for the good of humanity is one thing. Harnessing it for evil is quite another. WTC destruction was wickedly evil.

It is not simply kinetic energy (quantum). It is the thermal and kinetic engery (quantum). It is the effect of quantum on physical matter (physics).

Perhaps people do not realize that a large amount of quantum mechanics was proved long ago. Gravity, the second law of thermodynamics, electromagnetic energy, magnetic energy etc. All taught in physics classes but not formally broken out and named, except among science peers. Now it is well-known that the study of physics is the study of cause and effect of quantum mechanic energy on physical matter. Many laypersons many not know that, but scientists and those studying and having studied the physical sciences certainly do.

They work for what they were meant to describe. That's as far as any theory or formula goes.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Since it was part of Einstein's formula and Tesla's work that allowed the H- and A-bombs to be researched, developed and used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was Tesla's early work in the latter 19th century and Einstein's Unified Field Theory which also resulted in DEW.

Then there is the Nazi Bell Experiment, which came from Einstein's work on Unified Field Theory before he left Germany. Einstein found out they had his earlier published work. That is when he urged FDR to apply as much energy into his work to develop atomic energy before the Nazis did. Einstein only wanted it done for leverage against Nazi Germany in case they successfully developed first. FDR ordered atomic energy to wipe out Japan, which had no development in atomic energy, instead of concentrating on Germany, which was getting so close to developing and using theirs. I have never fully understood why Germany was let off, and Japan was hit instead. Except for pre-planning to control post-war Japan as part of a centralized global economy, what was the reason?

Same link from another post - Nazi Bell Experiment:

www.americanantigravity.com...

I'll have to look over the other links tomorrow. But if EM radiation did that, then what did the massive pressures and heat from the bomb do?

That was the effect of undirected H- and A-bomb effect. DEW can be directed to any target and disintegrate it. In one photo, at one of the links I provided for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an entire person left only a carbon mark on the steps because of being directly hit with thermal radiation. Another was completely incinirated from indirect thermal radiation blast. Then there were those whose skin and insides were so horribly burnt, because they were further away from direct and indirect thermal radiation energy. Direct energy weapons means they have control as to where they will direct the energy and nowhere else.

Laser beams are normally invisible unless something is added to make them visible such as described in this abstract from the Secretary of the Army:

stinet.dtic.mil...

Accession Number : AD0163561

Title : Method of Apparatus for Tracking an Invisible Gas Laser Beam.

Descriptive Note : Patent,

Corporate Author : OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON D C

Personal Author(s) : Willett,Colin S.

Report Date : 10 AUG 1971

Pagination or Media Count : 4

Abstract : A superradiant transient-type laser material is added to a gas laser such as the CO2 far infrared laser and the combination is excited by extremely fast rise-time excitation pulse that induce laser emission in both the CO2 and the superradiant additive to produce a dual simultaneous emission. If the superradiant material is one whose stimulated emission falls within the visible spectrum, it will provide a visible tracer for the invisible 10.6 micron CO2 laser beam. The superradiant additive can also be chosen so that its wavelength falls just outside the visible spectrum where good detectors or image intensifiers are available, thus improving greatly the detection means normally available for the CO2 laser beam alone. A compound mirror can be used at one end of the gas laser cavity for enhancing the oscillations of both lasing materials. (Author)

Descriptors : (*INFRARED TRACKING, *PATENTS), (*COHERENT RADIATION, OPTICAL TRACKING), (*INFRARED LASERS, TEST METHODS), GAS LASERS, INFRARED RADIATION, TRACER STUDIES

Subject Categories : LASERS AND MASERS
INFRARED DETECTION AND DETECTORS

Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

reply to post by Larry L. Burks


Larry, excellent post. I completely agree.

Something troubles me about the yellow, on certain parts of metal, we have seen and attributed it to molten metal. Do you think that some thermate was used in any of the the three buildings, particularly the twin towers? With photos, it can be difficult to tell what colors actually exist when people attempt to increase resolution. However, yellow is normally a highly distinctive color as is red.

I ask, because I continue to wonder if thermate was partially used, in order to attempt to convince people alleged planes and jet fuel "caused" what we witnessed on video. I can only speculate knowing what I know now about the effects of thermate in controlled demolitions. Without actual samples, we have no way of knowing if the yellow we see was actually thermate.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Since you indicate you saw enough steel, could you please point out all the steel you saw left after it was over beyond the photo you embedded? What you show in the photo is only part of the outside.

Here are tons of photos from various dates after they fell:

www.studyof911.com...

What specifically do you think provided the force in that case?

Anti-gravity and electromagnetic radiation aka DEW laser beam.

