Visual Proof of Directed-Energy Weapons In Use on 9/11

reply to post by Snowi


I agree, that's a odd piece of footage. I've never had a satisfactory explanation of how that large a piece of metal turns to dust.

Originally posted by TheLoony
I've never had a satisfactory explanation of how that large a piece of metal turns to dust.

It does not turn to dust, it simply falls down leaving a dust cloud behind. Why do you think it turns to dust?

reply to post by dereks


Because it does and you can clearly see it turns to dust. Some dust naturally falls of it when the structure falls, but in the ends it suddenly vaporizes. Start looking at 1:20 and see it from there many times over.

Originally posted by Snowi
reply to post by angrydog

 

I agree that explosive where used to take the buildings down, but Directed-Energy Weapons where also used.
Why is it so hard to believe the US has a secret Space Weapon program...???
Why is it so hard to believe that there is a Directed-Energy Weapons like a Particle beam weapon...???

You have to actually understand some physics to grasp why it's neither a particle beam weapon nor a directed energy weapon at use here.

It's just a beam falling down that was covered in dust, which leaves the dust behind when it falls.

Are there directed energy weapons, yes, of course. Are there particle beam weapons, not so much, but you could probably cook up a decent electron beam device if you really wanted to. However, neither is in use here. Particle beam devices are notoriously useless in atmosphere. You can get some mileage out of them in space, but they're heinously inefficient.

What you should ask yourself here is "what is the mechanism of 'dustifying' something". When you know that there really ISN'T one, you won't be so worried about DEWs.

Originally posted by RedBird
All you're seeing is dust rising off of the structure as it falls. The metal just goes straight down, the dust lingers and then disperses.

This should be pretty obvious.

How can 20 stories of upright steel beams fall straight down?
Down into what exactly?
According to the OS, there were no planes or fires in the basements.
So, how do 80 stories worth of debris fall into the basements and yet there is room for a 240 foot tall section of steel to fall straight down and disappear?
Into what hole?

Appearances are one thing, reality is another.

reply to post by Snowi


What???? (and I am a truther too)
Come on man. The steel didn't turn to dust rather it was shrouded within the dust.

And that section at the end? That was slowed down and pixelated making it appear to disappeared.

I don't pretend to know what happened that day and I suppose weapons could have been used but if you're basing your thesis on this video then, you lose.

Sorry OP!
But.....keep digging though! Because the truth is in there somewhere

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Appearances are one thing, reality is another.

I agree with you, only not in the way you'd like, I suspect.

The camera angle and the dust on the beam gives it the illusion of 'dustifying'. Only, there isn't any mechanism to dustify a steel beam. And please don't try invoking sublimation, I'm too tired to laugh.

Everyone is avoiding the obvious question - WHERE DID IT FALL TO?
50 stories of upright beam can't fall straight down into only 6 floors of basement.
Or maybe there was a giant hole under the foundation.

yeah full on check that shiot out...

it get vaporised man... Steel column... Pow, vaporised and floating away...

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Exactly. DEW, or not...that steel frame stood and then fell and accelerated straight down instead of
tipping over.

That is not a gravitational force acting on that structure, and it sure as hell should not have telescoped
straight down.

In addition to that, at the 10 second mark you can see two large secitons of steel arc upward and outward
well after the demo wave has descended.

There is clearly nothing on top crushing these sections of steel. Gravity would not eject steel up and out
in an arcing form.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Snowi
When i saw this today i was convinced that Judy Wood was right.
The US has a Star Wars program and they have used it on their own population.
There is no doubt that Directed-Energy Weapons (Particle beam weapon) where used in the 9/11 attack
and people who says otherwise should take a look at this video where the steel column
turns into dust.

If the US has these weapons in space they are using Free-Energy sources in their weapon
platforms in space because the energy you need for these kinds of weapons are astronomical.

Take a look and judge for yourself.

The zoomed in at the end of the clip is where you can see it best.

Judy Wood

edit on 28-11-2010 by Snowi because: (no reason given)

The USA has these weapons yet a bunch of guerrilla fighters can cause them so much problems (iraq, afghanistan) YOU just dont think do you!

Please explain HOW you think it turns to DUST!

Originally posted by RedBird
All you're seeing is dust rising off of the structure as it falls. The metal just goes straight down, the dust lingers and then disperses.

