9/11 Electromagnetic Laser

Take this with a grain of salt. I was at a dinner party last night at a friend's house. He had been in the military for years and is now a lawyer. Many of the guests I didn't know but knew they were his friends from the military. Eventually the discussion got to 9/11. One of the guys claimed that he had inside info (but didn't explain if he or someone he knew was involved) that the two towers were shot with an electromagnet laser from a high altitude AWAC aircraft. The way he explained it was this weapon is so powerful it rips apart matter at the atomic level, powderizing concrete and melting steel. He said it is an instantaneous reaction but works from the top down. He then claimed the another target was WT7, but it was too low to hit with the laser without causing unpredictable damage. He said WT7 was previously rigged with implosion materials.

My wife kind of rolled her eyes at me while he was going on as if he was kukoo. And, I kept waiting for the other military people to cut him off with a "Oh, your full of sh!t", or at least laugh at him. But they all seemed intrigued and bought into his claim.

I've always been skeptical about the 9/11 conspiracies but his guy sounded convincing, or at least he believed what he was saying. He could be skitzo though, I just don't know him personally. I do find it interesting if you look at the video of WT7 falling, it falls like an imploded building unlike the towers which came down top to bottom.

I hope someone else can add more information to this assertion.

reply to post by Mentorman


The military have historically always exaggerated their weapon's capabilities, and few are as indoctrinated as military men.

When the goals of 911 are exposed (what was at stake, and what was accomplished), the use of exotic weaponry would not have been considered. Tried and true conventional means were the only way to ensure success.

My two cents.

"Inside information" probably means he got trolled by someone over the internet.

That's an interesting theory, though. I'll keep my eye on this thread.

well "electromagnetic laser" is kind of redundant. All lasers are electromagnetic radiation. So thats like saying I went swimming in wet water.

reply to post by SM2


Thank you SM2 for clarifying this simple fact!

Everyone learns early in life that beer, wine, and whiskey are "feel good" drinks that have differing concentrations of alcohol. Yet the simpler fact that radiant thermal heat, radio waves, light, and cosmic gamma rays are all the identical electromagnetic process at different wavelengths, is less well known.

Best regards,
Z

reply to post by Mentorman


There has been a great deal of investigation into this possibility.

See www.drjudywood.com...

Originally posted by Mentorman
Take this with a grain of salt. I was at a dinner party last night at a friend's house. He had been in the military for years and is now a lawyer. Many of the guests I didn't know but knew they were his friends from the military. Eventually the discussion got to 9/11. One of the guys claimed that he had inside info (but didn't explain if he or someone he knew was involved) that the two towers were shot with an electromagnet laser from a high altitude AWAC aircraft. The way he explained it was this weapon is so powerful it rips apart matter at the atomic level, powderizing concrete and melting steel. He said it is an instantaneous reaction but works from the top down. He then claimed the another target was WT7, but it was too low to hit with the laser without causing unpredictable damage. He said WT7 was previously rigged with implosion materials.

My wife kind of rolled her eyes at me while he was going on as if he was kukoo. And, I kept waiting for the other military people to cut him off with a "Oh, your full of sh!t", or at least laugh at him. But they all seemed intrigued and bought into his claim.

I've always been skeptical about the 9/11 conspiracies but his guy sounded convincing, or at least he believed what he was saying. He could be skitzo though, I just don't know him personally. I do find it interesting if you look at the video of WT7 falling, it falls like an imploded building unlike the towers which came down top to bottom.

I hope someone else can add more information to this assertion.

Dumbest - or most hilarious, take your pick - bunch of crock I ever heard. The sheer amount of energy required to "powderize" concrete or melt steel is on an order of magnitude that is far beyond the capabilities even today, and for the foreseeable future, much less 10 years ago. In addition, to get that sort of energy-generating capability in a Boeing 707 airframe would be, to say the very least, impossible.

Anyone who believed that malarky is either too stupid or too gullible or both to be afforded any sort of responsibility or respectability anywhere in any facet of life. They should be shunned and laughed at, heartily, lustily and loudly while fingers are pointed in their direction.

reply to post by trebor451

Perhaps you need to do a little research - its not as dumb or hilarious as you may think.

