+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 1 7 9 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 172

Thread: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

  1. Link to Post #121
    Avalon Member winstonsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th November 2015
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 184 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    DEW? If we are to believe such a weapon was used in 9/11 we have to ask a few questions.

    Who would have access to such?

    How would it work?

    Where would it have been fired from?

    What would it do?

    We're taking the idea that it looked like dustifacation, then saying it must have been some kind of energy weapon without producing credible verifiable information to those questions.

    So lets see what we can come up with.

    here is what I've found on my first attempts .

    http://www.space.com/1934-weapons-di...t-century.html

    http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Cen...y-Weapons.aspx

    I'm sure Judy Woods must have some info to back these claims, or something to verify the existence of a DEW that could produce such results.
    Here are three more questions I would like to explore and seek answers to:

    1. How does a space based, or even terrestrial based DEW, attack four sides of a square building simultaneously to create the symmetrical collapse spectacle? (In the case of WTC2, everything below the tilted section point)

    2. How does a DEW begin the attack at the damaged impact zones and not the roof?

    3. What energy source is there and what amounts would be required to do all of this work?

    Do you see the logistics problem here?

    If it were space based it would have to be very accurate and be attacking from four compass points at once, at an angle to avoid hitting the roof first. It would have to be able to move downwards as well and be able to penetrate any debris that got in the way of "seeing" the floors not yet attacked. Can you really expect a satellite to be that accurate? After all we are talking about an extremely high energy event, not a cell phone call.

    If it were ground based, it would have to be set up in surrounding buildings, with a clear view of the entire tower and require a sufficient power source..

    So the candidates might look something like this, the Deutschebank (S), WTC7 (N), the Millenium Hotel (E) and the WFC (W)

    But the DB was damaged by WTC2 collapse and WTC7 was damaged by WTC1. Would this DEW be able to do its work through a closed window, or would it have to be mounted on the roof?

    In the case of WTC2, a significant portion of the core remained for a short time after the facade and floors fell way. It succumbed as a unit, dropping straight down, though the imagery doesn't tell us if it was top down or bottom up. Did the DEW miss hitting this portion of the core?.

    Please don't hand wave all of the logistics away by saying, "Oh well, everything is possible, because we don't know anything about the weapon." That is way too convenient.
    Last edited by winstonsmith; 2nd February 2016 at 23:12.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to winstonsmith For This Post:

    Curiosity (2nd February 2016)

  3. Link to Post #122
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    I have a problem with some of these ideas.
    DEW or any kind of secret weapon technology would be very expensive and they would not have it where they needed to dispose of it or risk of it being exposed.
    Why would they risk using such a weapon when conventional demo tech was all that was needed?
    An inability for someone to explain why someone else did something does not refute evidence that it was done.

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    Really we will never know if it vanished or not, because nobody gathered the evidence that would back that theory.
    Many have gathered and presented that evidence, including Judy Wood, and this thread. The evidence shows that most of the million tons of concrete and steel that formed the two WTC towers were no longer at the world trade center, after the two towers erupted into a massive dust cloud.
    Is this irrefutable proof of a DEW? No.

    Can this effect be reproduced with conventional weaponry and demo tech? Yes.

    Did anybody gather the dust and weigh it to prove it vanished, which would be irrefutable proof? No. Impossible to do, is what I'm saying.

    I'm not against the Idea that DEW or other unbeknownst to the public weaponry tech was used. What I'm saying is we will never be able to prove it.
    Last edited by Paul; 3rd February 2016 at 00:49. Reason: fix quoting

  4. Link to Post #123
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    DEW? If we are to believe such a weapon was used in 9/11 we have to ask a few questions.

    Who would have access to such?

    How would it work?

    Where would it have been fired from?

    What would it do?

    We're taking the idea that it looked like dustifacation, then saying it must have been some kind of energy weapon without producing credible verifiable information to those questions.

    So lets see what we can come up with.

    here is what I've found on my first attempts .

    http://www.space.com/1934-weapons-di...t-century.html

    http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Cen...y-Weapons.aspx

    I'm sure Judy Woods must have some info to back these claims, or something to verify the existence of a DEW that could produce such results.
    Here are two other questions I would like to explore and seek answers:to:

    1. How does a space based, or even terrestrial based DEW, attack four sides of a square building simultaneously to create the symmetrical collapse spectacle? (In the case of WTC2, everything below the tilted section point)

    2. How does a DEW begin the attack at the damaged impact zones and not the roof?

    3. What energy source is there and what amounts would be required to do all of this work?

    Do you see the logistics problem here?

