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.

 

Crazy crackpots melting steel/rock with an energy beam (VIDEO)

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Let me first say, that i have no idea about what happen on 911. I will probably never know the truth.

but I have always found myself interested by the events of 911, I find the commentary from both sides of the debate to be very effective and manipulating, yet neither side seems to have every point covered.

One aspect of the whole debate that i hate is how both sides underestimate the capabilities of technology and how its very possible some type of tech could have been used that we don't even know exist. It also a pretty well know fact that weapon technology is kept secret for quit some time before the general public hears about it.

I always here debunkers discrediting truthers about laser beams and how its fantasy (i wont lie i thought the idea was pretty ridiculous too) until i saw this.


well there you have it, an energy beam that no materiel on earth can withstand. Now say you have the largest budget in the history of budgets, would it not be safe to say you could make a pretty effective weapon out of this technology.

we also know they are capable of sending very large things into space, for instance
gizmodo.com...
this thing has an antenna the size of a football field. and if they are showing us this it most likely means they already had it for sometime now.

Now I'm in no way saying this is what was used on 911, I'm just trying to point out that the idea is not absurd.
not to mention we have way more complex technology in existence already (large hadron collider comes to mind)




edit on 29-1-2011 by PonyoSon because: title fix




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Nice find ,Impressive power from the sun that will ultimately if not already be used for evil,Scale it up and toast the enemy of your choice or take the good option and power the world into the future.Maybe next time around.
Although i must admit i did roast some ants with a magnifying glass when i was young,pure evil

edit on 29-1-2011 by 12voltz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
This is the stuff they keep from us..it's free energy..We can cook and heat our homes with it if they would release it, but they want cause there is no money for them to make from the free sun.......
edit on 29-1-2011 by Caji316 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I notice that despite all the know-it-alls insisting on contolled demolitions, cruise missiles at the Pentagon, hologram planes, or whatever, Judy Wood and her "lasers fron outer space" bunch were the only ones with enough conviction in their research to actually file a lawsuit claiming there was a coverup.

I'd like to know how the conspiracy people explain that.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
wow good point, i didnt even think about the fact that its using sunlight to create all the energy. pretty impressive for sure.

what a scam they are running



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I notice that despite all the know-it-alls insisting on contolled demolitions, cruise missiles at the Pentagon, hologram planes, or whatever, Judy Wood and her "lasers fron outer space" bunch were the only ones with enough conviction in their research to actually file a lawsuit claiming there was a coverup.

I'd like to know how the conspiracy people explain that.


it can only be explained by those who have failed to file the law suits, not anyone here on ATS.

GoodOLdave would it be accurate to say that since the technology exist to create a laser from space that could destroy stuff, that it is at least possible. and not as crazy as you might have thought previously.


edit on 29-1-2011 by PonyoSon because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2011 by PonyoSon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I don't think you would be able to weaponize this, because of it having a top and bottom and having to get whatever you want to burn in the middle. however if its efficient i would say it would have industrial uses.

I am curious to know how it works. any other information on this?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Check this one out



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by PonyoSon
it can only be explained by those who have failed to file the law suits, not anyone here on ATS.


Fair enough. However, it's still in our right to accuse said people of either criminal laziness and/or of being outright con artists for them to be holding onto such incriminating evidence and then doing nothing with it. If I had incriminating evidence that my neighbor had missing hitchhikers buried in his back yard I'd be screaming it to anyone who'd listen (if my neighbor wanted to add me to his collection, he can talk to Mr. 12 gauge). I would absolutely NOT be going around saying my neighbor was doing something bad and I'll tell what it is for the low, low price of $19.95.


GoodOLdave would it be accurate to say that since the technology exist to create a laser from space that could destroy stuff, that it is at least possible. and not as crazy as you might have thought previously.


Therein lies the rub. The argument isn't over whether anyone could have built a working Death Star. The argument is over whether any Death Star could be a legitimate explnanation for what we saw on 9/11. Consider this- Why did the people in the vicinity survive? Any energy weapon that could pulverise steel and concrete would have disintergrated firemen, police, etc like they never even existed.

