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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
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.


The ABL laser system which fits inside a modified Boeing 747-400F, wouldn't be able to incinerate an entire satellite. The system is used as follows:

The ABL doesn't burn through a missile, or disintegrate it. Rather it heats the missile skin, weakening it and causing failure due to flight stresses. If proven successful, seven ABL-armed 747s would be constructed and divided between two combat theaters.




posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
In the image below you can see where a core column's bracing at the floor level failed. The core column itself has another smooth end on it:



Exactly what part, in the photo, do you consider floor bracing? The center core supports did not brace any floors as most people think of floor bracing between floors. Where are brackets to hang trusses on what you are calling core supports?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


Your not missing anything. You're spot on!



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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]


Again you are correct. A beam fired from outside would bore through everything it hit until it reached it's target. Also keep in mind that MASSIVE energy requirements to fire a beam of this nature.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Larry L. Burks
 


I have a degree in Electronics so I will be able to build your wormhole beam weapon. Please go ahead and post the specs. I have a big back yard. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Energy weapons have been disintegrating buildings, plus, vaporizing and incinerating people since WWII. Therefore, advanced technology almost 50 years later certainly enabled the US military to completely disintegrate two buildings, with direct energy lasers at any given building and nowhere else.

It was already revealed in the 1980s it was developed and being tested under Reagan's "Star Wars" program. Sci-fi being reality no different than Jules Verne's submarine (Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea published in 1870), when submarines were considered sci-fi and nothing more. Art imitates life not the other way around. Inventors arrive at ideas and early development, which may not be fully developed into successful reality until many years or even centuries later. Nikola Tesla developed and actually worked with DEW laser in the late 19th century. He built the earliest known DEW laser.

en.wikipedia.org...


Tesla demonstrated "the transmission of electrical energy without wires" that depends upon electrical conductivity as early as 1891. The Tesla effect (named in honor of Tesla) is the archaic term for an application of this type of electrical conduction (that is, the movement of energy through space and matter; not just the production of voltage across a conductor).[49][20]:174


What do people see as the impossiblity of DEW used on 9/11/2001, considering uncontrolled indirect and direct energy was successfully used as early as WWII, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It resulted in the same cause and effect as uncontrolled direct and indirect energy as early as WWII.

Why is there denial, rather than logical discussion, on the high probability DEW was used on two twin towers, in lieu of natural collapse or complete controlled demolitions?

Is it too frightening to believe? Because the high probablity, based on known cause and effect of energy, makes it entirely the highest probablity of what brought down WTC 1 and 2 in 10 seconds or less. Effect is highly important in proper scientific analysis.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Why is there denial, rather than logical discussion, on the high probability DEW was used on two twin towers, in lieu of natural collapse or complete controlled demolitions?

Is it too frightening to believe? Because the high probablity, based on known cause and effect of energy, makes it entirely the highest probablity of what brought down WTC 1 and 2 in 10 seconds or less. Effect is highly important in proper scientific analysis.


This is just like your hologram plane idea in another thread. Statements without specific evidence. You're making giant leaps from theory to application and trying to compare apples and elephants.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

This is just like your hologram plane idea in another thread. Statements without specific evidence. You're making giant leaps from theory to application and trying to compare apples and elephants.


This is not a hologram discussion, which means you are derailing this discussion concerning DEW.

If you think it is impossible, then by all means prove the impossible, or admit it is only your opinion of impossibility, concerning both DEW and hologram use being possible.

Please take the hologram discussion to the discussions specifically concerning holograms. This discussion is not about holograms. It is about DEW.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

This is just like your hologram plane idea in another thread. Statements without specific evidence. You're making giant leaps from theory to application and trying to compare apples and elephants.


This is not a hologram discussion, which means you are derailing this discussion concerning DEW.

I'm using it as an example and not actually discussing holograms.


If you think it is impossible, then by all means prove the impossible, or admit it is only your opinion of impossibility, concerning both DEW and hologram use being possible.

If you are as intelligent as you claim you should know that proving something doesn't exist is considered a double negative and no legitimate researcher would be caught up in that type of argument.


Please take the hologram discussion to the discussions specifically concerning holograms. This discussion is not about holograms. It is about DEW.

Yes, I know what the discussion is about. For the 2nd time, I only used it as an example.
If you believe this is possible, show me actual evidence of these weapon systems. I've read your links and although the information is interesting, it doesn't prove the weapons exist for the use you are claiming.

I think we can all agree that directed energy weapons exist to some extent but once again, you're making giant leaps of logic.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I have no idea of why you felt it necessary to argue your staunch opinions via sentence by sentence citations. However, there are only two choices. You can either prove the impossible or cannot. Which is it?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


I have no idea of why you felt it necessary to argue your staunch opinions via sentence by sentence citations. However, there are only two choices. You can either prove the impossible or cannot. Which is it?


I discussed my views using point by point because I want to make my post as clear as possible.

My response is the same as before so I'll repost what I said before

If you are as intelligent as you claim you should know that proving something doesn't exist is considered a double negative and no legitimate researcher would be caught up in that type of argument.

If you think this is wrong, find me a scientist that would argue a double negative as proof of somethings nonexistence.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

I discussed my views using point by point because I want to make my post as clear as possible.


You have repeatedly made that clear throughout many discussions. However, that does not answer the question I posed. Can you physically use your opinion to disprove something to be impossible?

This is what I have learned in over a lifetime. If I stay with proved science facts, I cannot be anything but objective. I will always use science and past precedents set in life, in order to make every attempt to be objective during investigations. I actually play devil's advocate with my own points of arguments when I investigate anything.