This type of weapon already exists and has done so for quite some years sitting on the back of military trucks.

If you read up on the research carried out initially by Nikola Tesla and then John Hutchison it will make this type of weapon seem quite feasible.

In the case of The Hutchison Effect where a combination of electrostatic fields and electromagnetic (micro) waves are used, only a couple of hundred watts of energy were needed to levitate objects and to distort and split metal - some of the effects evidenced at ground zero.

With this effect the steel does not have to "melt".

There are many videos on YouTube explaining this effect from John Hutchison himself including this one www.youtube.com...

Compare the amount of energy you would need to boil a cup of water using heat on a gas stove compared with a microwave oven.

Hutchison also discovered that the effect continued for some time even after the energy was switched off.
This continuation effect was also witnessed after the towers were demolished when the remains of the towers and nearby buildings continued dissociating on the ground.

Take a serious look at www.drjudywood.com... her research makes compelling reading and also covers the work of Hutchison.

i have to agree that this claim is ridiculous. John Hutchison can not even duplicate the Hutchison effect. The dr judy website or whatever is just a cheap thrown together website put up to peddle a book based on non provable science. Even the most powerful current technology can not produce the amount of radiation to instantly melt steel and powderize concrete.

reply to post by trebor451

Dumbest - or most hilarious, take your pick - bunch of crock I ever heard. The sheer amount of energy required to "powderize" concrete or melt steel is on an order of magnitude that is far beyond the capabilities even today, and for the foreseeable future, much less 10 years ago. In addition, to get that sort of energy-generating capability in a Boeing 707 airframe would be, to say the very least, impossible.

Anyone who believed that malarky is either too stupid or too gullible or both to be afforded any sort of responsibility or respectability anywhere in any facet of life. They should be shunned and laughed at, heartily, lustily and loudly while fingers are pointed in their direction.

Yeah, it's far more believable that a couple above ground pools' worth of kerosene can wipe out three steel skyscrapers and the rest of the WTC complex.

Where's your derision for that crock of hogwash?

ok here we go, this is the only feasible weapon type that could possibly do the damage listed, a FEL or Free Electron Laser. There is also no way that this particular weapon type could be installed in an AWAC aircraft and there is no way the power source could be installed in the aircraft either. There is also the problem with they are currently stuck at around 10% of beam power to conceivably do the damage described.

www.wired.com...

it is essentially an accelerator and the "racetrack" needed at this point is around 250 feet long. So no, this weapon type could not have been used. To suggest that directed energy weapon was used on 9/11 is absurd and to believe that it is true requires a fundamental lack of understanding the physics behind said weapon types and our current technology level.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by trebor451

 

Dumbest - or most hilarious, take your pick - bunch of crock I ever heard. The sheer amount of energy required to "powderize" concrete or melt steel is on an order of magnitude that is far beyond the capabilities even today, and for the foreseeable future, much less 10 years ago. In addition, to get that sort of energy-generating capability in a Boeing 707 airframe would be, to say the very least, impossible.

Anyone who believed that malarky is either too stupid or too gullible or both to be afforded any sort of responsibility or respectability anywhere in any facet of life. They should be shunned and laughed at, heartily, lustily and loudly while fingers are pointed in their direction.

Yeah, it's far more believable that a couple above ground pools' worth of kerosene can wipe out three steel skyscrapers and the rest of the WTC complex.

Where's your derision for that crock of hogwash?

lol...funny how you people always conveniently omit the impact of and associated kinetic energy associated with two 7X7 class airliners slamming into the buildings and the fact that the third was hit by falling chunks of the WTC buildings and had a unique cantilevered construction over an existing CONED power station.

You always make it sound like this whole thing was nothing more than some Boy Scout camp fire being left unattended. That is why you and your truth "movement" (decorum and ATS restrictions prevent me from saying what sort of "movement" you really are) will forever remain on the fringes of the real world and why you will always remain a laughing stock to every sane person on this globe.

reply to post by trebor451


Funny how I always become "you people", as if youi've done a bunch of research or something, and now you know stuff.