Where did the towers go - directed free energy

weisses

Interesting theory ... Looking at the links my point of building 7 pretty much imploding into its own footprint is a valid one ... In fact looking at the three buildings debris field it looks like a damn good demolition job

Jonny7

weisses wrote: »

Interesting theory ... Looking at the links my point of building 7 pretty much imploding into its own footprint is a valid one ... In fact looking at the three buildings debris field it looks like a damn good demolition job

Doesn't this theory completely contradict a demolition theory?

weisses

Jonny7 wrote: »

Doesn't this theory completely contradict a demolition theory?

your right .... My point is ot ... It just amazed me how small the debris field was from 1,2 and wtc 7

humanji

As I indicated in an earlier post, if the basement is collapsed, how is the ambulance still parked at ground level on top of the basement outside north tower?

The whole area of the basement didn't collapse. It's designed that way. But the area under the actual towers did. It would be very suspicious if the entire 9 block radius of basement collapsed.

And with regards to those photos, so what if some things weren't damaged? Other things were completely destroyed. That proves nothing either way. The point I'm trying to get across is if you take into account the rubble that fell into the basement, all the rubble at ground zero and all the rubble in the blast zone, there's enough to for the two towers.

Here's a photo of WTC6 which I believe is about 8 stories from the ground (i got the photo from Wood's site):
and you can clearly see that the rubble on the right hand side is much more than 3 storeys high.

Remember that the basement is the entire bathtub.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. The slurry wall buckled slightly, but held together, as it was designed to do. I don't see how this is proof of anything. How does Wood believe this is important? And why would there be molton steel? Surely if a ray was able to evaporate steel and concrete, then it would have melted those areas just outside the main target zone, and we'd see evidence of this?

Then we come to the rather important question: where was the weapon based? Surely for something to be able to fire out an energy beam that could destroy a building, it'd have to have a huge energy source. Unless those that created an unbelievable weapon also created an unbelievable power source to go with it.

And it'd have to be a huge power source. It would be noticed. Does Wood explain this?

There's just too much reliance on her belief that this technology must have been used, therefore she's no need to explain the how's or why's of the matter.

Jimmy444

I think the real conspiracy theory here is how did that distinctly unimpressive woman ever get to be Associate Professor of anything.

Monty Burnz

Juicee wrote: »

I have this book and I can tell you I am surprised she can sell it that cheap given the quality of production. I would expect a book of this production quality to retail significantly higher in a high street store

I'd say you have more than one copy of that book...

Monty Burnz

Juicee wrote: »

Look into the bathtub, it will explain a few things for you.

The World Trade Center was built on terra firma protected by an underground "bathtub" or foundation ring down to bedrock seven stories below the surface of lower Manhattan.

So there is also a seven story giant tub that could hold rubble, in addition to the thousands of tonnes spread around the immediate area and the thousands of tonnes turned to dust?

Is it more likely that the debris from the building is accounted for by these, or that there is a secret space weapon unknown to science that was used by the US government against its own citizens in a manner that would see the hundreds or thousands of people involved in the conspiracy executed for treason should the truth ever get out?

Tough one.

Juicee

humanji wrote: »

The whole area of the basement didn't collapse. It's designed that way. But the area under the actual towers did. It would be very suspicious if the entire 9 block radius of basement collapsed.

And with regards to those photos, so what if some things weren't damaged? Other things were completely destroyed. That proves nothing either way. The point I'm trying to get across is if you take into account the rubble that fell into the basement, all the rubble at ground zero and all the rubble in the blast zone, there's enough to for the two towers.

Here's a photo of WTC6 which I believe is about 8 stories from the ground (i got the photo from Wood's site):
and you can clearly see that the rubble on the right hand side is much more than 3 storeys high.



I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. The slurry wall buckled slightly, but held together, as it was designed to do. I don't see how this is proof of anything. How does Wood believe this is important? And why would there be molton steel? Surely if a ray was able to evaporate steel and concrete, then it would have melted those areas just outside the main target zone, and we'd see evidence of this?

