9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery suppression Timeline
By CB_Brooklyn
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
There are three basic versions of the 9/11 events. Although differences and/or overlapping may occur, the following three versions generally describe what most people believe:
1. OGCT. This is known as the “Official Government Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspired with 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims to hijack airplanes, outwit the USA’s entire multi-trillion dollar defense system, and cause the Twin Towers to collapse. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the truth of 9/11.
2. APCT. I call this the “Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that, more or less, there were hijackings on 9/11, but the planes might have been taken under remote control to ensure they crashed as planned. Airplanes most likely crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville, but planes definitely did crash into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed from conventional explosives and thermite, and molten metal was found in the rubble. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the “wacko conspiracy theory” that the “truth movement” believes.
3. REAL. This, simply, is the REAL version, backed by actual evidence, Laws of Physics, and common sense: There were no hijackings, no plane crashes, the corporate media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane impacting the South Tower, and the WTC complex (not just the Towers and WTC 7) was destroyed with Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). The government and media steer clear of these.
Refer to the Lenin-credited quote above.
Is it possible the “truth movement” has been run by the 9/11 perpetrators since day one?
Is it possible that certain individuals have been planted to steer the “truth movement” away from the perpetrators? Is it possible these plants have affiliations with directed energy weapons (DEW)?
Is it even possible that some of these plants are “in on it” while others got suckered in? You be the judge.
***Former Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).
Mineta ensured minimal interference with the DEW by grounding as many commercial airliners as possible during the timeframe of the towers’ destruction.
Jones ridicules the directed energy weapon and TV-Fakery theories with statements such as ”These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.” http://judicial-inc.biz/Steven_Jones_quits_911.htm
***Physicist Greg Jenkins’ has connections to the NSA and DEW:
Jenkins steered the “truth movement” away from directed energy weapons by conducting an ambush interview of Dr Judy Wood. (However, a read of the transcript reveals Dr Wood won the debate hands down.) http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jenkins_transcript.html
***Official at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Van Romero, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).
Romero is a controlled demolitions expert. Scroll down a little and note the photo. Does Romero actually think this was caused by a “relatively small amount of explosives”?
***Former Director of the Star Wars program, Robert Bowman, is about as close to directed energy weapons as one can get.
Although he is in Jim Fetzer’s Scholars group, I have not heard him speaking about Dr Wood’s DEW evidence. I do remember, however, an interview where Bowman states that he “doesn’t fall for conspiracy theories” with regard to controlled demolition.
Bowman has a PhD in Nuclear Engineering. How can he possibly call this a conspiracy theory?
Also of note is the following:
The government contracted with several sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society for the NIST (NCSTAR 1) Report:
Boeing - Gold Level Current/Founding Sponsor Applied Research Associates (ARA) - Silver Level Founding Sponsor Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) - Silver Level Current Sponsor http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/sponsors.html
Dr Judy Wood has discovered that ARA and SAIC are manufacturers of Directed Energy Weapons and have expertise in Psychological Operations (PSYOPS). http://drjudywood.com/articles/ARA/ARA.html
The New York Times is a mainstream media source. Do they tell the truth of 9/11 or do they hide it? Why on earth would they help the “truth movement” by publishing evidence of explosives?
*Jerry Leaphart - mainstream attorney never invited to discuss his clients’ (Wood/Reynolds) 9/11 legal actions
In an interview with Kevin Barrett, trial attorney Jerry Leaphart has said:
"What I can tell you and the listeners, Kevin, is this. There is more admissible evidence associated with the theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weapons than there is admissible evidence for any single other theory out there that has been promulgated."
The following is a timeline relating to promotion of the Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory by government plants and the media, and suppression of the REAL version by government plants and media. Also included is suppression of free energy research.
I find it quite interesting that many well known people within the "truth movement" have affiliations with DEWs, such as Bob Bowman. And some of them speak up against DEWs, such as Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins.
And let's not forget Van Romero's "relatively small amount of explosives" comment, and all the recognition/awards/grants he got afterwards. Romero made presentations at the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) before and after 9/11!
