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.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The main point was to ask to keep this thread on topic. I won't be addressing your concerns here.
Thanks.
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The point, my good man is that you post the same two youtubes in nearly every 9/11 thread, and derail most of them into talking about your videos and theories, and persistent demands for information that anyone capable of making use of it could figure out for himself.
What sense does it make to talk about where the towers went when we don't know what was there to go?
If we don't have accurate data on how much of what the towers consisted of then how can we talk about what there was to went?
That is fundamentally why this TEN YEAR discussion is so DUMB.
psik
Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by snowcrash911
Ooooh sorry. I take it you are miffed at my reaction to your video.
Originally posted by aboutface
If Judy wood (or her work, rather) is not worth discussing, then I find it strange that you would post that video in the first place, unless it was intended to discredit her and disrupt the thread.
Originally posted by aboutface
Your alias reminds me of a documentary I saw of Israelis skiing on 9/11. Were I a government, say the USA, Britain or Israel, I would recruit you in an instant to be a disinfo agent in the 9/11 forum., as your profile indicates you only seem to post in that one, and you are quite adept at putdowns.
Peace.
Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by psikeyhackr
What sense does it make to talk about where the towers went when we don't know what was there to go?
If we don't have accurate data on how much of what the towers consisted of then how can we talk about what there was to went?
That is fundamentally why this TEN YEAR discussion is so DUMB.
psik
(Sorry to have been away...)
To me she presents a theory for particle beam weaponry of some sort, only defined in certain ways; namely that there was a static force field (the hurricane data) , that something was introduced to cause much of the buildings to pffft into thin air rather than crash to the ground and produce relative unimpressive seismicity (why no corresponding eq data for each building?) and bend some of those beams all the way around like Christmas ribbon candy or an Egyptian ankh rather than fall straight down.
Can a laser beam or microbeam act that way?
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.edit on 21-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)
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.edit 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?
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.edit 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
The first-generation Cosmospheres were weapons platforms that were ELECTRO-GRAVITIC (could hover against gravity), ATOMIC POWERED, horizontally positioned by rocket thrusters, somehow invisible to radar beyond about 40 miles (perhaps from a radar-absorbing coating), armed with CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons (at least a hundred times less powerful than those in the Moon bases), equipped with “PSYCHO-ENERGETIC RANGE FINDING” (PRF) which tunes in to the actual ATOMIC SIGNATURE of a target or object and can NOT be jammed, and some of them were also armed with microwave BRAIN-SCRAMBLING equipment.
Originally posted by aboutface
Here's something on Russian weaponry
The first-generation Cosmospheres were weapons platforms that were ELECTRO-GRAVITIC (could hover against gravity), ATOMIC POWERED, horizontally positioned by rocket thrusters, somehow invisible to radar beyond about 40 miles (perhaps from a radar-absorbing coating), armed with CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons (at least a hundred times less powerful than those in the Moon bases), equipped with “PSYCHO-ENERGETIC RANGE FINDING” (PRF) which tunes in to the actual ATOMIC SIGNATURE of a target or object and can NOT be jammed, and some of them were also armed with microwave BRAIN-SCRAMBLING equipment.
Source
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.edit 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
Originally posted by NWOwned
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.
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?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I don't believe airliners could destroy those buildings that fast but I am not about to make up fantasies to explain it. There are peculiar things caught on vid, like the Spire dustifying as it fell but being completely gone before it could fall out of view. So there is definitely something weird going on. But I am not making up explanations. I want to know how much steel had to be left in that Spire and how thick it had to be at that height but I don't hear any physicists asking about that either.
I regard 9/11 as a permanent blot on the reputation of physicists for not being all over 9/11 in 2002. But now they pretend it can go away because they say nothing about it. I suspect the careers of our physicists are economically controlled so they keep their heads down. But skyscrapers are grade school level stuff so they look pretty silly not asking about the amount of steel and concrete on every level of the intact buildings.
psik
Originally posted by NWOwned
can you PROVE that airliners could not have destroyed those towers that fast?
Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by ANOK
If what you say is the case and it's physics and science based then why don't we (Somebody) just put it to NIST about just this? Why not just take NIST to task over this one thing and leave how it may have 'collapsed' to a later treatment?