FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC - Molten Metal
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
RockDock



Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FFS, I don't care how the towers fell. It does not matter. No unassailable proof will ever be found - the Fakes have made sure of that. The steel is gone, what isn't gone apparently has no explosive residue on it. Ooo, must be DEW then. Whatever, I don't care.

There were fires there, fires are hot, steel melts things fall down. Yup, one would think that falling all the way down is fucking crazy and I often think that too. But I am not an architect or an engineer and friends of mine who are say that the NIST explanation can work for them - given the construction methods in the towers and the fact that there are photos of well involved fires on the 80 and 81 floors for instance. Sure seems to be some sagging trusses in some of those photos too.

Regardless, if it works for people I know and trust, it can work for me too, because I value my friends' opinions. Treating the WTC as a red herring allows one to move past it and look to "who benefits."

The towers fell down, our lives were turned upside down and sideways. Got any friends or sons and daughters in Iraq or Afghanistan? They are not the ones who benefited. They are there because the civilian population was "shock and awed" into letting Bush and his puppet masters do whatever they needed to do to "solve" the problem.

Now we are being shock and awed through economic chaos. Are we having fun yet?

cheers
RD

_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bri wrote:
The whole thing may be a trick. Maybe 9/11 was an inside job and it's good to be aware, but it's a perhaps unsolvable crime that while research should be done on the event slowly and carefully. It should not become this major center "issue".

So where did the BEAM come from? A satellite? Building 7? Wink


I don't know where it came from. If I were the perps, I wouldn't put it in Building 7. It was likely on a high-flying aircraft or in orbit. That's the only way to truly keep it out of view, considering the fact that it would have to have quite a large power source, and would not easily escape notice.

This sounds absurd at first, but the weaponization of space has been talked about for a long time. In the alternative movement, it is constantly talked about how they are planning to use this technology. Is it really farfetched to believe that they used it?

Upon first hearing of the idea of 'energy beams', I chuckled, wondering if anyone really believed it. Three things brought me into the DEW camp.

1) The complete dustification of the Towers and the amount of destruction.

2) Anomalies at the WTC (Melted/Wilting cars, weird holes in buildings, the survival of paper, bent beams, etc.)

3) The fact that many of the leading people who attack DEWT with no evidence have ties to the DEW program. Jim Hoffman, Bob Bowman, Steve Jones, and Greg Jenkins all have ties to the energy department or to DEW. Also, we had Van Romero coming out early saying that "a small amount of explosives" destroyed the WTC. Romero had ties to DEW.

Also, why would they take the time to have engineers go through the entire building, rigging it with thermite/thermate and bombs? Having a complete controlled demolition of these buildings is too much of a risk. As for the built-for-demolition theory, why would they take the risk of someone discovering this somehow? The WTC experienced fires and accidents involving propane explosions before 9/11. Wouldn't the perps anticipate these events, and wouldn't they be worried that the explosive charges they placed in the building would go off prematurely because of events like these?

Some sites have suggested that the explosives were placed during the evacuations Ben Fountain reports, and the massive power-down on 9/9 reported by Scott Forbes. How could they rig two skyscrapers with bombs and/or thermite/thermate in a few weeks and in one day? The 9/9 power down only effected the South Tower.

I am not saying explosives were not involved. Like I said before, there is evidence of shaped charge blasts. I think that explosives were detonated at the lower levels of the complex as a failsafe. These blasts at the bottom would also provide a convenient 'buildup' (Which is why they go off at different times, and not all at the same time, like in a CD) to collapse, so eyewitnesses would think "Well, it's not that strange that the building blew up into dust, I mean after all, it was failing. All those explosions and all..". Also, the 9/9 power down and evacuations in the weeks before would provide enough time for SOME explosives to be planted on the lower floors.

I'm wondering why they would take the trouble and risk to rig these two giant skyscrapers with bombs and/or thermite/thermate on every floor when they had the military power to just break out advanced weaponry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Carpainter wrote:
It was likely on a high-flying aircraft or in orbit. That's the only way to truly keep it out of view, considering the fact that it would have to have quite a large power source, and would not easily escape notice.