And of course, Norman Mineta was VP of Lockheed Martin, a Gold-Level sponsor of DEPS.
And NIST contracted with ARA and SAIC; both are sponsors of DEPS.
One must ask themselves... what are all these DEW-affiliated people doing in and around the truth movement? Why are they here? And why do they speak up against DEW evidence?
Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn: 9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery suppression Timeline
this is exactly the kind of stuff that gives 911 truth seekers a bad name. This is tinfoilhat stuff. We don't have to make up pseudo scientific theories about what happened: enough to point out omissions in the official report and the fact that the "pancake theory" is not supported by the engineering facts presented in the NIST report and it is so by clear design and omission by the authors who point out that they did not have enough recovered steel samples to prove the pancake theory.
Showing how handpicked pieces failed locally is not the same as showing that statistical analysis of failure modes supports the systematic collapse of the whole structure the way we saw it happen that day. the goals of the document to show a collapse sequence and prove it by statistical modeling was not achieved even though somehow it's magically claimed that it was. The number of samples in some cases, like core columns(12 out of approx 1500 welded pieces) or core floor truss connectors (31 out of thousands), is so ridiculous that even they admit such analysis would make no sense. Yet they allow us to believe that this report somehow proves the official theory that localized damage, sheer weight and localized fires brought down a steel structure in a symmetric fashion.
Structural steel recovered from the WTC site was analyzed for composition, microstructure, and mechanical properties, including room temperature properties (for modeling baseline building performance), high temperature properties (for modeling structural response of the building to fire), and behavior at high strain rates (for modeling airplane impact). Failure analysis of the recovered steel, complemented by pre-collapse photographs of the damaged building, was used to establish failure modes and temperature excursions experienced by the steel. In addition, important documents from the construction era covering issues ranging from steel specifications to engineering design drawings were used to help interpret the results and supplement models of mechanical properties used in the models of building performance. (...) The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.
(ABSTRACT; page iii)
The specific objectives were: 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
(Genesis of This Investigation; page xxv)
Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis; Project Leaders: Dr. John L. Gross and Dr. Therese P. McAllister determine the most probable structural collapse sequence for WTC 1, 2, and 7.
(Table P–1. Federal building and fire safety investigation of the WTC disaster; page xxvi)
In addition to the NIST analysis, an outside contractor made an independent study of the recovered steel elements. In general, the observations concerning local failure mechanisms by the contractor agreed with those that NIST found. The observations of fracture and failure behavior, described below, were used by the groups that modeled the building performance during impact and subsequent fire to guide the development of their models and validate their results. (...) In general, perimeter columns severed by the aircraft wing did so at the internal stiffener or diaphragm plate associated with the spandrel connection to column. Perimeter columns hit by the plane tended to fracture along heat-affected zones adjacent to welds. Perimeter columns outside the impact zone did not exhibit this behavior. The failure mode of spandrel connections on perimeter panels differed above and below the impact zone. At or above the impact zone, bolt hole tear-out was more common. Below the impact zone, it was more common for the spandrels to be ripped off from the panels. The change in mode may be due to shear failures as the weight of the building during collapse came down on these lower panels. There was no evidence that fire exposure changed the failure mode for the spandrel connections. (...) Failure of the limited number of recovered core columns was a result of both splice connection failures and fracture of the columns themselves. (...) Of the 31 core floor truss connectors (core seats) recovered, about 90 percent were still intact, although many were extensively damaged. Only two were completely torn from the channel. This distribution may have resulted from the process used to select recovered steel from at the salvage yards, however.
(E.3 DAMAGE AND FAILURE MODES OF THE STRUCTURAL STEEL; page xxxix)
The World Trade Center (WTC) towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, as a result of damage inflicted by aircraft and the ensuing fires. The properties of the steel played an important role in how the building performed, from the initial impact to the final collapse. Structural steel recovered from the site has been a valuable resource in the investigation of the disaster, providing information ranging from details of structural response to the aircraft impact to data on steel properties for insertion into models of building performance.