    If it were space based it would have to be very accurate and be attacking from four compass points at once, at an angle to avoid hitting the roof first. It would have to be able to move downwards as well and be able to penetrate any debris that got in the way of "seeing" the floors not yet attacked. Can you really expect a satellite to be that accurate? After all we are talking about an extremely high energy event, not a cell phone call.

    If it were ground based, it would have to be set up in surrounding buildings, with a clear view of the entire tower and require a sufficient power source..

    So the candidates might look something like this, the Deutschebank (S), WTC7 (N), the Millenium Hotel (E) and the WFC (W)

    But the DB was damaged by WTC2 collapse and WTC7 was damaged by WTC1. Would this DEW be able to do its work through a closed window, or would it have to be mounted on the roof?

    In the case of WTC2, a significant portion of the core remained for a short time after the facade and floors fell way. It succumbed as a unit, dropping straight down, though the imagery doesn't tell us if it was top down or bottom up. Did the DEW miss hitting this portion of the core?.

    Please don't hand wave all of the logistics away by saying, "Oh well, everything is possible, because we don't know anything about the weapon." That is way too convenient.
    When you start asking prudent questions, the 'Energy Beam Weapon' theory all but falls apart. IMO.

    We still cant dismiss the use of an unknown weapon though.

    The theory that even A&Es presentations are also disinformation to cover up DEW or some other exotic weapon used by an entity other than the USA to attack us. This theory IMO explains far more for reason of lies and cover up than anything else.

  5. Link to Post #124
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,757
    Thanks
    24,893
    Thanked 32,272 times in 6,946 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)

    I have a problem with some of these ideas.
    DEW or any kind of secret weapon technology would be very expensive and they would not have it where they needed to dispose of it or risk of it being exposed.
    We don't know the size or complexity of such a device. The second Iraq war saw use of DEWs (as microwave weaponry) attached to the backs of standard battle tanks, I do believe Target can vouch for this (having served there). The stories I heard is that these microwave weapons could burn and crinkle up cars, not unlike what we have seen at ground zero.


    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    Why would they risk using such a weapon when conventional demo tech was all that was needed?
    This is an interesting question, and one I brought forth to Paul, but by searching for possibilities of that motivation, rather than ignore it, will lead us further in the quest of unanswered questions.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    PurpleLama (2nd February 2016)

  7. Link to Post #125
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    The stories I heard is that these microwave weapons could burn and crinkle up cars, not unlike what we have seen at ground zero.
    On the contrary, a single burned up or crinkled up car is nothing like tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete and hundreds of cars. Not even close. These DEW pinpoint targets, small targets.

    What would it take to do this on a massive scale as alleged at WTC 9/11?

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Curiosity For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (2nd February 2016)

  9. Link to Post #126
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,028 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    All right, let me dig something from under the non-existent ashes... and just to re-ash (pun-pun-pun):

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    ...



    Why do the people who start threads on 9-11 keep missing the obvious?

    1) It was planned long in advance (if only to co-ordinate the military to hold an interdisciplinary drill on that specific date);

    2) Accordingly, anyone in the loop banked on it from the Deutsche Bank, Bush family, Silverstein, DOD (2.3 trillion $$ budget hole paper trail... gone), PATRIOT act, etc... as in "Never let a good crisis go to waste;"

    3) Huge media coverage -- hammered world wide -- of 3 buildings turned into volcanic ashes in a matter of minutes.

    And that one is the OBVIOUS: Huge media coverage -- hammered world wide -- of 3 buildings turned into volcanic ashes in a matter of minutes.

    THREE buildings and their contents turned into volcanic ash in front of the entire world's eyes!


    To say the least, that's no ordinary weapon!

    Any precedent scenario?

    WW II wasn't ended until they were ready to explode their atomic bombs over Japan... that plunged the entire planet into a cold war and a nuclear arm race which separated the world into two blocks and their "satellite" slave countries for "protection" otherwise known as "racket."

    Then the "earthquake machine" put Japan finance ministers under a gun held to their heads for them to follow Rockefeller's whims... or else... Haiti was another warning to the world's non-compliant leaders (Clinton's relief funds website for Haiti was put up a few days before the Haiti quake... ooopppsss... have Haitians ever seen the color of these funds?)

