I'm not convinced about DEW theories but...

Originally posted by bsbray11

Then I'm just assuming that you haven't really had the physics courses relevant to what you're having such a hard time explaining to me.

Then you are entitled to assume anything you please be it right or wrong. However, what is it the professionals, of reference I linked, did not explain anything to your satisfaction either?

Please stay on topicm and please stop drifting off to making this topic about me. It is not about me. It is about DEW highly potentially being used on two twin towers on 9/11/2001. There is solid evidence, which I also linked into this discussion, in prior posts. Thank you, in advance, for remaining on topic now and in the future.

I believe Orion is copping out there BsBray.

Orion I have been asked the EXACT same question here on ATS many-times.. my answer?

BS Degree '91 minor in "the classics" (heh)

9 years in County Law Enforcement (Sheriff's department)

8 years in Higher Education (two very large state institutions) at an administrative level. Further, even though BsBray doesn't believe me, I am considered (with my STATE job slot) a department head.

What does this prove? Nothing-- that I am a shill, I guess!?? Since I have been working for some form of gubment for the last 17 years.

I know (had I focused my desire to do so) I could have been working for any of these "monsterous " agencies mentioned so disrespectfully here daily. I have friends that do actually work for DEA, FBI, ATF, and even Raytheon...Do I think they would commit random murder? HELL NO, do I think they would sit on their thumbs and suppress ANY information that might cover up such crimes? HELL NO! It just isn't how it works.. Call me naive, but until you have worked within the system on the policy making and enforcement end for 17 years these theories as wild or edgie as they are packaged and seeded on the internet-- just don't hold water...never have.

Let's not get into the personal attacks again today Folks.

Just a reminder.

Please Stay On Topic

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Thank you all.
Cuhail
ATS Moderator.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Then you are entitled to assume anything you please be it right or wrong. However, what is it the professionals, of reference I linked, did not explain anything to your satisfaction either?

I didn't see anything that really convinced me of anything, but maybe you'd like to point at some specifically from one of those sites to make sure I didn't miss it?

Please stay on topicm and please stop drifting off to making this topic about me. It is not about me.

I never said it was. I was asking what your educational background was as far as quantum mechanics are concerned because you kept putting on like I just don't understand it and thus I'm confused about it, when it sounds to me like all you know about it is the name of the field. If you want to talk quantum physics then do it, give me principles to research that can do the actual things the beams would need to have done and I would love to learn about them. Don't just tell me I have to read more.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

I didn't see anything that really convinced me of anything, but maybe you'd like to point at some specifically from one of those sites to make sure I didn't miss it?

With all due respect, if what I wrote did not satisfy you, and what the professionals wrote, at the links I provided, did not satisfy you, I have no idea how pointing you to specifics is going to have any benefit either. You have a right to believe what you chose to believe. I do not recall saying anything differently.

I never said it was. I was asking what your educational background was as far as quantum mechanics are concerned because you kept putting on like I just don't understand it and thus I'm confused about it, when it sounds to me like all you know about it is the name of the field. If you want to talk quantum physics then do it, give me principles to research that can do the actual things the beams would need to have done and I would love to learn about them. Don't just tell me I have to read more.

Since you admit you do not understand it, why do you assume I do not because you do not understand it. Would you care to have the link to the Max Planck Institute? From my observation of their writing, their presentations are written in highly easy to learn basic language. Then there is always NASA. They write presentations for all age levels.

You asked me to provide a personal transcript. That is not the same as asking someone about their educational background, which I did briefly provide no differently than you.

I have my formal education pieces of paper. I never judge a person knowledge by pieces of formal education paper. I assess them by what they can tell me in their own words from what they have learned in life, including formal education. If I do not understand them, I make the time and expend the effort to learn what they state they know. That way I know if they are scamming me, or actually know about that which they speak and write.

Just out of interest, how much steel is thought to have been 'vaporised' by this impossibly stealthy energy beam?

In another thread I estimated the actual overall density of the towers at around 5 tons/m^3 in compacted form which includes all material in them. Each tower was 60% steel so a round figure of 300 000 tons of steel was in each tower and the density of steel being 8T/m^3 gives us a volume of 37,500 m^3 of steel per tower.