(E.1 OVERVIEW; page xxxvii)
Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C. (...) Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fireaffected floors of the towers. Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
(E.3.6 Fire Exposure and Temperatures Reached by the Steel; page xli)
In summary, the steel used in the construction of the WTC towers met the expectations of the designers and the specifications called for in the steel contracts. Material substitutions of higher strength steels were common in the perimeter columns and floor trusses. The safety of the WTC towers on September 11, 2001, was most likely not affected by the fraction of steel that, according to NIST testing, did not meet the required minimum yield strength. The typical factors of safety in allowable stress design can accommodate the measured property variations below the minimum.
(E.4 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES; page X1iii)
From the observations made of the spandrel connections on recovered panels, there was no difference in failure mode whether or not the panels were exposed to pre-collapse fires. There was a statistical difference in the failure modes when the location of the panels was considered. For panels at or above the impact zone, bolt hole tear out was a more common failure mode. For those samples below the impact zone, there was a higher propensity for the spandrels to be ripped off from the panels.
Due to the small number of samples , statistical data analysis of the damage features and failure modes would be of little use. (6.4.1 Core Columns; page 80)
Using literature data from a statistically planned experiment, it was possible to develop an expression for the thermal conductivity that attempts to account for chemical variations. This expression is only partially useful because it requires that the chemistry of the steel be known, which is not possible for a generic construction element in the WTC towers. Using the specified minimum values for chemistries in the steels does not help, because the unspecified elements can make a contribution equal to or greater than the ones in the specification.
(8.4 THERMAL PROPERTIES; page 124)
The Investigation team has studied practices ranging from those used during construction of the towers to newly available practices which could improve the safety and performance of high-rise buildings. The recent development and use of “fire-resistant” steel in Europe and Japan falls in the latter category. (...) Under Level 1, the fire-resistant steel issue is considered to include practices and research and development or requiring further study. The issue, under Level 2, applies to all tall buildings and selected other buildings. Under Level 3, the use of fire-resistant steel in the WTC towers may have increased the time to collapse of the towers.
Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn: The Twin Towers did not "collapse", they were pulverized:
You can achieve that effect with demolition charges, it's not important how they did it, that's my point. Once you start talking about how they actually did it you expose yourself to ridicule because the fact is that you can't prove your point to scientific standards because the evidence is gone. But most importantly by promoting unscientific speculation you loose the high ground that enables all of us to say that the gov theory itself is not scientifically proven because they destroyed forensic evidence and that's the single most powerful charge you can bring because it's a federal felony to do so.
As a result the only relevant question in that photo is "where are the steel beams" and we should stick to that.
Here is the kind of analysis that should have been provided using actual samples as input data that should have been used in sufficient numbers so that major variables don't have to be "assumed" the way you can see them do here:
Very little information was available regarding the heat source, so it was assumed to be 1500° C, acting in the area of the structure carved out by the plane. Convective boundary conditions were applied to nearby members in the center of the structure. A thermal analysis using an adaptive time stepping procedure was performed for one hour. It illustrates that the temperatures would have reached over 500° C even on adjacent floors (even if more radiation was included).
We know from the NIST report that there is no recovered steel sample that reached 250 degrees, way bellow the values indicated in the model. Oops that's my bad..ok 3 pieces of steel actually had. That's statistically insignificant.
this is exactly the kind of stuff that gives 911 truth seekers a bad name.
That's precisely their point. It's best to ignore COINTELPRO operatives.
-------------------------- "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" - Sherlock Holmes
Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn: The Twin Towers did not "collapse", they were pulverized:
You can achieve that effect with demolition charges, it's not important how they did it, that's my point. Once you start talking about how they actually did it you expose yourself to ridicule because the fact is that you can't prove your point to scientific standards because the evidence is gone. But most importantly by promoting unscientific speculation you loose the high ground that enables all of us to say that the gov theory itself is not scientifically proven because they destroyed forensic evidence and that's the single most powerful charge you can bring because it's a federal felony to do so.
Standard explosives cannot explain all the phenomena, such as toasted cars, cylindrical holes of uniform diameter in WTC 5/6, and the clean vertical cut on WTC 4. However, DEW can easy explain those and other anomalies.
The information in my OP showing that the truth movement has been COINTEL from day one (Van Romero), is just icing on the cake.