This sounds absurd at first, but the weaponization of space has been talked about for a long time. In the alternative movement, it is constantly talked about how they are planning to use this technology. Is it really farfetched to believe that they used it?

In this particular case, I think so.

During WWII the US & UK bombers had terrible precision. They could pour bombs over a general area, but had no means of making a high-precision strike. Hence the total destruction of German and Japanese cities like Hamburg and Tokyo. The modern-day electronically-guided missiles have resolved this older challenge for bombing missions, but I don't see how that could be made to apply to energy beams fired from outet space.

What I would expect in the event that some type of outer space laser beam or whatever was used to attack an urban center would be broad general destruction similar to the saturation bombing in WWII. Whatever one may speculate about how the Towers came down, it does seem to have been a fairly precise strike against WTCs 1, 2 and if you like we may count 7 as well.

If one tentatively imagines the buildings somehow being attacked from a high latitude then the relative precision with which they were hit would require some type of plane within the atmosphere able to circle around the target. A satellite of some kind is in constant circular orbit and would have a more difficult time circling around the target to pinpoint the precise building as a target. What's more likely from such hypothetical space-weapons is that the satellite could fire a general salvo of energy beams while on overpass across a general target range. In this case I would expect the satellite to fry Manhatten, but not to pinpoint any specific set of buildings within it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can see it only targeting a certain part of the city or certain buildings. The type of energy weaponry I am proposing is Directed Energy Weaponry (DEW). It can be directed to certain targets. It is just energy sent up to the satellite/airship from a ground base. That energy is then redirected to the desired target.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What would be the means which would allow such energy to be so sharply directed? I can understand how a heat-seeking missile could hone in on a target, but I don't understand the mechanism for making an energy beam focus so precisely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like I said, energy is redirected to the airship/satellite and then it is focused and redirected to the desired target. They found they could fry missiles with directed energy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
What would be the means which would allow such energy to be so sharply directed? I can understand how a heat-seeking missile could hone in on a target, but I don't understand the mechanism for making an energy beam focus so precisely.


A possible answer comes from the world of astronomy.

The actual question is not how to focus the beam, but how to focus the beam through a varying atmosphere. A beam would be deflected by minor shifts in air currents - thus, defocussing it.

Astronomers - trying to look out into space through the varying atmosphere - call this effect "seeing". Some nights, you get "good" seeing, some nights "bad". It's a gamble.

When the Hubble Telescope was launched, astronomy jumped forward by an order of magnitude. We could see things 10x more clearly because the Hubble was outside of our atmosphere.

At about the same time, someone got the bright idea of using flexible mirrors in ground-based telescopes. Instead of a single mirror, they built a composite mirror using 100's of small mirrors on pivots. The pivots are computer controlled.

A smaller telescope is pointed at a star - a "guide star". This guide star is used to determine the effects of atmospheric deflection. The results are fed via computer to the mirror pivots to compensate for atmospheric deflection. Adjustments are made some 100 times per second.

With these refinements, it became possible to obtain Hubble quality observations from Earth-based telescopes.

N.B. The Hubble Telescope is simply a spy telescope - turned to face away from the Earth.

If flexible mirrors can be used to photograph space more clearly, then flexible mirrors can also be used to focus light with pinpoint precision back onto Earth. The effects of atmospheric deflection can be corrected in real-time.

Conclusion: the technology to achieve precision focusing, certainly exists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Carpainter wrote:
Like I said, energy is redirected to the airship/satellite and then it is focused and redirected to the desired target. They found they could fry missiles with directed energy.


This statement is not quite accurate.

The DEW energy did not fry the missile.

The DEW weapon burnt a small hole in the missile. Then, the missile ruptured and exploded.

This point is important when considering whether DEW whacked the Towers.

The Towers were not like missiles - they contained little pent-up energy. Poking a hole in the Towers would not have caused collapse. (We can see that the supposed "planes" poked holes in the Towers, and the Towers did not immediately unravel).