    Then 9-11 and the OBVIOUS use of a non-ordinary weapon for the world to see... if that's not a message to world leaders similar to the nuclear bombing of Japan but, this time, in the hands of "terrorists," that is: "anywhere, anytime;" I don't
    know what is!

    Anyway, that's my "WHY!"

    ... and the "how" is still under more wraps than "Project Manhattan" ever was... hummmfff... Project Manhattan... Manhattan... project...
    Last edited by Hervé; 2nd February 2016 at 22:34.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (2nd February 2016)

  11. Link to Post #127
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,757
    Thanks
    24,893
    Thanked 32,272 times in 6,946 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    These DEW pinpoint targets, small targets.
    ...
    "These DEW ..."? Which DEW?

    Entirely your speculation. Microwave weapons can be either focused for use at a specific range or more broadly, for example, crowd dispersion - already known and displayed technology. Take the microwave emitter out of your microwave oven and try to fire it up and see the effects. You will find that these emitters have very specific focal points - dependent on the size of your oven -- making them ideal for such uses as we propose happened on 9/11. Can microwaves be passed from space to Earth via a focused beam? I believe this is possible, and many studies in the area of solar energy from space as an infinite energy resource has shown this possibility. Therefore we can't rule out satellite use, or high altitude heavy bomber use in my opinion. At the same time I'm not 100% microwaves were the exotic weapon(s) used at 9/11, but there are effects seen that seem not unlike what one might expect with high powered microwaves.
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 2nd February 2016 at 22:47.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    PurpleLama (2nd February 2016)

  13. Link to Post #128
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    If they wanted to show the world somebody has some exotic weapon of this nature, "create a WOW effect" the official story would have pushed that Idea. Instead they tried to cover up the obvious demolitions used to bring these buildings down claiming it was "jets and jet fuel etc."

    "To say the least, that's no ordinary weapon!"

    They did use unconventional tech, weapons grade nano thermite for one thing.

    Compering WWII, atom bomb etc. is comparing apples to oranges. They used the a bomb to bring the japs to their knees and stop the war. They didn't kwwp it a secret after they used it.
    They brought down WTCs to create war on another country. And they didn't claim some country has exotic weapons and we have to go after them.

    To totally different scenarios.

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    These DEW pinpoint targets, small targets.
    ...
    "These DEW ..."? Which DEW?

    Entirely your speculation. Microwave weapons can be either focused for use at a specific range or more broadly, for example, crowd dispersion - already known and displayed technology. Take the microwave emitter out of your microwave oven and try to fire it up and see the effects. You will find that these emitters have very specific focal points - dependent on the size of your oven -- making them ideal for such uses as we propose happened on 9/11. Can microwaves be passed from space to Earth via a focused beam? I believe this is possible, and many studies in the area of solar energy from space as an infinite energy resource has shown this possibility. Therefore we can't rule out satellite use, or high altitude heavy bomber use in my opinion. At the same time I'm not 100% microwaves were the exotic weapon(s) used at 9/11, but there are effects seen that seem not unlike what one might expect with high powered microwaves.
    How did it pinpoint massive targets and bypass others?

  14. Link to Post #129
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,028 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    [...]
    Compering WWII, atom bomb etc. is comparing apples to oranges. They used the a bomb to bring the japs to their knees and stop the war. They didn't kwwp it a secret after they used it.
    [...]
    Japan was ready to surrender and sign any papers long before the bombs were dropped, "they" kept the war going till they were able to produce those bombs and drop them. These bombs were intended to demonstrate something else to other world leaders and literally put a gun to their heads! There too, there was a massive, world wide hammering of the visuals of these bombs effects...
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    animovado (3rd February 2016)

  16. Link to Post #130
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    [...]
    Compering WWII, atom bomb etc. is comparing apples to oranges. They used the a bomb to bring the japs to their knees and stop the war. They didn't kwwp it a secret after they used it.
    [...]
    Japan was ready to surrender and sign any papers long before the bombs were dropped, "they" kept the war going till they were able to produce those bombs and drop them. These bombs were intended to demonstrate something else to other world leaders and literally put a gun to their heads! There too, there was a massive, world wide hammering of the visuals of these bombs effects...
    I don't think that's quite the way history books read. I recall the Japs weren't ready to sign until the second bomb was dropped.

    In any case, why didn't they uses this concept after 9/11. Instead they tried to cover everything up.
    Just doesn't make sense.