If Judy Woods takes that into consideration on her web site, I haven't seen it.
edit on 29-1-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Therein lies the rub. The argument isn't over whether anyone could have built a working Death Star. The argument is over whether any Death Star could be a legitimate explnanation for what we saw on 9/11. Consider this- Why did the people in the vicinity survive? Any energy weapon that could pulverise steel and concrete would have disintergrated firemen, police, etc like they never even existed.

If Judy Woods takes that into consideration on her web site, I haven't seen it.


Im not too knowledgeable about Judy wood, as i just heard of her today. but from what i learned she has the idea that you can control what element you want to effect, similar to the way a microwave effects molecules with water. so for instance if you could create a device that only effect the elements in steel.

again we can't underestimate the amazing minds that create weapons for our country. and i won't speculate about a device i don't even know exist. i just thought it interesting that such a device could exist.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by PonyoSon
Im not too knowledgeable about Judy wood, as i just heard of her today. but from what i learned she has the idea that you can control what element you want to effect, similar to the way a microwave effects molecules with water. so for instance if you could create a device that only effect the elements in steel.

again we can't underestimate the amazing minds that create weapons for our country. and i won't speculate about a device i don't even know exist. i just thought it interesting that such a device could exist.


It's always fascinating to see what gadgets they're coming out with these days, but that's not the point. The proper way to conduct an investigation is to look at the evidence and attempt to create a scenario from it that justifies how the facts exist...but that's NOT what Judy Woods operates. She came up with the idea of lasers from outer space somehow and she picks and chooses her "evidence" as it suits her position. The most obvious detail she ignores is the people who were in the towers when they were supposedly zapped and were rescued alive. There's weren't many, but there were survivors. Then there's the most obvious detail she overlooks- all the OTHER parts of the 9/11 attack, like the hijackings, the Pentagon and the crash at Shanksville.

Yet despite the major missing details in her story, she's still the only one who ever actually filed a lawsuit on the grounds that there's a conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I notice that despite all the know-it-alls insisting on contolled demolitions, cruise missiles at the Pentagon, hologram planes, or whatever, Judy Wood and her "lasers fron outer space" bunch were the only ones with enough conviction in their research to actually file a lawsuit claiming there was a coverup.

I'd like to know how the conspiracy people explain that.


I would like to know how all the debunkers are going to prove all the pseudo science that the government created, to explain how the WTC fell while all the concrete turned to dust before the WTC hit the ground.
Actually, the topic is not about what you think about Truthers, or Judy Wood.

Dave, if you believe that our military doesn’t have weapons such as lasers then you are ignorant.

Dave, can you prove with undisputable evidence, proving with credible sources that lasers were not used on the WTC on 911, because your OS does not stand up to any science.





edit on 29-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



It's always fascinating to see what gadgets they're coming out with these days, but that's not the point. The proper way to conduct an investigation is to look at the evidence and attempt to create a scenario from it that justifies how the facts exist...


Dave, the topic here is not how Judy Woods operates?
Dave, the topic is not about you believing and lumping all Truthers believing in Judy Woods’s hypothesis.
edit on 29-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tempesillest
 


it's a magnifying mirror, a satellite using this would have lenses or multiple mirrors to change the focal point.

the idea of using a space mirror had been around for a while when i was a kid 1970's but as an alternative energy source though even a kid can see this being used as a weopon.
like said kids using a magnifying glass to burn ants.

hope that cleared that up for you



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's always fascinating to see what gadgets they're coming out with these days, but that's not the point.


Not trying to be rude Dave, but it kind of was the point of my thread. I see people being ridiculed about laser beams all the time as if they couldn't exist. And once i saw that video i thought I'd just make a case for their possible existence (plus the video was cool haha).

like i said i don't really know Judy woods work very well, i watched one presentation from her today. so i can't really argue why she doesn't explain the other aspects of 911. I think the problem with allot of the 911 truth conspiracies is that they all have some parts right and some wrong, but aren't willing to work together. i feel if they were able to work together along with the OS people they could piece together a much more accurate picture.

Divided we Fall



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I'm not a fan of the laser theories myself, but I have to admit, I've now seen a video showing that thermate an engineer made in his back yard can melt through vertical steel columns and even produce explosions and flowing yellow hot liquid iron, and a video of a laser that melts steel and sets rock on fire, but I have not seen anything to confirm that damned fool NIST report.

Civilians, even if we haven't gotten the opportunity to do a real investigation yet, at least know what scientific evidence, and reproducing a physical mechanism, looks like.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
I would like to know how all the debunkers are going to prove all the pseudo science that the government created, to explain how the WTC fell while all the concrete turned to dust before the WTC hit the ground.
Actually, the topic is not about what you think about Truthers, or Judy Wood.

Dave, if you believe that our military doesn’t have weapons such as lasers then you are ignorant.

Dave, can you prove with undisputable evidence, proving with credible sources that lasers were not used on the WTC on 911, because your OS does not stand up to any science.


I've pretty much already given up on saying anything further to you, Impressme, as it's blatantly obvious you've become so outer space fringe in your crackpot conspiracy claims you've taken to making stuff up off the top of your head and even your fellow conspiracy theorists (I.E. Bonez) are hoping that you'd go away. I can't even ask a simple question like why despite Judy Wood's low credibility she's the only one with enough conviction to file federal lawsuits without having to play childish mental chess games with you. You have all the credibility of a snake oil peddler so it's pontless to waste any more time on you.

I still gotta ask, though- are you officially signing onto the "lasers from otuer space" claim now? Or are you going to weasel out of answering that question too?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PonyoSon

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's always fascinating to see what gadgets they're coming out with these days, but that's not the point.


Not trying to be rude Dave, but it kind of was the point of my thread. I see people being ridiculed about laser beams all the time as if they couldn't exist. And once i saw that video i thought I'd just make a case for their possible existence (plus the video was cool haha).


...and I'm not trying to be rude, but you're avoiding the point I'm bringing up in response to your thread.

Let's pretend for a moment that yes, the gov't does have the capability to create giant energy weapons in outer space. If we see a man lying on the street with a hole in his chest bleeding profusely, are we going to think he was killed by energy weapons from outer space rather than from a gun or knife? No we're not because the pattern of damage is more consistant with a gun or knife than energy weapons. If we see a water logged body washed up on the beach with water dripping out of its lungs, are we going to think he was killed by energy weapons from outer space rather than drowning? No we're not because the pattern of damage is more consistant with drowning than energy weapons. You get the idea.

Then there's the WTC. When we see a plane striking a building, catching on fire, and then collapsing starting at the point of impact leaving a handful of live people trapped in the wreckage, are we going to think it was destroyed by energy weapons from outer space? The answer should be obvious- no becuase the pattern of damage isn't consistant with what an energy weapon would cause. For one thing, any energy weapon capable of destroying a building certainly would have vaporized the people along with the building. For another, it doesn't even address what happened at the Pentagon or at Shanksville. It's simply adding convolusion for convolusion's sake.

If your entire point is that such weapons can technically exist, fine, I agree. Technically they can exist, but since the evidence shows they didn't play a part in the events of 9/11, such discussion is entirely academic along with discussions over whether we can make renewable fuels out of seaweed.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I'm not a fan of the laser theories myself, but I have to admit, I've now seen a video showing that thermate an engineer made in his back yard can melt through vertical steel columns and even produce explosions and flowing yellow hot liquid iron, and a video of a laser that melts steel and sets rock on fire, but I have not seen anything to confirm that damned fool NIST report.


By the same token, I have yet to see anyone refute eyewitness accounts like those of Deputy Chief Peter Hayden saying out of control fires were causing large scale bulging in the side of WTC 7, or anyone showing how controled demolitions or lasers could have destroyed WTC 7 from the inside out as every video of the collapse has shown.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I notice that despite all the know-it-alls insisting on contolled demolitions, cruise missiles at the Pentagon, hologram planes, or whatever, Judy Wood and her "lasers fron outer space" bunch were the only ones with enough conviction in their research to actually file a lawsuit claiming there was a coverup.

I'd like to know how the conspiracy people explain that.

Why do you care?




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join