From what I've read, DEW weapons cannot deliver a steady stream of high energy. They can only deliver very short bursts of high energy.

Newton's 3rd (which I happen to still believe in) says that DEW weapons would be knocked clear out of the ballpark if they actually knocked down the Towers.

Which brings me back to the simplest hypothesis - that the Towers were blown from inside out (small amounts of explosives placed inside the building materials of the Towers).

I have followed the DEW theory, but I have to wonder if it is a deception. "We have big black magic and you should be frightened by it". When a simple built-in theory suffices to explain what we saw...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They do have those kinds of weapons. The US military is the most powerful and sophisticated military in the world. They have been working on Directed-Energy Weaponry for a long, long time.

Explosives can't explain the anomalies in the destruction.

www.drjudywood.com

www.checktheevidence.co.uk

Do you believe the explosives were placed when the Towers were built?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Carpainter wrote:
They do have those kinds of weapons. The US military is the most powerful and sophisticated military in the world. They have been working on Directed-Energy Weaponry for a long, long time.


Have you actually read Beason's book:

http://www.amazon.com/E-Bomb-Americas-Directed-Energy-Weapons/dp/0306815060/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210216350&sr=8-1

?

It was listed on Wood's site (I don't see it on her new site, but I might not have dug far enough).

I have read this book.

The technology described in this book simply could not have caused the destruction at WTC.

Maybe the book is a cover-up intended to misdirect us into believing that WTC destruction by DEW was impossible, or maybe it's not far off. I don't know.

Classical physics says that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. A satellite that expended enough energy to destroy the WTC, would have been flung far out of our solar system if classical physics apply.

If the Towers were dropped by DEW from space, how does one explain the top-portion tilts? How did space-based DEW whack columns that were 10's of stories below the top of the buildings? If DEW didn't whack those columns, what did? If DEW didn't whack the columns that caused the top-portion tilts, what did DEW add to the final result?

Quote:

Explosives can't explain the anomalies in the destruction.

I disagree.

Explosives, in the correct configuration, could have caused the destruction.

We see video and photos of the Towers "bubbling" outwards and downwards.

If explosives were planted *within* the building material (e.g. inside the concrete), then much of the destruction could be explained.

Small-ish amounts of explosives encased in a tight shell (e.g. concrete) would shred spherically outwards. The shredding would produce fine, fast-moving, particles of dust which would rip other objects apart (e.g. office furniture, and organic matter).

The main downfall of this theory is that the explosives would have to have been planted during construction (or subsequent extensive renovation). And, the explosives would have had to retain their explosive properties over decades of time.

Quote:

Do you believe the explosives were placed when the Towers were built?


No, I don't *believe* anything. I am trying to apply science.

I am chipping away at all arguments until I find the one that still stands (haven't found it yet).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

carcdr wrote:
Lord Carpainter wrote:
They do have those kinds of weapons. The US military is the most powerful and sophisticated military in the world. They have been working on Directed-Energy Weaponry for a long, long time.


Have you actually read Beason's book:

http://www.amazon.com/E-Bomb-Americas-Directed-Energy-Weapons/dp/0306815060/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210216350&sr=8-1

?

It was listed on Wood's site (I don't see it on her new site, but I might not have dug far enough).

I have read this book.

The technology described in this book simply could not have caused the destruction at WTC.

Maybe the book is a cover-up intended to misdirect us into believing that WTC destruction by DEW was impossible, or maybe it's not far off. I don't know.

Classical physics says that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. A satellite that expended enough energy to destroy the WTC, would have been flung far out of our solar system if classical physics apply.

If the Towers were dropped by DEW from space, how does one explain the top-portion tilts? How did space-based DEW whack columns that were 10's of stories below the top of the buildings? If DEW didn't whack those columns, what did? If DEW didn't whack the columns that caused the top-portion tilts, what did DEW add to the final result?

Quote:

Explosives can't explain the anomalies in the destruction.

I disagree.