    This documentary gives us a good idea of where we are at with DEW and laser tech.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4HMkiH3-E

  17. Link to Post #131
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,757
    Thanks
    24,893
    Thanked 32,272 times in 6,946 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)

    How did it pinpoint massive targets and bypass others?
    The same way light can be focused to burn ants through a bag of water or a magnifying glass - we all know distance to target is crucial, dependant on the magnification strength / style. There needn't be a focused beam all the way from source to target. The energy can converge at said target, where the effect is active at that convergence. I failed to make that clear in my previous post, but that is one of the things I was trying to get across.

    A few emitters positioned within reach from surrounding buildings, for example, could create the convergence at the targets, while not needing to worry about what is in between, as there is only enough energy or resonance at the convergence target to do the intended damage. But I am just throwing out "how" such things might be possible ... I don't really know, I haven't seen these weapons work, but I can imagine how they might, based on what I know and can speculate within reason.

    In 3D lighting realms (light simulations), such concentrations of energy (in the case of 3D it is visible light) through a method of refraction is called "caustics" - because they tend to "burn" whatever they fall onto ("Burn" means to blowout the specular highlight in my context - indicating an excess of concentrated photons (energy) ) - the distance from refraction is very specific or else there is no "Burn". Since microwaves are just an extension of visible light, the exact same principles apply.

    How'd they burn the glass at the middle without damaging along the path? From converging energy sources at the target point in 3D space. Note the level of accuracy.

    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 3rd February 2016 at 04:18. Reason: added stuff and made more clear ... added a lot over time ... took a while to finalize it.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  18. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    animovado (3rd February 2016), Curiosity (6th February 2016), drneglector (3rd February 2016), Hervé (3rd February 2016), Paul (3rd February 2016), PurpleLama (3rd February 2016), TargeT (3rd February 2016), Wind (6th February 2016)

  19. Link to Post #132
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,170 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    Is this irrefutable proof of a DEW? No.
    Stawman
    ===

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    Can this effect be reproduced with conventional weaponry and demo tech? Yes.
    Ignoring the counterevidence
    ===

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    Did anybody gather the dust and weigh it to prove it vanished, which would be irrefutable proof? No. Impossible to do, is what I'm saying.
    Stawman
    ===

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    I'm not against the Idea that DEW or other unbeknownst to the public weaponry tech was used. What I'm saying is we will never be able to prove it.
    Stawman
    ===

    I have no reliable way of knowing whether (1) I am more confused than I realize, (2) you're still in denial, as I was for many years, (3) you're choosing, consciously or not, to continue to spread disinformation about 9/11 ... but I do have a fairly reliable way of concluding that I should quit responding to your posts ... it's not good for my blood pressure <grin>.

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    How'd they burn the glass at the middle without damaging along the path? From converging energy sources at the target point in 3D space.
    Awesome cat - thanks!

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Curiosity (6th February 2016), DeDukshyn (3rd February 2016), PurpleLama (3rd February 2016)

  21. Link to Post #133
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,170 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Japan was ready to surrender and sign any papers long before the bombs were dropped, "they" kept the war going till they were able to produce those bombs and drop them. These bombs were intended to demonstrate something else to other world leaders and literally put a gun to their heads! There too, there was a massive, world wide hammering of the visuals of these bombs effects...
    Or ... if our ordinary conspiracies are starting to get boring, and you'd like to travel on the wild side, take a look at some of Miles Mathis commentary on World War II and the atomic bomb:P.S. - For more skeptical analysis of atomic bombs, see Daniel's Where’s the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-Shattering Kaboom!.

    Sorry ...
    Last edited by Paul; 3rd February 2016 at 03:35.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Curiosity (6th February 2016)

  23. Link to Post #134
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,028
    Thanks
    11,911
    Thanked 28,394 times in 4,641 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    A few emitters positioned within reach from surrounding buildings, for example, could create the convergence at the targets, while not needing to worry about what is in between, as there is only enough energy or resonance at the convergence target to do the intended damage. But I am just throwing out "how" such things might be possible ... I don't really know, I haven't seen these weapons work, but I can imagine how they might, based on what I know and can speculate within reason.
    This sounds like a highly sophisticated version of a rather old technology: the Knickebein system of two converging beams used to guide Germans to their targets in World War II in what is known as the “Battle of the Beams”.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beams


  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    Curiosity (6th February 2016), DeDukshyn (3rd February 2016), PurpleLama (3rd February 2016)

  25. Link to Post #135
    Netherlands Avalon Member Eram's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th March 2012
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,478
    Thanks
    65,641
    Thanked 10,991 times in 1,435 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    I remain skeptical toward the presence of a DEW.
    Too much of the chore evidence that Woods explains as a signature for a DEW is already been occupied by the proven (beyond the point of doubt) presence of nano thermite and it's residue (metal nano spheres).