The area of the WTC complex was 16 acres or 62,736m^2 and I think we can generally agree that the rubble of the 2 major towers was pretty much strewn all over at least that area but to make this estimate fair I'll spread the rubble over half that surface area or ~30,000m^2 and even not allow for the considerable volume of material compacted into the collapsed upper sub-basement levels at the foot of each tower or the wall & core sections left standing or the dust that blew all over town.

So what we have is 500 000T @ 5T/m^3 = 100 000 m^3 per tower
Spread that over 30 000m^2 and it's only about an average 3m deep.
So the entire volume of rubble from both towers would amount to a pile less than 3m high over the entire 16 acre site.

If any steel inexplicably vanished from the site IE 'vaporised' I think the technology of that disappearance is far simpler to percieve than advanced weapons technology. I feel confident it was powered by diesel too - plus it had lots of wheels. It looked a lot like a heavy hauling truck

The value of scrap structural steel in 2001 was $120/ton and there was at least 600 000 tons of it just lying on the ground representing ~$72 000 000 for the unscrupulous. Several truckloads were discovered and forcibly returned but maybe that was just the ones they found out about.


[edit on 1/2/2008 by Pilgrum]

Hundreds of thousands of tons of steel it took around two years to haul in and use. It just is not there. What is there, is minimal or completely unrecognizable compared to its previous state of solid physical matter. The vast majority of it was outside walls not internal structural steel.

The analysis was picked up from granule analysis by USGS metallurgy reports, but not as intact solid physical matter as it used to appear. The analysis had to be done from granule debris not intact steel.

As provided by gottago in another post in another discussion:

pubs.usgs.gov...

Something else to think about in relation to energy beams are those angled cuts on the heavy core columns. Has anyone else noticed that the only ones apparently cut in such a fashion are the ones that were left standing after the collapse, which alone indicates a method of cutting like a thermal lance.

Keep in mind that this energy beam is strictly line of sight with no exceptions so wouldn't we expect to see all the cuts lining up with the origin of the beam if that's what was was used to cut them?
Those cuts are all over the place (height, angle, orientation) on pieces of steel firmly concreted into the ground.

A question for Orion: with your knowledge of physics perhaps you could tell us how much energy it takes to vaporise just 1 cm^3 of steel in, say, the relatively slow time of 1 millisecond. Just a rough figure in watt-seconds would be close enough to estimate the energy requirement for the whole job. Use normal sea-level atmospheric pressure and an ambient temp of 20C btw.

[edit on 1/2/2008 by Pilgrum]

That steel and concrete was no match for DEW, and neither is anything else in the path of DEW. None of it was any match for the indirect energy H- and A-bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Direct energy is as or far more powerful than the bombs dropped on Japan.

DEW is directed to one location and no other. That increases its power effect. The power stays confined in one area. It is not redistributed over a wide area as with indirect WMDs as aftershock.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Since you admit you do not understand it, why do you assume I do not because you do not understand it.

Because I understand other fields of science, and I know that if you knew quantum mechanics well, you would be talking more specifically.

For example, if I was talking about what I'm majoring in, I might be talking about transistor operation and how electrons flow through layers of variously doped silicon in a way that depends on how and where the materials were doped and where the potential is being applied, etc. I could even talk about voltage drops with specific numbers, calculate in-going and out-going currents and gain ratios and calculate the amount of power dissipation and all sorts of things.

If you had really learned quantum mechanics in enough detail to count here, then I think you should be able to talk to me about all the specific sub-fields that specifically relate to the tower destructions, and even throw out numbers when possible, even ballpark figures for power requirements or something. Otherwise what do you really know about it? Nothing useful. Maybe you had a conceptual crash-course but you couldn't engineer something with it or explain the exact physical operation.

Would you care to have the link to the Max Planck Institute? From my observation of their writing, their presentations are written in highly easy to learn basic language. Then there is always NASA. They write presentations for all age levels.

And I suppose they also tell you that DEW destroyed the towers?

I don't have a problem with sources, and I don't have a problem with experts, but I don't give a damn what they think. I am my expert, and I am my own source and professional. If you want to explain something to me, then explain something to me. Do not tell me it is so and just drops links on me. I want to grasp it with the same fullness of understanding as you do, if that understanding exists in the first place. So explain it to me, very specifically, how it would physically operate and by what specific laws or theories in physics. That is what I want.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Has anyone else noticed that the only ones apparently cut in such a fashion are the ones that were left standing after the collapse, which alone indicates a method of cutting like a thermal lance.