Then we come to the rather important question: where was the weapon based? Surely for something to be able to fire out an energy beam that could destroy a building, it'd have to have a huge energy source. Unless those that created an unbelievable weapon also created an unbelievable power source to go with it.

And it'd have to be a huge power source. It would be noticed. Does Wood explain this?

There's just too much reliance on her belief that this technology must have been used, therefore she's no need to explain the how's or why's of the matter.

Actually this photo perfectly illustrates another massive problem...where did wtc6 go???

Re: claims about the bathtub's ability to withstand the force of 2 qtr mile high buildings weighing somewhere in the region of 1 million tonnes crashing down on it, consider the following:

"As heavy equipment (e.g., 1,000-ton cranes) began to arrive at the site, it became apparent that ground rules had to be established for the safe use of the equipment outside the confines of the basement, over major utilities, over access stairs to the PATH tubes and ramps, in the streets, and over structural platforms spanning open water. The use of this heavy equipment adjacent to the slurry walls or over the basement structure itself could cause the collapse of the slurry walls or any remaining basement structures. A collapse of the slurry wall would mean inundation from the nearby Hudson River"

The question is, if a 1000 tonne crane working nearby can rupture the bathtub causing water inundation of the site (and consequently the new York subway system which runs under the site) how is it that 1 million tonnes of concrete, steel and building contents dropping from a quarter of a mile high did not?

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

The question is, if a 1000 tonne crane working nearby can rupture the bathtub causing water inundation of the site (and consequently the new York subway system which runs under the site) how is it that 1 million tonnes of concrete, steel and building contents dropping from a quarter of a mile high did not?

The report you linked to specifically says that the basement and bathtub had been damaged.
They were worried that the large machinery would cause more damage to the all ready weakened structures.

Can you please address the points I made that you said you would address?

Juicee

King Mob wrote: »

The report you linked to specifically says that the basement and bathtub had been damaged.
They were worried that the large machinery would cause more damage to the all ready weakened structures.

kind of like dropping a block on something and then worrying about dropping a pebble on it afterwards...In this analogy, I don't doubt the damage potential of the pebble it's the refusal to acknowledge the devastating effect of the block that I find bemusing

King Mob wrote: »

Can you please address the points I made that you said you would address?

As I said earlier, the picture with the ambulance in the foreground (parked outside the wtc1 remains and amazingly unscathed) gives a good indication of the height of the rubble behind it;

As the ambulance picture is taken from close up and the one of the intact towers (fig 2) is taken from far way, (cue ted) the outline of the rubble pile that is superimposed on fig 2 looks like a reasonable representation of the pile shown behind the ambulance. I didnt get the opportunity to go over there with a measuring tape and verify the 10% But looking at fig 2 and this photo of a collapsed building from a 2005 Indian earthquake (the indian building,intact, was obviously miniscule compared to an intact wtc tower[but somehow left a higher pile]) 10% still seems a reasonable and perhaps conservative estimate of the height the tower pile should have been

Juicee

To add weight to the above,

Compare this (fig. 2)

To this


You can see that the wtc1 internal pile does not extend higher than the arches, and this correlates with the outline representation superimposed on the picture of the intact towers

Juicee

Obviously the remaining upstanding aluminium outer cladding is not included in the estimation of the height of the pile

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

kind of like dropping a block on something and then worrying about dropping a pebble on it afterwards...In this analogy, I don't doubt the damage potential of the pebble it's the refusal to acknowledge the devastating effect of the block that I find bemusing

No it's more like dropping a ton of weight on something, not knowing how damaged it was, then not repeatedly driving massive equipment over spots that might be weakened and might collapse.

The operative words being "might". At the time the authorities did not how how badly the bathtub was damaged, so they took the precaution of not allowing large equipment in certain areas *in case* they caused more damage and *potentially* resulted in making the situation worse, the worst case scenario of that being that they breach the slurry wall and flood everything.
Implying that they said that the large equipment would cause more damage than the collapsing of the buildings is a dishonest twisting of reality. (Par for the course with conspiracy theories, really.)