    Nano thermite, especially in the amount that has been found in the dust samples can very well explain for the dustification process, the burnt cars, the free fall motion, the absence of heavy seismic impact and the glowing puddles of metal at the bottom of the ruble.

    Woods says that if thermite was used, then we would haven been blinded by the light.
    With regular first generation thermite, this might have been true (maybe), but nano thermite does not burn as bright as the regular one. In fact, it is more an explosion instead of a burning process, with much less light involved.
    Placed in the inner chore columns, there is no need for bright flashes outside the WTC towers.

    Woods points toward certain anomalies that cannot directly be explained by nano thermite alone, but many of them can be explained without the necessity of the presence of a DEW.
    Some seem a mysterie indeed and could fit into the theory of a DEW, like the molten file cabinet with some unburnt pieces of file holders, but with the chore argument (dustification) occupied by the nano thermite, you are left with little to go on.

    My main argument is this:
    Nano thermite in large enough quantities have been proven to exist within the collected dust samples.
    This is now lifted far beyond the point of theory, speculation and belief.
    It is a smoking gun that will hold up in a court of law.
    It explains for all the chore arguments that Woods produces in favor of the DEW, so in effect, she is left almost empty handed.
    please watch this youtube if you are unfamiliar with the research behind the nano thermite:


    On top of that: Many of the circumstantial evidence or hints at evidence can be proven incorrect beyond the point of doubt. Glowing cheeto's, half burnt police car on FDR drive, flattened cars on top of each other and more are just the result of sloppy detective work.

    I do understand that the use of thermite alone presents us with some big problems.
    How did it get there in the quantities that it did?
    And on every floor!!!
    But the fact is that it did.
    The footage of the collapsing towers clearly show the outward explosions racing down the building under the dust cloud of falling rubble and you can not simply go and ignore this.
    Last edited by Eram; 3rd February 2016 at 12:28.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Eram For This Post:

    Curiosity (6th February 2016), winstonsmith (3rd February 2016)

  27. Link to Post #136
    Morocco Avalon Member PurpleLama's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd January 2011
    Location
    Ignoring Your Outrage
    Posts
    4,052
    Thanks
    26,463
    Thanked 32,519 times in 3,936 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    I wonder, if there is any information to show whether building 7, which collapsed that evening, had likewise an apparent loss of mass as what appears to be the case with the towers.

    Also, Eram, I don't think anyone would refute the use modern, high tech demolition techniques were used in the destruction of the towers, it's just that the full picture of the destruction does indeed seem to be something beyond what any one method could account for, be it jet fuel (ha!), or dynamite, or thermite, or micro nukes, or directed energy, or whatever. I believe nothing known or merely possible but unknown should be beyond the purview of this inquiry. The explosions you refer to can be clearly seen on many of the videos of the event, so none would deny that.
    God bless the Fae
    God bless Me

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PurpleLama For This Post:

    Curiosity (6th February 2016), DeDukshyn (3rd February 2016), Eram (3rd February 2016)

  29. Link to Post #137
    Avalon Member winstonsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th November 2015
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 184 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by PurpleLama (here)
    I wonder, if there is any information to show whether building 7, which collapsed that evening, had likewise an apparent loss of mass as what appears to be the case with the towers.

    Also, Eram, I don't think anyone would refute the use modern, high tech demolition techniques were used in the destruction of the towers, it's just that the full picture of the destruction does indeed seem to be something beyond what any one method could account for, be it jet fuel (ha!), or dynamite, or thermite, or micro nukes, or directed energy, or whatever. I believe nothing known or merely possible but unknown should be beyond the purview of this inquiry. The explosions you refer to can be clearly seen on many of the videos of the event, so none would deny that.
    Had to be a loss of mass because you saw the same expanding pyroclastic flow. You see pyroclastic flow at conventional demolitions.

    What is the conclusion?

    WTC7 was attacked by a DEW?

    Were the towers done by controlled demolition?