I don't know who else has noticed this, but I've noticed the opposite. Most of the cleanly-cut core columns I have seen were already completely severed and just laying around in heaps with other debris. Those weren't the lance-cut ones, with angles to them and rough edges. I'm talking about the smooth, perfectly straight horizontal slices.

A question for Orion: with your knowledge of physics perhaps you could tell us how much energy it takes to vaporise just 1 cm^3 of steel in, say, the relatively slow time of 1 millisecond.

This is a very good question for getting into the real physics of how this particular theory would have to work. Not even 1 ms, say 1/10th of a second. Or 1/2 of a second. The energy is still astronomical for only just a cubic cm of steel, considering it is supposedly coming from photons.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by OrionStars
Since you admit you do not understand it, why do you assume I do not because you do not understand it.

Because I understand other fields of science, and I know that if you knew quantum mechanics well, you would be talking more specifically.

I am not clear on what you are saying. How does knowing other sciences have anything to do with understanding or not the combination of advanced physics and quantum mechanics?

I have studied genetics (over a decade) and ecological science (over 30 years), both molecular biological sciences combining molecular chemistry, and still do. That did not give me what I needed to comprehend advanced physics and quantum mechanics combined.

Until I studied the combination of advanced physics and quantum mechanics, over the last 6+ years, all I had was the very low level basics of elementary and high school in both. That was over 40 years ago. That was certainly not enough to comprehend the advanced combined study of both. I had to in-depth study both, on an advanced level, in order to fully comprehend what I needed to scientifically know concerning 9/11/2001.

Most of what I knew, of basic physics and quantum mechanics, was actually applying the principles of both in real life situations. I have done that since I was a small child playing with tinker toys and erectors sets etc. Or to anything else in life, such as subconscious breathing in and out, body motion, aerodynamics, etc.

Just the basics was enough for that. However, in order to more fully comprehend the complexities of quantum mechanics, I had to do advanced study in quantum mechanics, to combine with basic physics (physical matter) propelled and/or perpetually moved by energy (quantum mechanics), involved in every day life.

You are certainly free to agree or disagree with my presentations. However, you are not free to tell me what I know or do not know, until you can prove what I present is scientifically incorrect.

That is why I prefer to stay on topic rather than tangenting off into a personal vein. I am trying very hard to comply with the rules set forth with the moderators in that respect. I still contend if people are going to reject what they say they do not understand, there is nothing more I or anyone else can present which will satisfy any questions.

I have to leave it up to others to do their own studies instead. I am not going to force anyone to do that. At that point, it is up to them to choose or reject doing their own research and study.

Originally posted by OrionStars
I am not clear on what you are saying. How does knowing other sciences have anything to do with understanding or not the combination of advanced physics and quantum mechanics?

The problem is you keep posting BS like this instead of what I've actually been asking for, for the past 20 posts or so.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The problem is you keep posting BS like this instead of what I've actually been asking for, for the past 20 posts or so.

At this point, there is no choice for me but to agree to disagree on your opinions once again.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't know who else has noticed this, but I've noticed the opposite. Most of the cleanly-cut core columns I have seen were already completely severed and just laying around in heaps with other debris. Those weren't the lance-cut ones, with angles to them and rough edges. I'm talking about the smooth, perfectly straight horizontal slices.

What I noticed about all the core column sections lying around is they are all about the same length and close examination of the square ends in a couple of pics indicates the welds failed before the columns were bent beyond their elastic limit which explains most of them being undistorted. This does in no way imply a structural defect, failures occur at the weakest point is all it suggests.

Do you see what I was getting at about the variety of angles?
If the cutting was done with a beam of any kind it would have to be fired from just about every possible position in a hemisphere surrounding the tower. And yet there's no sign of it cutting the external walls or perturbing the smoke.

No sign of thermal cutting on these square ends:



[edit on 4/2/2008 by Pilgrum]

[edit on 4/2/2008 by Pilgrum]

[edit on 4/2/2008 by Pilgrum]

If those are the foundry casted ends, where are the collars between each section of core support? They are not going to take the time to cut them off, or break the welding, unbolt, and remove the collars.

There are no bolt holes, bolts and welding indication on those ends, which need to be there if they are foundry cast ends connected by collars, all the way up to the roof from the base foundation, for each continuous section of core support. That has been validated for correct construction more than a few times in these discussions.