And that's not even mentioning that NIST contracted with sponsors of DEPS, and that the NY Times redacted evidence of DEW.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: CB_Brooklyn,
Posts: 17 | Location: New York City | Registered: 12 November 2007
Standard explosives cannot explain all the phenomena, such as toasted cars, cylindrical holes of uniform diameter in WTC 5/6, and the clean vertical cut on WTC 4. However, DEW can easy explain those and other anomalies.
The information in my OP showing that the truth movement has been COINTEL from day one (Van Romero), is just icing on the cake.
And that's not even mentioning that NIST contracted with sponsors of DEPS, and that the NY Times redacted evidence of DEW.
Look, I am not saying that you are absolutely wrong and there is no chance in hell that it was what you say it was. all I am saying is that you have no proof. I think the problem we are having is a slight misunderstanding about what the word proof really means.
In order to show that something got solid by camel shit one has to know what camel shit is, in this case "DEW" on the other hand you have to have the stuff or at least a large enough part of it that has the camel shit on it You have no access to a real DEW, so you really have no idea what it is other than idle speculation, and you don't have enough pieces of the towers either. I rest my case ....
There is a group of disinformation agents who are trying to discredit the effort to publicize the truth about 9-11, just as the truth movement is having success reaching the public and even the media. It is led by Gerard Holmgren, Nico Haupt, Rosalee "Webfairy" Grable, Rick Siegel, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds (former chief economist of G W Bush's Department of Labor), "Coffinman", James Fetzer (a founder of the Scholars for 9-11 Truth, recently rejected by a vote of 153 to 9 by the members but refuses to leave, and also a former JFK "researcher" who claims that the Zapruder film -- which proves that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the killer -- was faked by the government), etc.
In addition to making savage, lying attacks against the people most successful in spreading the truth of 9-11 to the population -- David Ray Griffin and physicist Steven Jones -- the gang members claim that some or all of the following techniques were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center: missiles disguised as planes by means of holograms (impossible, because, since light travels in straight lines, the hologram generator would have to be as large as a 767), "UFO orbs" (actually the lights of helicopters in the distance), "scalar waves" (which don't exist and are a fraud), "Hutchison effect" (which also doesn't exist and is a fraud), micro-hydrogen bombs not using fission triggers (which don't exist, would have made an enormous flash and bang, and would have made radioactive elements which were not found), missiles hidden by "cloaking devices" (which don't exist), flocks of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles, to account for individual puffs of dust and smoke during the crashes that were actually caused by turbulent air flow), energy beams from space satellites (which would have required the combined power of hundreds of nuclear power plants, would have made the concrete dust burning hot, would have burned people on the ground, and could not have penetrated even one of the hundred steel floor plans). They insist that no planes hit the WTC, that all the videos and photos, even those made by private people, were faked by the government (all of the analysis that the gang presents to prove this turns out to be lies), and that all the witnesses who saw the planes hit were lying or brainwashed by watching TV.
This gang has created dozens of websites, blogs, Net radio programs, and various other outlets for their lies. Their intention is to associate these nonsensical claims with the actual 9-11 research movement, in order to discredit it. They have already begun to succeed: articles have been published in mainstream media saying that 9-11 researchers are nutty conspiracy theorists who say that no planes hit the World Trade Center.
Here is a refutation of one of their claims -- that cars near the WTC were burned in peculiar ways that proves they were hit by energy beams from space:
And another: the disinfo gang claims that the WTC steel "spire" -- some girders that remained standing briefly after one of the towers fell -- was "dustified" by directed energy beams, this based on low-resolution video from which it's impossible to tell what happened. In fact, any type of energy that can reduce solid steel to dust would have to vaporize it first, which would require heating it to beyond white-hot in order to overcome the very strong interatomic bonds that make steel such a strong construction material. Such heating would cause the steel to emit a blindingly bright blue-white light. Of course this didn't happen.
What did happen is shown in the two closeup higher resolution videos below: the spire simply fell, mostly dropping vertically downward. At the end the tallest part also begins a rotation to the left, which can be seen in the second video. The sideways motion causes some blurring due to the video compression process. A lesser degree of blurring is seen in the first video as the spire falls, but it's clear that the various parts of the structure remain intact, because they keep their geometric relationship with one another; dust clouds could not do that.