Explosives, in the correct configuration, could have caused the destruction.

We see video and photos of the Towers "bubbling" outwards and downwards.

If explosives were planted *within* the building material (e.g. inside the concrete), then much of the destruction could be explained.

Small-ish amounts of explosives encased in a tight shell (e.g. concrete) would shred spherically outwards. The shredding would produce fine, fast-moving, particles of dust which would rip other objects apart (e.g. office furniture, and organic matter).

The main downfall of this theory is that the explosives would have to have been planted during construction (or subsequent extensive renovation). And, the explosives would have had to retain their explosive properties over decades of time.

Quote:

Do you believe the explosives were placed when the Towers were built?


No, I don't *believe* anything. I am trying to apply science.

I am chipping away at all arguments until I find the one that still stands (haven't found it yet).


It wouldn't need to get knocked back because it would simply be redirecting energy that it received from a ground base. It would simply redirect that energy in a focused fashion to the desired target.

Also, how could explosives explain the flipped cars, the melted/wilting cars, the weird holes, the fuming, the weird fires, and the bent/twisted beams?

I think unknown exotic weaponry was used. Black technology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2008 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Carpainter wrote:

It wouldn't need to get knocked back because it would simply be redirecting energy that it received from a ground base. It would simply redirect that energy in a focused fashion to the desired target.

No. If enough energy to whack WTC was delivered, then whatever was in the way (even a perfect mirror) took a hit from that energy.

Now, if you want to argue that classical physics was side-stepped, OK, but give me more explicit details. E.G. explain how energy that crushed the WTC towers was bounced off of a mirror without crushing the mirror in the process.

Frankly, I think that Tesla may have discovered something new. But, without details, all we can do is sift the data and see if there is anything that cannot be explained by any of the physics we already know.

Quote:

Also, how could explosives explain the flipped cars,

Explosives don't explain the flipped cars.

Front-end loaders, clearing the way for rescue crews do explain the flipped cars.

Quote:

the melted/wilting cars,

Google for car crashes. (Try the phrase "car crash"). Look at the photos where the cars caught fire. Explain how the burned cars look any different from the ones at WTC on 911.

The appearance of the burnt cars at WTC is very (if not exactly) similar to cars that burned in car crashes.

I admit that I find it odd that many of the 911 photos show cars burning at the front (engine compartments, I assume). I don't understand why cars would preferentially burn at the engine end instead of at the gas-tank end.

Still, the end results were burnt-out cars that looked no different from burnt-out cars (and fire engines) involved in highway accidents.

The burn patterns on the 911 cars are no different from burn patterns in highway accidents. The melted grills, the toasted paint vs. untoasted paint, etc.

One other theory I keep in contention is that of the use of thermobaric weapons within the WTC towers. Thermobarics produce a shock wave and a heat wave. This would also explain the flipped cars (although more exotically than the simple use of front-end loaders). It would explain the front-end burn patterns on cars - e.g. rescue workers would have driven towards the towers, parked, then ran on foot. Their cars would be facing the towers. If the thermobaric heat wave emanated from the towers, it would have toasted the cars on the sides facing the towers (i.e. the front ends).

The thermobaric theory has its own set of problems, though.

Quote:

the weird holes,

I don't know. I agree that the holes look weird when viewed from above.

Quote:

the fuming,

I don't know.

I am not even sure that this has been reported accurately.

Quote:

the weird fires,

What weird fires?

Quote:

and the bent/twisted beams?

This is easily explained by the blown-from-within theory.

If one set of entrained explosives went off moments before the other set, then a differential heating pattern could have occurred and might have caused curdling.

Quote:
I think unknown exotic weaponry was used. Black technology.

You are resorting to magic in trying to understand the WTC collapses.

Magic has been used for eons to fool people, employing only simple trickery. It is a sleight of hand and relies on proven technology.

911 can be explained using simple technologies - CGI (Toy Story, et al) and embedded explosives. If you want to explain it using more complicated technologies, then the onus is on you to provide clear details of how the complicated technologies work and how they were deployed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.