Again, what can you prove to be impossible for covert DEW use on 9/11/2001? I have science on my side to prove it was highly possible and the most probable, in order to explain final effect on 9/11/2001. Nothing else scientifically completely worked but DEW. I used to be staunch on conventional controlled demoltions. Until. I actually studied the quantum mechanics of DEW, plus, the history behind its research and development.

What do you have to prove the opposite of impossibility you keep pushing from opinion and nothing more?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
This is an excellent game for learning the basics of physics and quantum mechanics we can see every day in life. It is based on the much earilier game done with decks of playing cards:

www.hire4.co.uk...

Jenga/Hi-tower



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

I discussed my views using point by point because I want to make my post as clear as possible.


You have repeatedly made that clear throughout many discussions. However, that does not answer the question I posed. Can you physically use your opinion to disprove something to be impossible?

This is the answer (3rd time I have posted this).
If you are as intelligent as you claim you should know that proving something doesn't exist is considered a double negative and no legitimate researcher would be caught up in that type of argument.


Again, what can you prove to be impossible for covert DEW use on 9/11/2001?

Surely you have used scientific principles in at least one of your investigations? If you have then you should know that this question is completely pointless. Again, you cannot prove a double negative.


I have science on my side to prove it was highly possible and the most probable,

But you haven't proven either.


in order to explain final effect on 9/11/2001. Nothing else scientifically completely worked but DEW. I used to be staunch on conventional controlled demoltions. Until. I actually studied the quantum mechanics of DEW, plus, the history behind its research and development.

Then you should know that directed energy weapons would not work for this. For example, what was the energy source for the weapon? Where was the energy source? Consider Boeing's ABL program and it's energy source and it's size.


What do you have to prove the opposite of impossibility you keep pushing from opinion and nothing more?

In your last post, you've asked this same question 3 times. Nobody with any scientific background would ever attempt to use this type of logic to prove their case. If you don't believe me, ask any scientist.

In affect, you're asking me to prove something exists by disproving it's existence




posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Since you have made it clear you have no intentions of proving the impossible you opine but cannot prove, at this point, the only choice I have left is to agree to disagree with your opinions of no proof.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


Since you have made it clear you have no intentions of proving the impossible you opine but cannot prove, at this point, the only choice I have left is to agree to disagree with your opinions of no proof.


I'm sorry, maybe I'm not explaining it the right way. What about the following are you not understanding?

If you are as intelligent as you claim you should know that proving something doesn't exist is considered a double negative and no legitimate researcher would be caught up in that type of argument.

In affect, you're asking me to prove something exists by disproving it's existence

I can say the same thing to you. Why don't you prove what you're saying? You either can or you can't. If you can't, you're just speculating. I can speculate that Giant, Invisible, Purple, Flying Wombats destroyed the WTC. Prove I'm wrong and Wombats didn't destroy the WTC's. See how that works? Oh in case I forgot to mention, those Wombats can Phase Shift out of our dimension at will. This is the same argument you are facing me with.

[edit on 5-2-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I can say the same thing to you. Why don't you prove what you're saying? You either can or you can't. If you can't, you're just speculating. I can speculate that Giant, Invisible, Purple, Flying Wombats destroyed the WTC. Prove I'm wrong and Wombats didn't destroy the WTC's. See how that works? Oh in case I forgot to mention, those Wombats can Phase Shift out of our dimension at will. This is the same argument you are facing me with.


I can fully understand and agree with your position here but wanted to add that it's not entirely the same.

You see, we know that directed energy is and has been on the drawing board for quite some time. And is known to exist in some form or another.

Now, purple wombats are not known to exist. In any form.

But, I do agree that proving a negative is impossible.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
I can say the same thing to you. Why don't you prove what you're saying? You either can or you can't. If you can't, you're just speculating. I can speculate that Giant, Invisible, Purple, Flying Wombats destroyed the WTC. Prove I'm wrong and Wombats didn't destroy the WTC's. See how that works? Oh in case I forgot to mention, those Wombats can Phase Shift out of our dimension at will. This is the same argument you are facing me with.


I can fully understand and agree with your position here but wanted to add that it's not entirely the same.

You see, we know that directed energy is and has been on the drawing board for quite some time. And is known to exist in some form or another.

This is true


Now, purple wombats are not known to exist. In any form.

This was just an example of how it's impossible to prove the impossible
Although I agree that they do not exist and there is no real evidence, I bet somebody has seen them
Maybe after a few beers
)


But, I do agree that proving a negative is impossible.

Thank you for your support



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Exactly what part, in the photo, do you consider floor bracing? The center core supports did not brace any floors


This is what I am talking about:



You can see the notches in the corner core column where something would connect to it. Compare that to the core column in the image posted earlier.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

This is what I am talking about:



You can see the notches in the corner core column where something would connect to it. Compare that to the core column in the image posted earlier.


That is not a vertical center core support, though it is definitely steel used in the rough finished double steel central core contruction. The cross-bar box columns are not central core supports.

That is horizontal notched steel used for collaring and attaching the continuous heavily oversized core supports, on the inside of those horizontal girders. Core supports ran vertically not horizontally. The trusses slipped into the notches and were braced at the central core side. The notches helped to stablize, during lateral wind sway, the attached trusses on the core side of the twin towers. All connecting steel joints were heavily welded and bolted.

That photo also gives a very clear view of one section of perimeter primary lateral load bearing support wall frames, complete with pre-cast and forged spandral plates, of three tubes in each 3-story high section.The fork resembling steel facade is not shown in that photo. A few, of the center core units, are shown collared, welded, and bolted behind the horizontal steel girders. Unfortunately, the collars, welding and bolts are not shown.



new topics




 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join