So do you acknowledge that the report you linked to said that the bathtub and the basements had been damaged?
What caused this damage?

Juicee wrote: »

As I said earlier, the picture with the ambulance in the foreground (parked outside the wtc1 remains and amazingly unscathed) gives a good indication of the height of the rubble behind it;

As the ambulance picture is taken from close up and the one of the intact towers (fig 2) is taken from far way, (cue ted) the outline of the rubble pile that is superimposed on fig 2 looks like a reasonable representation of the pile shown behind the ambulance.

But again, those photos could be deceptive, showing the pile from angles that make it seem shorter than it ism or showing areas that are not the highest.
Conspiracy sites like the one you are copying from often leave out, alter, twist and deceptively use photos for their own ends.
So relying on photos alone to prove your assertion is not convincing.

Especially since you have yet to address the points about the basements. (Aside form other definitely deceptive photos.)

Juicee wrote: »

I didnt get the opportunity to go over there with a measuring tape and verify the 10%

So you cannot actually state with any certainty how tall the rubble pile is?
Yet you state with certainty that it is too short?

Do you not see the problem here?

Juicee wrote: »

But looking at fig 2 and this photo of a collapsed building from a 2005 Indian earthquake (the indian building,intact, was obviously miniscule compared to an intact wtc tower[but somehow left a higher pile]) 10% still seems a reasonable and perhaps conservative estimate of the height the tower pile should have been

Again, another dishonest point.
That building is clearly of a different type of construction, under different circumstances and without similar surroundings.
Comparing that to the twin towers is simply dishonest.

Even then that's assuming the picture actually shows what you claim it shows, which given your track record so far, I don't buy.

Juicee wrote: »

To add weight to the above,

Compare this
You can see that the wtc1 internal pile does not extend higher than the arches, and this correlates with the outline representation superimposed on the picture of the intact towers

And yet if you take into account the basement, your point is void.
But you've yet to substantiate you insistence that it should be a tenth of it's height.

And these are all the problems you run into before you have to show any evidence for the fantastical non-existent laser beam...

Jonny7

Juicee wrote: »

Obviously the remaining upstanding aluminium outer cladding is not included in the estimation of the height of the pile

Try to remember that every time you question where the rubble/steel went you are insinuating it was vaporised or "dustified" by something as it fell.

You keep asking where the rubble is, but not the energy weapon..

Posters here seem to be fully satisfied that the building collapsed and was not vaporised in any way.

I think it might be wiser to bring this up on the engineering forum or even better a demolition (experts) site, because the layman explanation of events do not seem to satisfy your beliefs on the issue.

As for the whole event itself, all sorts of theories have come out - each will be "just as compelling" as Dr Judy Wood's theory to some people. An event of this magnitude and of this extraodinary nature will always produce so many coincidences, unexplained situations, discrepancies, anomalies (just look at any small court case) - and people out there are just going through all this with a fine tooth-comb, picking and choosing and even sharing any irregularities that crop up as "proof" in their own particular take of events on that day.

It's often a case of having a belief first and seeking proof after - undermine the official story so that it lends credence to a particular personal belief of alternate events.

So instead of maybe focusing on the discrepancies and very selective photos (that show particular sections not completely filled to the brim with rubble) perhaps be asking who developed the energy weapon, who ordered it's use, who was involved, where was the energy source, how does it specifically disintegrate steel, and so on.

Elementary reasoning.

Juicee

Johnny, your last post is as lacking in anything resembling cogency as all of your previous Posts on this thread.

King mob, your attempt to convince people that photos are not reliable evidence is ludicrous. You attempt to brush under the carpet the stark comparison with the Indian building Is also ludicrous.

Using the arches on the outer cladding as a reference point, its clear that the rubble pile does not extend above the top of the arches - This on top of the ambulance picture, which is also a valid reference point, proves that the representation of the pile shown on the fig.2 picture of the intact towers, is accurate, regardless of any of your attempts to obfuscate this evidence.