Then again, perhaps they are not core supports or any other steel from the twin towers. There is no authentication as to from where those girders came. They could be horizontal load bearing support girders - perimeter or otherwise. They could be from anywhere and belonging to any steel building.

Those may have been cut with an industrial steel cutting laser. If left lying in the rain and elements, for even a short period of time, rust will build up rapidly on cut bare steel walls exposed to the elements.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What I noticed about all the core column sections lying around is they are all about the same length

That's something else that seems improbable to me: everything "falls apart" into base components, 3-floor sections of core column and the groups of 3 perimeter columns connected with spandrel plates.

This does in no way imply a structural defect, failures occur at the weakest point is all it suggests.

Why do you assume the welds would be the weakest areas? I've seen Griff post scans from his textbooks and etc. saying that the welds are taught to be designed to be stronger than the material surrounding them during construction by using a slightly different metal (with a higher strength) to do the welding, creating stronger bonds there than what holds the steel itself together.

If the cutting was done with a beam of any kind it would have to be fired from just about every possible position in a hemisphere surrounding the tower. And yet there's no sign of it cutting the external walls or perturbing the smoke.

Just for clarity, I don't think DEW were used.

No sign of thermal cutting on these square ends

Agreed, but I'm not sure I'm looking at a shear failure either.

In the image below you can see where a core column's bracing at the floor level failed. The core column itself has another smooth end on it:

How could DEW disintegrate anything being exploded outwards, as were parts of the facade and perimeter primary load steel tube, with cast spandrel plate sections, attached to the outside of the buildings?

DEW is direct energy, which means it is controlled and concentrated on one area and no other not directed by the tech operator in a path. Direct energy can be moved up, down, diagonally, or sideways by the tech controlling the invisible DEW laser beam. The military had portable, usable DEW, by air, land, or sea by 9/11/2001. They have used them in Iraq as evidenced on Dr. Judy Woods Star War Beams website.

DEW radiation and kinetic energy penetrates through an entire building on all sides, of a given object. The furthest external side can easily be away, by massive disintegration pressure behind it, and that part of given building leaves those sections completely untouched by DEW.

DEW can disintegrate anything in its path, including human beings. No differently than the uncontrolled direct energy path of an H- or A-bomb, which also has uncontrolled indirect energy blast which can incinerate, including human bodies. DEW does not have any uncontrolled direct energy involved. When what is behind something disintegrates, what is in front of that can be blown off by massive kinetic energy of DEW.

The following are photos of uncontrolled direct and indirect energy of the H- and A-bombs.

www.gensuikin.org...

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

What was happening to the exterior on the sides there was no viewing by video? There is not enough façade and exterior wall to complete any more than two stories, of one tower, in photos people place in these discussions. Where is the rest of all that exterior tonnage?

The rest of the inside granulated as evidenced by our viewing of it happening as it was happening, plus, all the physical granule debris high in iron per metallurgy report, rather than intact steel girders, elevators, staircases, escalators, other secondary steel framing and support, floor steel, etc.

Certainly was not massively piled high as should have happened under natural collapse or even conventional controlled demolitions, when the actual disintegration process was all over. If it was, where was it in any photos of all that redundant inside steel tonnage of hundreds of thousands of tons? All that should have been in dust form and/or granules was concrete and drywall. Yet, what should normally happen, did not happen with WTC 1 or 2.

If people disagree with my topic points of argument, they are going to have to prove all that redundant intact steel tonnage was lying there in the immediate aftermath. So far, that has not been done by people disagreeing with my and others points of argument it was not there. Where was it? A few pieces of exterior and a few girders is not all that should have been left in the immediate aftermath.

People demand we prove it was not there, but never prove it was there. Proof is a two way street for validation. It is self-evident from photos, all over the Internet, it was not there. We have nothing to prove. The photos do that for us.

reply to post by bsbray11
Note how the thinner steel of the bracing/floor mounting appears forcefully torn apart rather than fused or cut which indicates its welding was stronger than the material itself and that would be easier to achieve with thinner material than the columns.

Perhaps DEW did have a hand in this - the condensed atmospheric moisture type of dew.

That column end shows no sign of burning, melting or vaporizing and the overall level of oxidizing is evenly distributed. Leads me to think the welded joints snapped like carrots and *could* have been weakened by slow progressive rusting from the inside of the joints.



[edit on 5/2/2008 by Pilgrum]