It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by peter_kandra
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?

A lot of DEW and particle beams ARE invisible, although if you try to use them in atmosphere you get secondary effects that you have to see to believe.

The real issue here is that there's no material state called "dustify". You basically have solid, liquid, gas and plasma, and none of them are "dust". You might not even have liquid phases depending on the material and the surrounding conditions.

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:47 PM

Originally posted by s7ryk3r
I was pretty skeptical when I first heard about this too and thought it sounded ridiculous but then I came across this website:

Sadly, Makow is an idiot.

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

The real issue is that Henry isn't technical, and he's getting his stuff from Twietmeyer, who is a lab tech who tries to pawn that off as some sort of doctorate. Ted is an idiot, too. They don't understand what they see and make up crap to justify it.

As for the cars, there was a gas leak that did in a parking lot full of them, and the others were running when the dust cloud came through.

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

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.

Judy only makes sense if you don't have any grounding in physics - she's not bad at using big words she gets out of books, and it probably sounds convincing if you don't have a clue. But very little of what she says isn't chuckle-worthy.

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:14 PM

Many 9/11 conspiracists/revisionists/rejectionists/deniers support the theory of Judy Wood, since she is a mechanical engineer who happens to agree with their bogus hypothesis that "9/11 was an inside job." Wood claims that if the pancake Twin Towers collapse theory is true, then the Twin Towers would have had to completely collapse in 87.9 to 96.7 seconds. She creates an analogy between the floors and billiard balls. The basis for her theory is that each floor stops completely when it falls on top of another, so there is no acceleration. However, the buildings were only designed to support the static weight of the floors above them, not the dynamic force. In the case of the Twin Towers, each floor obviously created some drag, as evidenced by the debris next to the tower (which sometimes shot out the windows due to overpressure from the falling floors; these weren't "demolition squibs") that was falling faster than the monolithic mass. The floors continued to forcefully slam onto each other and the collapse became faster due to gravity.

This explains away Judy Woods' ignorant theory.

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

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.

The answer could be explained by saying simply that the 20 stories or whatever of attached beams became detached in their individual portions at a critical point where the weight was heaviest and that would be at a point somewhere lower down, the rest of the composite columns would just fall down as seen, as there was nothing left to support them. Any buckled columns found should support that, in that they did not readily detach themselves from another column above or below them. To me the focus should be on how the initial and in each case, the asymmetrical collapse/s occurred, and then the symmetrical following collapse. What you see in the OP's video is the aftermath. Before that is an open question.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in