911.wtc.1.spire.close.up.avi
collapse-01-spire-clip.avi
If your video player won't display these, download and install mplayer. It runs on Linux, Mac OSX, and Microsoft Windows, and can expand videos to full-screen, and also run them in slow-motion or frame by frame, so you have time to perceive and understand what's happening.
Is the No-WTC-Planes/Video-Fakery/Space-Beams gang really COINTELPRO?
People in various 9-11 truth groups are now starting to connect the following facts:
1. The U.S. government has carried out COINTELPRO operations -- infiltration, disinformation, and disruption -- against all major anti-war, anti-racist, and pro-environmental organizations in the past. 2.The 9-11 truth movement is exposing as a huge and murderous fraud the 9-11 pretext for the entire "eternal war against terrorism" -- which is actually for war profiteering, seizure of oil resources, extension of geopolitical/military power, and obedience to the demands of the state of Israel. 3. It is therefore very likely that a COINTELPRO operation is being undertaken against the 9-11 truth movement. 4. The No-WTC-Planes/Space-Beams/etc gang has all the characteristics of a COINTELPRO operation against the 9-11 truth movement, and it is the only group that does.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: memory_hole,
-------------------------- "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" - Sherlock Holmes
Standard explosives cannot explain all the phenomena, such as toasted cars, cylindrical holes of uniform diameter in WTC 5/6, and the clean vertical cut on WTC 4. However, DEW can easy explain those and other anomalies.
The information in my OP showing that the truth movement has been COINTEL from day one (Van Romero), is just icing on the cake.
And that's not even mentioning that NIST contracted with sponsors of DEPS, and that the NY Times redacted evidence of DEW.
Look, I am not saying that you are absolutely wrong and there is no chance in hell that it was what you say it was. all I am saying is that you have no proof. I think the problem we are having is a slight misunderstanding about what the word proof really means.
In order to show that something got solid by camel shit one has to know what camel shit is, in this case "DEW" on the other hand you have to have the stuff or at least a large enough part of it that has the camel shit on it You have no access to a real DEW, so you really have no idea what it is other than idle speculation, and you don't have enough pieces of the towers either. I rest my case ....
There is a group of disinformation agents who are trying to discredit the effort to publicize the truth about 9-11, just as the truth movement is having success reaching the public and even the media. It is led by Gerard Holmgren, Nico Haupt, Rosalee "Webfairy" Grable, Rick Siegel, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds (former chief economist of G W Bush's Department of Labor), "Coffinman", James Fetzer (a founder of the Scholars for 9-11 Truth, recently rejected by a vote of 153 to 9 by the members but refuses to leave, and also a former JFK "researcher" who claims that the Zapruder film -- which proves that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the killer -- was faked by the government), etc.
In addition to making savage, lying attacks against the people most successful in spreading the truth of 9-11 to the population -- David Ray Griffin and physicist Steven Jones -- the gang members claim that some or all of the following techniques were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center: missiles disguised as planes by means of holograms (impossible, because, since light travels in straight lines, the hologram generator would have to be as large as a 767), "UFO orbs" (actually the lights of helicopters in the distance), "scalar waves" (which don't exist and are a fraud), "Hutchison effect" (which also doesn't exist and is a fraud), micro-hydrogen bombs not using fission triggers (which don't exist, would have made an enormous flash and bang, and would have made radioactive elements which were not found), missiles hidden by "cloaking devices" (which don't exist), flocks of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles, to account for individual puffs of dust and smoke during the crashes that were actually caused by turbulent air flow), energy beams from space satellites (which would have required the combined power of hundreds of nuclear power plants, would have made the concrete dust burning hot, would have burned people on the ground, and could not have penetrated even one of the hundred steel floor plans). They insist that no planes hit the WTC, that all the videos and photos, even those made by private people, were faked by the government (all of the analysis that the gang presents to prove this turns out to be lies), and that all the witnesses who saw the planes hit were lying or brainwashed by watching TV.