I didn't really have an answer like "laser beam" in mind when I asked that question, so, to be more specific, what is the actual phenomena that's producing the force that propels it, you know? Not the weapon. Like if it was a high explosive you might say a massive overpressures or something from the rapidly expanding gases rushing outwards (just as an example). So what exactly allows a laser beam to send massive steel sections hurdling outwards?

It is not simply kinetic energy (quantum). It is the thermal and kinetic engery (quantum). It is the effect of quantum on physical matter (physics).

If you're going to tell me all this stuff that I've not once in my life heard, even as an engineering student, can I ask you what your educational background is or where you actually learned any of this?

In one photo, at one of the links I provided for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an entire person left only a carbon mark on the steps because of being directly hit with thermal radiation. Another was completely incinirated from indirect thermal radiation blast. Then there were those whose skin and insides were so horribly burnt, because they were further away from direct and indirect thermal radiation energy. Direct energy weapons means they have control as to where they will direct the energy and nowhere else.

The thermal radiation is from the heat produced by the actual nuclear reaction. How does that tie in with your EM radiation energy beam?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Here are tons of photos from various dates after they fell:

www.studyof911.com...

I realize there are many photos. However, a good portion of those photos could be photos of what is left, of any recognizable steel, taken from different angles over and over again. FEMA took control. They gave very little steel to NIST for sampling. What they did give was all handpicked by FEMA. Other independent NIST peers got none although repeatedly requested.

FEMA will not release the exact tonnage of recognizable steel gathered from the twin towers or WTC 7. There was hundreds of thousands of tons of steel in 3 buildings. What we saw in photos is nowhere near hundereds of thousands of tons of steel. In fact, the vast majority, of steel in photos, is the outside of the towers, what little is left of that.

I didn't really have an answer like "laser beam" in mind when I asked that question, so, to be more specific, what is the actual phenomena that's producing the force that propels it, you know? Not the weapon. Like if it was a high explosive you might say a massive overpressures or something from the rapidly expanding gases rushing outwards (just as an example). So what exactly allows a laser beam to send massive steel sections hurdling outwards?

All I can tell you is that DEW is not like the H- or A-bomb for thermal and kinetic energy blast reaction. Bombs explode when they hit the ground, vacuum in first , and massively blast outwards at ground level. DEW disintigrates the same for the same reasons (thermal radioactive heat and massive heated kinetic energy) , but does not produce near the outward nuclear blast of H- or A-bombs.

H- and A-bombs are considered indirect nuclear weapons. DEW is directed to specific locations. Both are nuclear weapons.

DEW is electromagnetic radiation laser the same as nuclear bombs. Laser waves cannot be seen by the naked eye. Until, they are enveloped by something dense exposing the light waves. Light waves must hit physical matter, including gases, in order to refract and reflect through or off physical matter. I have to ask for thoughts on consideration of how prisms reflect and refract colors of light waves always unseen by the naked eye.

DEW is designed to create the same vacuum for implosion, which, in turn, creates massive radiation heat and heated kinetic energy, for more powerful electromagnetic radiation energy used in DEW and other nuclear weapons. Fission (vacuum) and fusion (outward momentum at massive thermal and kinetic energy). Enough direct energy to disintegrate a building and touch nothing else surrounding that building, not even people standing outside the building. As long as those poeple are not standing on the side(s) of the building in the direct line of fire of a DEW laser.

In other words, whoever is running a DEW weapon, will set the exact distance of the target and exact dimensions of what to hit, and that is all the laser beams will touch with massive thermal heated energy.

If people pay close attention to the videos, where the buildings start to disintegrate, there will be noimmediate massive popping off and violent blowing outward of any exterior walls, on the sides we can see. It will not until the buildings are further into disintegration, that the outside walls begin to detach, and can be seen violently thrown outward on the sides we can view.

The aftermath photos seen of the perimeter walls, either still bolted and welded together or separate sections, is almost 100% in pristine condition, as are the facade sections in photos. That is only because they were blown away, by massive energy directly due to the disintegration of the buildings. They lost something to attach to. Disintegration taking place from massive proportions of contained, inside the buildings, thermal energy heating kinetic energy to massive proportions blowing outwards.

I have provided several qualified articles explaining the cause and effect of DEW and anti-gravity. I am not certain what I can explain further they did not. That is why I choose the most qualified I can find in their experienced fields for references. I found Dr. Judy Wood to be quite qualified in explaining the cause and effect of DEW, in relation to the construction of the twin towers.

www.drjudywood.com...

If you're going to tell me all this stuff that I've not once in my life heard, even as an engineering student, can I ask you what your educational background is or where you actually learned any of this?

I have spent 6 plus years studying physics and quantum mechanics because of WTC not in spite of it. My specialty in biological science is population genetics. Which comes in handy, concerning 9/11, when people claim DNA has been tested, but failed to produce any results, or allowed independent peer review of results, including independent testing from the same alleged gathered samples.