This should be pretty obvious.

I was going to say the same thing, but since you beat me to it, you get a star. Don't you feel special?

I watched the video a couple of times and it makes much more sense that the steel column went straight down inside the column of dust, leaving only the dust visible.

The theory of a directed energy weapon doesn't make much sense. If the steel was evaporated, then the dust should have been as well. Also, those columns were on the opposite side of the building and tens of floors below the initial point of collapse. Had an energy based weapon (set on wide beam dispersal of course) been used in the manner suggested, the entire building would have been "dusted."

Just my .02

Oh, MODS... I'm a n00b here and don't understand the difference between the "Quote" and "Reply to" functions. What is it? I've looked for a thread explaining all of the neat little gadgets you have, which are unique to this forum, but I've been unsuccessful. You cam PM me if you like with your answer.

Thx. OC

EDIT. Well, I just tried the "Reply to" function on another thread, and it APPEARS that the only difference is whether or not the post being referenced is actually quoted. Still, there are other things I need to know about, so a link to some kind of ATS User's Guide would be helpful and appreciated. THX again.

reply to post by Snowi


Beam tech or not it seems there is something odd with steal and tons of office equipment and building materials to just turn to dust. So in the end I am just glad people are waking up.

I'm not too familiar with dew weapons or particle beams. Several members did appear to make valid semi-scientific posts of why they don't feel that's the case here. Are these types of weapons invisible? I mean there were thousands of people at the scene, not to mention millions more watching it through various forms of media. People saw planes, yet no one claims to have seen any type of beam weapon. I thought the standing theory was controlled demolition and thermite?

reply to post by Snowi
The thing is she very well could be right,I'm no expert but when you see the buildings turn to dust it quite plausible.How many demolished buildings do that,who's to say it couldn't have been both thermite,and this weapon?What is sad is we will probably never know the truth of what happened that horrible day,until the government opens its files and releases the information its all speculation anyway.

I was pretty skeptical when I first heard about this too and thought it sounded ridiculous but then I came across this website:
www.henrymakow.com...

This site brought into light some pretty strange things that occurred that day and the 1400 vehicles that were destroyed that day...

This site was also quite fascinating which actually describes how energy weapons may have been used:
www.drjudywood.com...

Really at this point I am not trying to convince anyone how it happened, rather what we were told happened was very different from what the evidence suggests.

reply to post by s7ryk3r


The trouble with Wood is that she presents lots of photographic material as though it cannot be explained by both the official story of 9/11 and the controlled demolition/thermate theory. That is far from established, so her logic amounts to a a kind of special pleading in which she cherry-picks whatever evidence she thinks suits her theory of DEW, whilst ignoring that which contradicts it. The truth is: she uses lots of dodgy arguments that can be easily refuted to support what amounts to a series of misinterpretations of this visual evidence.

I used to be a fan of hers until I saw her lack of scientific objectivity at work in the way she misinterpreted the data (her scientific misuse of the geomagnetic field fluctuation data to support her belief that HAARP was feeding the energy for some kind of DEW is an example). The variations are not greater than what was recorded on many previous days and months. She was so struck by the fact that they started at about the same time Flight 17 hit the North Tower that she never bothered to check how often fluctuations from the background level of similar magnitude occurred during previous months. When you check the archives, you find that they happen so often that the magnetic field fluctuation recorded on 9/11 is totally insignificant, statistically speaking. Yet she cites it as evidence for exotic physics at work, destroying the towers.

reply to post by Asktheanimals

How can 20 stories of upright steel beams fall straight down?

How could it not? Last time I looked everything falls straight "down".

Down into what exactly?

The huge pile of rubble that was the World Trade Center buildings that we've all seen thousands of photos of.

According to the OS, there were no planes or fires in the basements.

Yep.

So, how do 80 stories worth of debris fall into the basements and yet there is room for a 240 foot tall section of steel to fall straight down and disappear?

It fell straight down into the huge pile of rubble, mentioned above. It only "disappeared" relative to the video frame. Do you think the sun "disappears" every night?

Into what hole?

I really don't know what hole you are talking or thinking about.

Appearances are one thing, reality is another.

No, they are basically the same thing. What varies are your assumptions and conclusions.