This gang has created dozens of websites, blogs, Net radio programs, and various other outlets for their lies. Their intention is to associate these nonsensical claims with the actual 9-11 research movement, in order to discredit it. They have already begun to succeed: articles have been published in mainstream media saying that 9-11 researchers are nutty conspiracy theorists who say that no planes hit the World Trade Center.
Here is a refutation of one of their claims -- that cars near the WTC were burned in peculiar ways that proves they were hit by energy beams from space:
And another: the disinfo gang claims that the WTC steel "spire" -- some girders that remained standing briefly after one of the towers fell -- was "dustified" by directed energy beams, this based on low-resolution video from which it's impossible to tell what happened. In fact, any type of energy that can reduce solid steel to dust would have to vaporize it first, which would require heating it to beyond white-hot in order to overcome the very strong interatomic bonds that make steel such a strong construction material. Such heating would cause the steel to emit a blindingly bright blue-white light. Of course this didn't happen.
What did happen is shown in the two closeup higher resolution videos below: the spire simply fell, mostly dropping vertically downward. At the end the tallest part also begins a rotation to the left, which can be seen in the second video. The sideways motion causes some blurring due to the video compression process. A lesser degree of blurring is seen in the first video as the spire falls, but it's clear that the various parts of the structure remain intact, because they keep their geometric relationship with one another; dust clouds could not do that.
911.wtc.1.spire.close.up.avi
collapse-01-spire-clip.avi
If your video player won't display these, download and install mplayer. It runs on Linux, Mac OSX, and Microsoft Windows, and can expand videos to full-screen, and also run them in slow-motion or frame by frame, so you have time to perceive and understand what's happening.
Is the No-WTC-Planes/Video-Fakery/Space-Beams gang really COINTELPRO?
People in various 9-11 truth groups are now starting to connect the following facts:
1. The U.S. government has carried out COINTELPRO operations -- infiltration, disinformation, and disruption -- against all major anti-war, anti-racist, and pro-environmental organizations in the past. 2.The 9-11 truth movement is exposing as a huge and murderous fraud the 9-11 pretext for the entire "eternal war against terrorism" -- which is actually for war profiteering, seizure of oil resources, extension of geopolitical/military power, and obedience to the demands of the state of Israel. 3. It is therefore very likely that a COINTELPRO operation is being undertaken against the 9-11 truth movement. 4. The No-WTC-Planes/Space-Beams/etc gang has all the characteristics of a COINTELPRO operation against the 9-11 truth movement, and it is the only group that does.
The person who posted the above doesn't have the slightest clue of how to look at and analyze information, and must therefore resort to following the popular crowd. But the popular crowd, in this case, is an operation set up and controlled by the 9/11 perpetrators. This popular crowd is called the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Every video shows the same physically impossible event: an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through steel girders and concrete slabs.
Every video is fake. We can therefore conclude that airplanes did not hit the towers.
The poster of the quote above does no analysis but instead copy/pastes information from government plants such as Steven Jones.
Scalar Waves and the Hutchinson Effect are very real. But those in power do not want us to know this. See here for the true fraud Steven Jones is and how he sabotaged free energy research: http://www.911researchers.com/node/125
Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn: Anyone who understands high school level physics knows that this video violates Newton's Laws of Motion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDu2V3yjS4
Ah yes, another genius who claims to understand physics. Exactly which law of motion does the crash violate? Enlighten us with your accumen.
When a true genius enters this world, you will know him by this sign, all the dunces will be in confederacy against him ---Johnathan Swift
Well, raynjuls, since you do seem to be able to judge those who know physics from those that don't, you could finally set it all to rest and explain how the impact of the building upon itself causes the whole thing to fall down--and include the physical laws of conservation of mass and energy and for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction--or explain why they don't apply.....
Or, was it an 'impact'--or some kind of special 'dynamic force' peculiar just to the design of the World Trade Center towers....