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to winstonsmith For This Post:

    Eram (3rd February 2016)

  31. Link to Post #138
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,757
    Thanks
    24,893
    Thanked 32,272 times in 6,946 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    What if the main motivation for the attacks was to erase specific information? And all the "wow" factor, the "terrorist" connections, and excuse to invade Iraq, where a mere case of "not letting a good crisis go to waste." Perhaps specific information that was perhaps spread across the two towers and building 7. We all know several alphabet entities had offices in building 7. Would standard demolition techniques do the trick? Would hard drive clusters, NAS's or even individual PC Hard drive data potentially survive a standard demolition, from what I know, I would say so ... Can a DEW, for example a microwave weapon, damage a hard drive enough to render its data useless? Not sure, but it seems plausible ... Maybe it's purpose had nothing to do with actually felling the towers ... we know building 7 was previously rigged with explosives that brought it down ... perhaps it had to be brought down because everyone would wonder how all the data / info was erased / damaged, even when nothing really physically traumatic happened to the building ...

    I do know that a German company was given some recovered hard drive pieces to attempt to gather data from. Before they even had begun it was said that absolutely no data would be recoverable - before the eattempt ... interesting. The German company did manage to find enough good data that supported the claims of massive inside trading and other anomalies in the days leading up to 9/11.

    Just some food for thought ... It still does seem to me like there was something "microwavy" or "energetic" in nature, used. So I'm still thinking of motivation, since I do agree with the idea that a DEW was probably not required, or maybe even not useful, or intended, to bring the buildings down.
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 3rd February 2016 at 23:04. Reason: spelling and such
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Curiosity (6th February 2016), Eram (3rd February 2016), PurpleLama (3rd February 2016)

  33. Link to Post #139
    Netherlands Avalon Member Eram's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th March 2012
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,478
    Thanks
    65,641
    Thanked 10,991 times in 1,435 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by PurpleLama (here)

    Also, Eram, I don't think anyone would refute the use modern, high tech demolition techniques were used in the destruction of the towers, it's just that the full picture of the destruction does indeed seem to be something beyond what any one method could account for, be it jet fuel (ha!), or dynamite, or thermite, or micro nukes, or directed energy, or whatever.
    This morning, it suddenly dawned on me what was in the back of my mind, nagging me to come out all these days.

    It is the fact that the first step to bring the house of cards down has been produced. Real life professors who investigated the dust, made publications, offered them for peer review and have them so far unchallenged. The group of people, engineers, professors, and what have you with a title and prestige to their name who join this train is growing.
    This is HUGE!

    All of a sudden, there is this PhD lady, who says: evidence, evidence, evidence and comes up with a theory that totally denies the one evidence, the smoking gun, the first significant nail in the coffin of the big magic trick.
    This theory overlaps or hijacks almost all the characteristically trades of the use of thermite.

    Maybe it is time that we let this sink in for a minute.
    Last edited by Eram; 3rd February 2016 at 22:40.

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Eram For This Post:

    Curiosity (6th February 2016), DeDukshyn (3rd February 2016), PurpleLama (3rd February 2016)

  35. Link to Post #140
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,757
    Thanks
    24,893
    Thanked 32,272 times in 6,946 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Eram (here)
    Quote Posted by PurpleLama (here)

    Also, Eram, I don't think anyone would refute the use modern, high tech demolition techniques were used in the destruction of the towers, it's just that the full picture of the destruction does indeed seem to be something beyond what any one method could account for, be it jet fuel (ha!), or dynamite, or thermite, or micro nukes, or directed energy, or whatever.
    This morning, it suddenly dawned on me what was in the back of my mind, nagging me to come out all these days.

    It is the fact that the first step to bring the house of cards down has been produced. Real life professors who investigated the dust, made publications, offered them for peer review and have them so far unchallenged. The growing group of people, engineers, professors, and what have you with a title and prestige to their name who join this train is growing.
    This is HUGE!

    All of a sudden, there is this PhD lady, who says: evidence, evidence, evidence and comes up with a theory that totally denies the one evidence, the smoking gun, the first significant nail in the coffin of the big magic trick.
    This theory overlaps or hijacks almost all the characteristically trades of the use of thermite.

    Maybe it is time that we let this sink in for a minute.
    I think we all have to keep in mind the possibilities that anyone can be a disinfo agent ... at the same time, they might just believe in their theories strongly - which would look pretty much the same from the outside.
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 4th February 2016 at 04:33. Reason: spelling
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Curiosity (6th February 2016), Eram (3rd February 2016), PurpleLama (3rd February 2016)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 1 7 9 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts