Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by NWOwned
Originally posted by snowcrash911
There is no need to discuss Judy Wood. The energy requirement for DEW is impossible to achieve. No ifs or buts.
The objections to the Greg Jenkins interview I've seen so far are as hilarious as the interview, which humiliates charlatan Wood, itself.
on 21-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)
'The energy requirement for DEW is impossible to achieve.'
And you know this how?
You know all of what DEW can do do you?
Why discuss this without first computing how much energy was expended on the target? And how can that be done without knowing the mass of the target
and what was done to that mass? Then various assumptions can be made about the efficiency of the DEW.
But what direction could this hypothetical weapon have been fired from. With the symmetry of the destruction how could it have come from anywhere but
straight down onto the target? This is just some very peculiar speculation.
psik, I'm trying to get a handle on your position but think of it like this for a second.
Let's say there's some alien battlecruiser out by the sun and it's got a super-duper photon laser beam weapon and it's aiming it and shooting it
for, I dunno, 8, 10, 11 or some 14.5 seconds etc., and in doing so, turns our own moon, largely to dust.
Literally right before our eyes.
So then we all get on ATS because from Earth, well the moon was there and then it was completely gone and all we can see with our cameras and
telescopes is a big cloud of dust...
And we all go to the thread "Where did the Moon go?" and there we find you asking to examine all the moon rocks Apollo 11 brought back because we
need to know what the Moon was made of before we try to figure out why it ain't there any more and all we can see is a giant cloud of dust. Is that
By your estimate what data do we need that we do not have?
Don't we know it's steel and concrete and how much? Weren't all the exterior sections the same size? Don't we know how big any one of them was?
Don't we know how thick the concrete flooring was? Can't we add stuff up? Is this really not something that we can do? Or has never been done?
The buildings were there then they were gone. Some say in a pile in the basement but there's no pictures or evidence of this. Greg Jenkins was saying
they were mostly air by volume. Yeah but there was a lot of steel and concrete too. Are you suggesting that we don't know, don't have or cannot
accurately estimate the amount of actual airless material in those two towers?
I'm sure you've seen the construction videos, that's a lot of solid vertical steel there in those cores, you think it all just "fell down"? No,
I'm asking you, only you. You think it all just fell down?
And more importantly, with any amount of data could you prove that it didn't or couldn't?
I agree, for any theory we should start, or try to start with what was there in the first place. But even a casual look at it by any layman watching a
video, it's a lot of STUFF.
Lots of concrete and steel etc.
It may be that the first thing to do is to wonder in awe that all that stuff we could see is just gone and when we look around on the ground we don't
see what we imagine was in the towers to pile them that high and so THEN we get out the calculator and see what was there, could it fall down, and if
so, where is all the supposed debris?
Which I think is actually what we are doing?
Wood claims the 'collapse' was too fast, the debris piles were too small, the slamming to earth didn't register enough, the dust all over Manhattan
was X amount of building, among other things. The debris people tacitly agree is missing from the debris piles is "in the vast basement" yet there
are no photos of this or any significant damage to the 'bathtub' etc.
Now we got to figure out if all the material in those two towers caused to fail and to just "fall down" would we get the same kind of results?
But then even so, with accurate data what are you going to do? Let's say you have all the correct numbers right now. How are you going to use them to
prove anything? I'm interested to know if you think the buildings just fell down? And if you had all the data could you show it couldn't or that it
wouldn't? Even with accurate data could you say the ejected sides of the towers wouldn't be ejected as far as can be seen on the videos?
Or would you then become the Steven Jones of accurate data? As in, one guy with figures who says there's no way, based on the figures, that the
panels could have ejected as far as they did or the towers "fall down" as they did. No way. etc. So what? One voice among many especially on ATS and
some would argue your figures or calcs were wrong or that gravity actually was sufficient to cause what we all saw on the videos. And so on and so