As an engineering student, were you required to take any physics? I do not recall you specifying in which field of engineering you studied. If I missed it, I apologize.

In electrical engineering, quantum is definitely covered, as it also is in mechanical engineering and other fields of engineering. It may not be labeled that, but if energy is studied, quantum mechanics are definitely being studied.

In physics classes, quantum mechanics is taught and labeled separately as such.

www.google.com... l=1

MIT's program requirement for mechanical engineers:

opencontentonline.com...

MIT's program requirement for physicists:

opencontentonline.com...

The thermal radiation is from the heat produced by the actual nuclear reaction. How does that tie in with your EM radiation energy beam?

Same laws of thermal and kinetic energy are applied in both. Quantum is energy not physical matter. Quantum mechanics is cause and effect of energy applied to physical matter. DEW advances more into antimatter and antigravity (Einstein's Unified Field Theory and Tesla's work with laser machines and beams). Those are advanced quantum mechanics classes and labeled as such.

reply to post by OrionStars


I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree because I got none of the sorts of answers I was looking for and I don't expect any different from subsequent posts.

You derailed to how many steel samples NIST got when I posted a gallery of images showing the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel that was left over intact after the towers fell, showing clean and smooth horizontal slices in most intact core columns and failures at the bolts and shear failures on the spandrels on most perimeter columns. If you want to claim they were all different angles of some small amount of debris or something then that's fine, but we're going to disagree. You can even count the columns if you want, get a rough estimate of everything you can see (HUNDREDS of column sections, no doubt in the hundreds) and remember each of those sections probably weighs a good 10-20 tons in itself. The 3-column perimeter section that hit Winter Garden was said to weigh 22 tons by itself.

You couldn't tell me a specific physical mechanism by which laser beams can physically launch steel, yet you tell me that's what happened anyway.

I asked you how you could compare the effects of EM radiation to thermal radiation from a bomb dropped on Japan and you gave me some kind of generic response about what quantum physics is and I don't even know what it's relevance was supposed to be to my original question.

So put short we're going to have to agree to disagree because we're not getting anywhere at all when I ask you these kinds of questions.

Originally posted by OrionStars
I have spent 6 plus years studying physics and quantum mechanics because of WTC not in spite of it.

I meant where did you go to school and what is your degree in.

As an engineering student, were you required to take any physics?

Yes, mostly just mechanics. I've yet to learn about the incredible building-destroying kinetic energy of photons in the gamma range. You've yet to do ANYTHING but just summon the name of quantum mechanics! Not a single principle or law or ANYTHING specific from you about what you keep insinuating happened. That's why I don't believe you know quite what you're talking about, at least in the same detail and thoroughness that I would like to have before subscribing to any given theory.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


If we just do not know because FEMA and NIST will not tell us, is that what you consider "derailing"? Because that is what I stated. We just do not know, and photos are not the answer for measuring exact tonnage left of intact steel left in the aftermath.

If it is not intact recognizable steel, where did it all go? What was left to haul off? Where do we gain access to that information? Filing for FOIA has done no valuable good. Many of NIST's peer have been very vocal on that matter of refusal. Since NIST personnel peers were not allowed involvement, in examining or watching every piece of intact steel being pulled from the 9/11 site, how do we know any "official" reports we do receive would be accurate? I am not ready to accept on faith alone. I never am.

I apologize for not understanding exactly what you want for information. I have referenced qualified people for you to research yourself.

If I cannot determine what exact answers you seek which satisfy you, is that considered "derailing" as well? If you do not want what I have determined to be the most logical, qualified answers from the highly qualified professionals, in order to support my points of argument, I had no idea what you do want which will satisfy you, concerning resolving the mystery of 9/11/2001.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You derailed to how many steel samples NIST got when I posted a gallery of images showing the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel that was left over intact after the towers fell, showing clean and smooth horizontal slices in most intact core columns and failures at the bolts and shear failures on the spandrels on most perimeter columns. If you want to claim they were all different angles of some small amount of debris or something then that's fine, but we're going to disagree. You can even count the columns if you want, get a rough estimate of everything you can see (HUNDREDS of column sections, no doubt in the hundreds) and remember each of those sections probably weighs a good 10-20 tons in itself. The 3-column perimeter section that hit Winter Garden was said to weigh 22 tons by itself.

What you refer to as "core columns" are vastly outnumbered by the outside permimeter steel walls and facade, in the photos you referenced. There is an astounding difference between outside perimeter primary load bearing walls and facade, and what was on the inside for steel of both towers. I have provided many references, with photos of all steel used, in other various discussion in which you both participated and responded.