This is clearly an inconceivably small about of rubble for a half million tonne tower.

Out of interest, how far away from the tower do you claim that ambulance to be? Ballpark If you can't give a precise estimate

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

King mob, your attempt to convince people that photos are not reliable evidence is ludicrous. You attempt to brush under the carpet the stark comparison with the Indian building Is also ludicrous.

Is the building in India of the same construction as the Twin Towers?
Was it of even similar construction?
Did it collapse under similar conditions?
Was it in similar surroundings?

Since the answer to all of these is no, then you cannot compare them.
Doing so is dishonest.

Juicee wrote: »

Using the arches on the outer cladding as a reference point, its clear that the rubble pile does not extend above the top of the arches - This on top of the ambulance picture, which is also a valid reference point, proves that the representation of the pile shown on the fig.2 picture of the intact towers, is accurate, regardless of any of your attempts to obfuscate this evidence.

And this insistence is based on a bunch of assumptions and ignoring of inconvenient facts.
You assume that the arches are level with were they were before the attack. You assume that that pile was the extent of the rubble. You ignore the fact that the rubble was spread out. You ignore the fact there was a basement.

So because the pictures cannot exclude and do not address these (at the ones you are presenting don't), they are unreliable to judge the extent of the rubble pile.
The only reliable way is to provide an exact figure for the height of the pile. But for some reason you cannot provide this, yet are sure it is inadequate.

Juicee wrote: »

This is clearly an inconceivably small about of rubble for a half million tonne tower.

Again, how much rubble should there have been and what are you basing that on?

How do you know that the amount of rubble left is consistent with the ridiculous notion of a vaporising energy weapon?

Juicee wrote: »

Out of interest, how far away from the tower do you claim that ambulance to be? Ballpark If you can't give a precise estimate

I can't say as I'm useless at judging distance by eye.

Juicee

King Mob wrote: »

Is the building in India of the same construction as the Twin Towers?
Was it of even similar construction?

Conrete? Check. Steel? Check. but looking at the picture, definitely proportionately less steel than a wtc tower, i'd say; if the Indian building had more steel, I would expect to see more height remaining, as steel would not pulverise to the same extent as concrete

King Mob wrote: »

Did it collapse under similar conditions?

If we are to believe your theory (gravity driven collapse caused by structural failure) then broadly, yes.
But I don't believe your theory.

King Mob wrote: »

You assume that the arches are level with were they were before the attack

If the rubble pile height is anywhere near as low as the top of the the arches, there is a serious problem. A cursory glance at fig. 2 should make this abundantly clear to any honest, objective person.

And btw, if that half million tonnes of qtr mile tower all went into its own basement, whats holding up the remaining cladding??

King Mob wrote: »

I can't say as I'm useless at judging distance by eye.

How convenient.

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

Conrete? Check. Steel? Check. but looking at the picture, definitely proportionately less steel than a wtc tower, i'd say; if the Indian building had more steel, I would expect to see more height remaining, as steel would not pulverise to the same extent as concrete

No they are not comparable structures. they are constructed in entirely different ways. Declaring that they are simply because they contain concrete and steel is either ignorant or dishonest.

For example since the WTC was much taller, the concrete would have shattered more having more time to reach terminal velocity.
Also concrete takes up more volume than steel, so the Indian building would have had proportionally more rubble.

Juicee wrote: »

If we are to believe your theory (gravity driven collapse caused by structural failure) then broadly, yes.
But I don't believe your theory.

So the Indian building had a plane flown into it?
Did it have massive fires raging in it?
Did the Indian building fail high up in it's structure?
Did it have a large basement where some of the debris could have fallen into?
Did any of the rubble spread out as it fell?

Again, the answer to all of these is no. Hence the two buildings are not comparable.

Juicee wrote: »

If the rubble pile height is anywhere near as low as the top of the the arches, there is a serious problem. A cursory glance at fig. 2 should make this abundantly clear to any honest, objective person.

But why?
You are basing this insistence on the idea that the rubble pile should have been a certain height.
You cannot show that the pile would have that certain height. Nor can you show that the rubble pile was not that height.

Juicee wrote: »

And btw, if that half million tonnes of qtr mile tower all went into its own basement, whats holding up the remaining cladding??

I did not say that it all went into it's own basement. I said a portion of it went into the basement as well as spread out over a wider area.
Something you've yet to address.

Juicee wrote: »

How convenient.

No. it's simply an honest answer.
It's what I give when asked a direct question as ignoring questions is dishonest and rude.

Again, how much rubble should there have been and what are you basing that on?

How do you know that the amount of rubble left is consistent with the ridiculous notion of a vaporising energy weapon?

Monty Burnz

I still can't get my head around this part of it:

the OP believes that:

1. Mistaking or misunderstanding the distribution of dust and debris from the twin towers

is less likely than

2. A weapon unknown to science wielded by unknown government forces destroyed the towers in a manner never seen before and never seen since; perpetrating act of mass murder against its own people in a conspiracy requiring the complete silence of thousands of people.

Just bizarre 'logic'.

Juicee

King Mob wrote: »

Again, how much rubble should there have been and what are you basing that on?

About 10%. Based on fig 2 and 1+ million tonnes .

I somehow don't think you are appreciating the sheer quantity of 1 million plus tonnes. Looking at the intact buildings in Fig 2 and how they dwarf other massive structures, gives a good sense of this quantity..the ground zero aftermath does not.

King Mob wrote: »

How do you know that the amount of rubble left is consistent with the ridiculous notion of a vaporising energy weapon?

The evidence for directed energy is compelling in itself, but as you can see, I've decided to practice what you preach (but don't practice yourself) and stick to topic. It's very useful to prove what didn't happen before moving on to what did.

Monty Burnz

Juicee wrote: »

The evidence for directed energy is compelling in itself, but as you can see, I've decided to practice what you preach (but don't practice yourself) and stick to topic. It's very useful to prove what didn't happen before moving on to what did.

What is this evidence? What directed energy weapon attacks are you comparing this to?

Who wields these directed energy weapons?

Why have we never heard of them?

Why are they unknown to science?

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

About 10%. Based on fig 2 and 1+ million tonnes .

And what are you using to judge that it should be 10%?
Please provide the formula you are using to reach that conclusion.

Juicee wrote: »

I somehow don't think you are appreciating the sheer quantity of 1 million plus tonnes. Looking at the intact buildings in Fig 2 and how they dwarf other massive structures, gives a good sense of this quantity..the ground zero aftermath does not.

But there are factors that I have been repeatedly trying to get you to address. You've just ignored them
1. portions of the debris would have fallen into the basement.
2. portions of the debris would have spread out over a wide area during the fall and would not all wind up in a neat pile all together.

Juicee wrote: »

The evidence for directed energy is compelling in itself, but as you can see, I've decided to practice what you preach (but don't practice yourself) and stick to topic. It's very useful to prove what didn't happen before moving on to what did.

Ok first of all I made that rule in that one specific thread. Stop quoting me out of context.
Second, you are the one who keeps claiming that the evidence is there but is not providing it. So you can't get snippy when people ask for it, or don't believe your claim when you refuse to supply it.

And of course if you were wanting to take a page out of my book, try the one about answering the questions posed to you.

How do you know that the amount of rubble left is consistent with the ridiculous notion of a vaporising energy weapon?

Juicee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I still can't get my head around this part of it:

the OP believes that:

1. Mistaking or misunderstanding the distribution of dust and debris from the twin towers

is less likely than

2. A weapon unknown to science wielded by unknown government forces destroyed the towers in a manner never seen before and never seen since; perpetrating act of mass murder against its own people in a conspiracy requiring the complete silence of thousands of people.

Just bizarre 'logic'.

Ditto what I said to johnny

Monty Burnz

Juicee wrote: »

Ditto what I said to johnny

I think my post is highly cogent* - but I guess you can ignore these rather compelling questions if you pretend otherwise.

*perhaps you are misunderstanding the term cogent?

co·gent   [koh-juhnt]
adjective
1.
convincing or believable by virtue of forcible, clear, or incisive presentation; telling.
2.
to the point; relevant; pertinent.

By the way, where is this evidence you keep talking about? Is it secret like the secret mega space weapon?

Jonny7

Juicee wrote: »

Johnny, your last post is as lacking in anything resembling cogency as all of your previous Posts on this thread.

This whole theory is based on a secret energy weapon.

Dr Judy Wood )the only other proponent of this theory) also appears to avoid this question in any interview (radio or youtube) that I've listened to or seen.

Alarm bells are going off here. It's would be like claiming that JFK wasn't killed by bullets, there were no bullets... and just stopping there and dodging any questions about what really killed him.

Dew Drops

Jonny7 wrote: »

This whole theory is based on a secret energy weapon.

Dr Judy Wood )the only other proponent of this theory) also appears to avoid this question in any interview (radio or youtube) that I've listened to or seen.

Alarm bells are going off here. It's would be like claiming that JFK wasn't killed by bullets, there were no bullets... and just stopping there and dodging any questions about what really killed him.

Huh? Say what?

If there were no bullet holes in the body, you could rule out that the body was shot by a conventional weapon that leaves bullet holes.

Is there a technology that can do something like this?

Yes, we do have the technology and it was demonstrated on September 11, 2001, for the whole world to see. The empirical evidence tells us that the majority of the building turned into dust in mid air. Therefore, something that can do this (turn it into dust in mid air) must exist. That is the proof that it exists. It happened. You don't need the serial numbers for the gizmo to know what happened. When "white man" first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn't need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brother. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city. Does this technology exist? For those challenged by that question:

_________________________________

1. Were the towers once there? (yes or no)

2. Are the towers still there? (yes or no)

3. Did most (over 50%) of the towers turn to dust? (yes or no)

4. Choose the question that corresponds to your answer to #3 above:

(a) If your answer to question #3 was "no," Please review the empirical evidence contained in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? more carefully or find someone who can.

(b) If your answer to question #3 was "yes," Does there exist a mechanism or technology capable of doing this? (yes or no)

==> If your answer to question #4b was "yes," we are in agreement.

==> If your answer to question #4b was "no," please explain your contradiction, claiming something occurred that was impossible to occur.

WorldCat Listing
http://www.worldcat.org/title/where-did-the-towers-go-evidence-of-directed-free-energy-technology-on-911/oclc/704874500



After reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Charlie Pound of the U. K. produced the song WAKE UP THIS YOUR ALARM !

WAKE UP THIS IS YOUR ALARM !
music, lyrics, and vocals by Charlie Pound © 2012

http://youtu.be/Ptu7xzhxu24

Verse 1:
Where did the towers go? Away with the breeze that blows.
And how much steel did they find? Could it be shipped in time?

I don’t know I haven’t seen the receipt, but it doesn’t make sense to me!
All those cars in a line, door handles and engines gone.

I’d tell you if I could, but you need to ask Judy Wood.
Before you accuse someone, you better make damn sure you know what was done!

Chorus:
Wake up! this is your alarm!
Wake up!

Verse 2:
So while you're sitting on the fence, why don’t you check the evidence?
I’ll tell you something that you’ll learn, World Trade Center paper doesn’t burn.

And how could those buildings fall, with a seismic impact so small?
I know that something’s wrong, eight seconds the north tower's gone.

I’d tell you if I could, but you need to ask Judy Wood.
Before you accuse someone you better make sure you know how it was done!

Chorus:
Wake up! this is your alarm!
Wake up!

Middle eight:
You know it was 2001,
here we are and we're still arguing!

Chorus:
Wake up! this is your alarm!
Wake up! this is your alarm!
Wake up!
Wake up!
Wake up!

“The towers didn’t burn up, nor did they slam to the ground. They turned into dust in mid air.”

DublinWriter

Juicee wrote: »

There was no molten steel underneath wtc....People were walking and climbing all over the rubble would have been cooked alive.

Despite the numerous evidence from EMT workers on site as to the presence of rivulets of molten metal, NASA, yes that's right, NASA themselves overflew the site on 16th September and using thermal imagery recorded hot-spots in excess of 700º Celsius.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

No seizmic evidence either? BS...http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

Monty Burnz

Dew Drops wrote: »

Is there a technology that can do something like this?

Yes, we do have the technology and it was demonstrated on September 11, 2001, for the whole world to see.

So the only evidence you have that this weapon exists is the case where you are postulating the use of this weapon? Does this not strike you as circular reasoning?

Jonny7

Dew Drops wrote: »

Huh? Say what?

If there were no bullet holes in the body, you could rule out that the body was shot by a conventional weapon that leaves bullet holes.

Is there a technology that can do something like this?

Yes, we do have the technology and it was demonstrated on September 11, 2001, for the whole world to see. The empirical evidence tells us that the majority of the building turned into dust in mid air. Therefore, something that can do this (turn it into dust in mid air) must exist. That is the proof that it exists. It happened. You don't need the serial numbers for the gizmo to know what happened. When "white man" first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn't need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brother. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city. Does this technology exist? For those challenged by that question:

On the CT forums never know if someone is serious or not.

So, this building was vaporised too? I mean how else can it turn into dust like that? and also very suspicious, how is it there one minute and gone the next?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

Monty Burnz

Jonny7 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

Wait a minute - shouldn't the rubble pile be at least 10% of the original height of the building? I think the space-based mystery energy weapon must have been used here too!!

Wow, the evidence is really piling up.

Dew Drops

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So the only evidence you have that this weapon exists is the case where you are postulating the use of this weapon? Does this not strike you as circular reasoning?

By projecting your own needs for circular reasoning you have incorrectly accused me of circular reasoning. Before you believe what can be observed with your own eyes you have a need that this technology exists. Why put the cart before the horse?

Dew Drops

DublinWriter wrote: »

Despite the numerous evidence from EMT workers on site as to the presence of rivulets of molten metal, NASA, yes that's right, NASA themselves overflew the site on 16th September and using thermal imagery recorded hot-spots in excess of 700º Celsius.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

No seizmic evidence either? BS...http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

If there was high heat as you claim, then why didn't all that water they were spraying on the small debris field turn to steam? Why was there so much unburnt paper and only one wilted file cabinet found with unburnt paper inside? And there was not a sufficient seismic signal present because the buildings were turned into dust mid-air never hitting the ground.

You can see this with your own eyes.
http://youtu.be/NaWy6_VvrdY

King Mob

Dew Drops wrote: »

By projecting your own needs for circular reasoning you have incorrectly accused me of circular reasoning. Before you believe what can be observed with your own eyes you have a need that this technology exists. Why put the cart before the horse?

It's circular reasoning it's best.
Statement: The buildings were destroyed by a space laser or whatever.
Q: How do you know that the buildings were destroyed by a space laser or whatever?
A: Because it looks like it was destroyed by a space laser.
Q: How do you know what a building being destroyed by a space laser would look like?
A: Because that's how the buildings were destroyed.

And around and around your logic goes.

So unless you can show some other evidence that the weapon exists and show that it results in the effects being claimed, you have no evidence for it at all.

BMF Plint

Just to clarify something here. There are such things as particle energy weapons or directed energy weapons. There just not yet at a scale to destroy anything except for mines and small explosive devices. Other uses for such weapons that have been tested is that of crowd dispersal or riot prevention. For a weapon to be powerful enough to destroy WTC 1&2 with the current technology available would be in the region of billions of petawatts sustainable for hours on end. That's a lot more power than everyone uses on earth in a year.

Monty Burnz

Dew Drops wrote: »

By projecting your own needs for circular reasoning you have incorrectly accused me of circular reasoning. Before you believe what can be observed with your own eyes you have a need that this technology exists. Why put the cart before the horse?

I think it was magical fairy rays that caused the collapse of the WTC, fired out of the eyes of dragons.

Don't think that magical fairy rays fired from the eyes of dragons exist? Well look at the collapse WTC - the evidence is there for all to see!

Wow, your logic opens lots of new exciting possibilities...

Monty Burnz

BMF Plint wrote: »

Just to clarify something here. There are such things as particle energy weapons or directed energy weapons. There just not yet at a scale to destroy anything except for mines and small explosive devices. Other uses for such weapons that have been tested is that of crowd dispersal or riot prevention. For a weapon to be powerful enough to destroy WTC 1&2 with the current technology available would be in the region of billions of petawatts sustainable for hours on end. That's a lot more power than everyone uses on earth in a year.

There are lasers, but I think it would have been pretty apparent if a laser had been used. The other types of energy weapon - I don't know that there are any working examples at all yet.

weisses

Jonny7 wrote: »

On the CT forums never know if someone is serious or not.

So, this building was vaporised too? I mean how else can it turn into dust like that? and also very suspicious, how is it there one minute and gone the next?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

Aahhh see the resemblance with the implosion of building 7 ??

Jonny7

weisses wrote: »

Aahhh see the resemblance with the implosion of building 7 ??

Loud bangs? thousands of metres of det cord? a pre-planned implosion?

We're discussing secret energy weapons here turning a building into dust not the one whereby the US administration order some of the world largest buildings to be secretly rigged with silent explosives, which would only be set off after two fuel laden airliners hit them, completely covered up without a single leak under highly treasonous circumstances, that one is in another thread

weisses

Jonny7 wrote: »

Loud bangs? thousands of metres of det cord? a pre-planned implosion?

We're discussing secret energy weapons here turning a building into dust not the one whereby the US administration order some of the world largest buildings to be secretly rigged with silent explosives, which would only be set off after two fuel laden airliners hit them, completely covered up without a single leak under highly treasonous circumstances, that one is in another thread

You are bringing in the video that looked exactly the way building 7 imploded .. you know the one that didn't had an airliner fly into it

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

You are bringing in the video that looked exactly the way building 7 imploded .. you know the one that didn't had an airliner fly into it

Just as a matter of interest, is there another way that a 40-story+ building can collapse?

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, is there another way that a 40-story+ building can collapse?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EMCYpD5UHw

This is a way

Or this .....

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

Or this .....

Those don't look like 40 story+ buildings to me. Perhaps I am miscounting the floors?

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Those don't look like 40 story+ buildings to me. Perhaps I am miscounting the floors?

ahhh cant find anything that high ... 33 story's so far ... What point are you trying to make ?

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

ahhh cant find anything that high ... 33 story's so far ... What point are you trying to make ?

The point I'm trying to make is....what is the most common failure mode for 50 story building?

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make is....what is the most common failure mode for 50 story building?

Without demolition i dunno

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B1OnhSucP8

This steel building was engulfed in flames for hours an hours and didn't collapse

Day after

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

This steel building was engulfed in flames for hours an hours and didn't collapse

I think the key difference is that flames and structural damage combined in the WTC. Neither one might bring a building down alone, but together...

Jonny7

weisses wrote: »

You are bringing in the video that looked exactly the way building 7 imploded .. you know the one that didn't had an airliner fly into it

Really, wouldn't that same logic support that WTC 7 was "dustified" too? - cause it looked like it e.g. I take your implausible theory and substitute it with my own using the same novice method

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think the key difference is that flames and structural damage combined in the WTC. Neither one might bring a building down alone, but together...

Yeah but wtc7 did ..

quote// Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

weisses

Jonny7 wrote: »

Really, wouldn't that same logic support that WTC 7 was "dustified" too? - cause it looked like it e.g. I take your implausible theory and substitute it with my own using the same novice method

What is my implausible theory?

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

Yeah but wtc7 did ..

quote// Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

Sorry, where did I say that?