Oh, yes, and if you don't believe my own analogy of a car hitting a truck (where the truck's structure will always be conserved more over the car--leaving the question as to why didn't the smaller top section of the building that impacted get destroyed before the larger bottom structure), then I'd like to hear your explanation as to how this impact was able to destroy the bottom section more than the top.....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Originally posted by Kerry: Well, raynjuls, since you do seem to be able to judge those who know physics from those that don't, you could finally set it all to rest and explain how the impact of the building upon itself causes the whole thing to fall down--and include the physical laws of conservation of mass and energy and for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction--or explain why they don't apply.....
Or, was it an 'impact'--or some kind of special 'dynamic force' peculiar just to the design of the World Trade Center towers....
Oh, yes, and if you don't believe my own analogy of a car hitting a truck (where the truck's structure will always be conserved more over the car--leaving the question as to why didn't the smaller top section of the building that impacted get destroyed before the larger bottom structure), then I'd like to hear your explanation as to how this impact was able to destroy the bottom section more than the top.....
The collapse of the towers was a non linear event. It cannot be described with simple Newtonian physics. There are techniques of probabilistic failure analysis that employ very complicated models like Markov Algorithms and Monte Carlo simulations to do this. Supercomputers take days to do the calculations for 8 seconds of events.
The real issue is no that, as I pointed out before, it's rather the lack of such explanation and the flaws of the ones we have because of the destruction of forensic evidence.
We have to realize the official story also has very strong points that no one in the 911 truth movement has a good answer to as far as I can tell. Such is for example the fact that the collapse clearly started at the impact point. That means they had to know ahead of time what floors the airplanes would hit or would have had to work out the physics of the collapse backwards which I said is just waaay too complicated to do. It is very hard to believe that demolition can be that much controlled. But again there is no proof either way and the sheer number of screwups with the investigation still convinces me that there is a massive coverup behind it just can't prove anything. Anyone claiming he can is probably not fully aware of the meaning of the word "proof" in this context.
The collapse of the towers was a non linear event.
What do you mean by that statement? A 'non-linear' event.
Then, are you saying that these buildings were NOT brought down by 'impact' (I see 'impact' being a 'linear event'--of the top section upon the bottom structures--which I think would follow the basic physical principles I'm naming))? And, if not, what was it? I'm up for someone describing this 'dynamic force'--but I want that description to explain away the conservation of mass and energy (and 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction)--not IGNORE IT! Or, again, tell me why these basic Newtonian principles don't count in this event....
quote:
It cannot be described with simple Newtonian physics.
Again, why not? Are you proposing something 'more dynamic'--and, if so, at least describe the character of this 'dynamic force' in some way to make it tenable to those who are actually searching for a good explanation of this debacle (I am). Is it 'elastic waves'? Is it 'sinusoidal waves'? Is it 'creation of an implosion force (and where did this 'force's energy' come from) that disregards any structural integrity left in the buildings'?
quote:
There are techniques of probabilistic failure analysis that employ very complicated models like Markov Algorithms and Monte Carlo simulations to do this.
Are you saying these issues DON'T have to follow basic Newtonian physical principles (namely, conservation of mass and energy--and 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction')? If not, again, why not? 'Dynamic forces' just by the character of their 'dynamism' are able to disregard these priniciples? If so, how? I've heard some of the descriptions (although, I've NEVER heard a coherent explanation 'piecing it all together')...'elastic waves', 'sinusoidal waves', what is the character of this 'dynamic force' and how does it overcome basic Newtonian physics (the only thing I thought that didn't involve basic Newtonian physics was subatomic particles and quantum mechanics--you have another 'force' that doesn't?)?
quote:
Supercomputers take days to do the calculations for 8 seconds of events.
I won't believe the results--until I hear someone explain it 'from start to finish'. Computers don't think. You can include any 'dynamic force' you believe to be pertinent--but I would like at least a cursory description as to how these forces work upon the building.
quote:
We have to realize the official story also has very strong points that no one in the 911 truth movement has a good answer to as far as I can tell.
I'll reiterate just what I said--I HAVEN'T heard a good descriptive answer ('from start to finish') explaining this
Discussion Community 
You have no access to a real DEW, so you really have no idea what it is other than idle speculation, and you don't have enough pieces of the towers either. I rest my case ....