Did you research the references I provided in this discussion, of what the professionals, I referenced, had to say in response to all your questions on "physical mechanism"? If you did, what of their explanations did not satiisfy you in that respect?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yes, mostly just mechanics. I've yet to learn about the incredible building-destroying kinetic energy of photons in the gamma range. You've yet to do ANYTHING but just summon the name of quantum mechanics! Not a single principle or law or ANYTHING specific from you about what you keep insinuating happened. That's why I don't believe you know quite what you're talking about, at least in the same detail and thoroughness that I would like to have before subscribing to any given theory.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by bsbray11]

Since you have basically qualified your study in engineering, I hope you agree, it is only fair that I am afforded the opportunity to ask you pertinent questions as well.

Could you please thoroughly explain the quantum mechanics of the laws and principles involved in the second law of therodynamics and conservation of energy? I ask, because both definitely pertain to the serious scientific study of what happened to the twin towers and WTC 7.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Could you please thoroughly explain the quantum mechanics of the laws and principles involved in the second law of therodynamics and conservation of energy?

I just told you I never learned quantum physics, and I'm pretty sure it isn't part of the required curriculum for someone going for an EE license or anything related. So I guess we have the same qualifications there, huh?

Are you going to post your transcripts so I'll actually believe you might have an idea as to what you're talking about? Or at least tell me what school you went to and what you majored in or the name of your quantum physics professor or something? Reading about something on the internet is a big leap from having to actually work all the problems and get a sense of the relationships betweens the variables. Even people in the field from normal engineering backgrounds don't have that much going for them most of the time, depending on what their job is.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Are you going to post your transcripts so I'll actually believe you might have an idea as to what you're talking about? Reading about something on the internet is a big leap from having to actually work all the problems and get a sense of the relationships betweens the variables. Even people in the field from normal engineering backgrounds don't have that much going for them most of the time, depending on what their job is.

That question is out of line. I will not publish that type of personal information about myself. I do not expect anyone else to do that either, and would never ask anyone else to do so. There are valid reaons I would never ask anyone to publicly post anything about their personal selves. One, of the basic valid reasons, is same reason people chose to be anonymous on Internet boards. The other is identity theft so often taking place through use of the Internet.

Now back to the topic of "I'm not convinced about DEW theories but..."

Anyone studying in any engineering field studies basic quantum mechanics in their more basic physics classes. I presented evidence for that from MIT. Anyone could have clicked on "Home", and looked to see what was required in all their engineering programs. Basic physics, including the most basic laws of quantum mechanics, have been taught since basic science in elementary schools or were when I was at those grade levels.

If, as you just implied, will not define two of the most basic quantum mechanics laws and principles of the mechanics, at the very least, at the mid-level educational basic science classes teaching (junior high, middle school, high school), how do you know for certain what I am stating, as are professionals in far more detail, is not correct as a more thorough analysis of what actually did happen on 9/11/2001?

I think some of the confusion lies in the fact that at the beginning of the ' collapses ' the sections above the ' strike zone ' comprises for all intents a ' block ' of floors, from the lowest severely affected floor to the roof.

The part UNDER the block gives way and allows the block(s) to fall down. It is as if a beam had cut across the floors just below the srike zone from the side, and then we see that after the block enters the dust created by the underneath giving up the ghost, it never re-emerges buit turns to dust as well as the reat below that area!

The ' blocks' do not exhibit the dustification until they have dropped down to a degree, enough to hide the effect in the clouds of dust. Either the underneath was blasted and cut conventionally, and that is quite possible, or a beam was used below the strike zone at first and then trained from above on the site. The appearance of holes in the area attest to th effects, and the cars toasted tell the story all too well: No other source of energy can explain all of the effects seen.

So for sure there were many different types on methods used: Conventional, exotic and classified for sure were used on both Towers. The efffects seen mimick the Hutchinson effect to a tee. The Towers were exploded from the space above and possible beside the area, as well as many regular explosions recorded that attest to the fact that the perps were going for broke: I would love to meet the genius behind this plan: I guess he is an Israeli and MOSSAD fanatic working for the Neocon connections in the executive and military. Just a guess.

Originally posted by OrionStars
That question is out of line. I will not publish that type of personal information about myself.

Then I'm just assuming that you haven't really had the physics courses relevant to what you're having such a hard time explaining to me. When you go to a college class you realize it wouldn't really make any bit of difference whether or not somebody knows your professor's name. Hundreds, if not thousands of people know his/her name already. It's not like you take some kind of personal security risk, or that your professor does either. Hell, the scholars organizations' members reveal their full names and practically work addresses for lots of more prominent names.

Now back to the topic of "I'm not convinced about DEW theories but..."

If you really knew what you were talking about, you could start talking specific principles to match what you're saying they did to the buildings. You could reference actual physical processes instead of just referencing general fields and other people repeatedly. Do you understand the kind of stuff I'm asking for?