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.

 

International Space Stations Anti - Armor device

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The ISS was flying over New York during the events that happend on 911.
it appears we have discovered something --
and we have General Myers and Rusfeld studdering to answer a reporters question about beam weapons... they are in development but not ready for us according to them.... well look at this and ask yourself..
if you could do away with hardend steel at will, how could you protect your military against such a weapon that could evaporate your protection...

video.google.com...
part 1 of 2 parts ... about 4 hours or so...




posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Well for one, hiding under sixty miles of air helps. You'd have to pick a wavelength that isn't scattered well by the atmosphere, which doesn't lend itself to having the best possible performance.

Anyone who wants to shoop their whoop from space has to radiate the waste heat from their lazor, which means either a HUGE satellite on par for size with the ISS, but with absolutely massive radiators, or it will have to be open-cycle and chemical powered, which doesn't lend itself well for hitting more than a few targets over the lifetime of the satellite. And would probably be just as huge. The chemical laser intended for the ABL fills an entire 747, and is only powerful enough to destroy missiles, which are thin metal tubes filled with volatile fuel. Large scale solid state lasers have only (very) recently become available in powers that could make viable weapons, but even those are less than a quarter of what the military thinks is necessary for destroying aircraft and light APCs, let alone tanks.


Not to mention the fact that lasers are incredibly inefficient ways of blowing stuff up. kinetic impactors are far more powerful and efficient. They are also far better at destroying armor. lasers have to melt through armor, whereas penetrators simply have to run into it going fast enough. The gun only needs to be aimed long enough to fire, instead of until the target is destroyed.

That isn't to say lasers don't have their advantages, but blowing up tanks and buildings from space certainly isn't one of them.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Beam weapons blowing up buildings huh?

What an in efficient way of demolition...

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Conventional and Thermate were also suspected to have been used.
have you checked in to WTC 7
how did they get the explosives into 47 story building in what 8 hours.?
it looks like a typical demo, the owner says it was a demo and we have early warning they are bring down wtc7. we have BBC releasing the 6:07 News Script at 5:07... Thank You, Unknown. for throwing the monkey wrench.
and later Fox5 Wdc also, screwed up and released the story at 5:18 or so.
Thank You, Unknown. for throwing the monkey wrench.
sources on request:


[edit on 8-5-2008 by 888LetsRoll]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
why are you trying to fit some New Science into old Paradyms...?
why cant this be something we know nothing about... choose wave lengths ... ok, I refuse to put parameters around something - I have no idea how it works or what it does, I can see the results,
good luck on back engineering it.... research Hutchinson effect.
thats because we are not sure of what this effect is doing... very low power equals very interesting things.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Wow.

I am continually amazed at the crap that some people will believe.

There is no way the ISS can be a weapon, just look at the power generation levels. After providing for life support, there is little left to power a weapon. Certainly nothing like the power needed to do what you claim.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Wow.

I am continually amazed at the crap that some people will believe.

There is no way the ISS can be a weapon, just look at the power generation levels. After providing for life support, there is little left to power a weapon. Certainly nothing like the power needed to do what you claim.



Well if you're going to be amazed at the crap that people will believe, ATS is THE place to do it. Seems like we've got quite a few people who have the wrong interpretation of "deny ignorance" on here.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
All I did is take a look at the availible facts - and it stood out like a sore thumb. sorry you are not able to assemble inteligence. I bet you believe muslims did 911 as well... Cia - Mossad according to Italian sources



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Well it's really a personal choice to believe in this.

All we can really do is take the official accounts as the truth because we don't have any other legitimate accounts.

Now whether you chose to believe what you're told is a totally different story. It's understood that with good reason one would not take the official account as truth.

But to degrade someone's intelligence level because due to personal preference; well that just puts you at the bottom of the list in my book.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 9-5-2008 by ShatteredSkies]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 888LetsRoll
All I did is take a look at the availible facts - and it stood out like a sore thumb. sorry you are not able to assemble inteligence. I bet you believe muslims did 911 as well... Cia - Mossad according to Italian sources


As if saying the world trade centers weren't blown up by space lazors (mounted on the ISS of all things) is equivalent to saying that the government didn't do it. If you want to paint with a broad brush, try this on for size: you believe odd things and contribute to giving the truth movement a bad name (along with Judy Wood).

Just take a look at the ISS, and read up about space, and about lasers. I'll discount particle beams entirely, because at *plausible power levels* they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting to the ground with enough energy to do damage. Lasers are inefficient- about 15% efficient at best. All the rest of the power is lost as heat. In space, that's a problem. You can't just add cooling fins to things, you have to radiate all your heat as IR radiation. It would take a megawatt or twenty to do anything meaningful at ground level from space. That means it takes tens or hundreds of megawatts worth of power generation, and radiators capable of radiating most of that.

The ISS could not fit either of those, and in the case of radiators, it certainly, *observably and verifiably* doesn't have nearly enough to support any beam weaponry. QED. It's just an international scientific research station and colossal semi-waste of money.

Higher, more damaging wavelengths don't penetrate atmosphere well. Blue visible light, for instance, is readily scattered by nitrogen, so no much reaches us directly, and that's why the sky is blue and the sun looks yellow instead of green (as it sort of kind of does in space). Ultraviolet doesn't reach the ground very much at all; most is absorbed by the atmosphere. Enough gets past to burn people, but it doesn't take much to do that. X-rays and gamma rays can't currently be made into lasers, because we don't have anything that acts as a good X-ray mirror. IR is probably the only viable option.

And that all raises the question of where did they shoot the laser? At the top of the building? At the side? Certainly it wasn't at the side, because blasting semi-reflective aluminum sheeting and glass with a megawatt or ten of energy is going to create a literally blinding flash that burns out the recording mechanism of every camera pointed at it within a few miles, and at least temporarily blind everyone in a similar radius. And I don't see what good shooting the top would do; the top of the building wasn't on fire, for one, and it doesn't really provide good access to load bearing columns.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 


You are wasting your time. He explicitly said he's convinced it's a conspiracy. There is no line of logic, or fact you could possibly present that would alter his opinion because he desperately wants to think he has the inside information no one else has.




top topics



 
0

log in

join