Beam Weapon Theory Summaried

[Veronica]

The Beam Weapon Theory is the proposed hypothesis to explain the 'demise' of WTC1 & WTC2 on 9/11.

It is the only theory that has been put forward which attempts to explain all the verifiable forensic evidence, including:

1) Demise of the Towers at speeds mathematically calculated to be faster than Free-Fall in a vacuum,

2) Large 'bites' taken out of surrounding buildings (some almost completely circular),

3) Holes 'bitten' into the streets,

4) 'Toasted' cars,

5) Pulverisation to fine (toxic) dust of the concrete, steel, asbestos, filing cabinets, computer desk & equipment, and much of the organic material (i.e. people) - of (what is probably) roughly 75% of each Tower,

6) BUT - following on from (5), above - PAPER is left undamaged, so as to flutter all over Manhattan.

7) Retained protection of the WTC Complex Bathtub.

The theory starts from observations & data based the 7th aspect, above.

Manhattan is a island in the Hudson River, which flows either side of it. The WTC Complex is quite close to the waterfront, opposite New Jersey. So close, in fact, that it needs to be protected by what is known as the Bathtub. This acts like an underground 'levee' or 'dyke', to keep the sub terra parts (7 levels of Sub-Basements) of the Complex 'dry'.

There is also a system of underground trains that connect Manhattan with New Jersey. These are known as PATH Trains (Port Authority Trans-Hudson Trains). Rupturing these would also flood Manhattan. (They surface inside the Bathtub).

The point is that 9/11 was, indeed, a Psy-op, but only to bring down the WTC Complex (which was, by the way, condemned in 1989, because of the asbestos, and the galvanic erosion problems. It was given 12 more years of existence, and would have cost over $5 million to repair. In 1989 the WTC Complex became a White Elephant. The only safe method was to dismantle the Towers piece by piece, which would have cost more than building them in the first place … because now the asbestos would have had to be considered).

The 9/11 perps needed to bring down the complex, but not to flood Manhattan … New Orleans was the target for the 'flooding' Psy-op.

If the Towers had been brought down by 'standard' Controlled Demolitions, then (it has been calculated that) the result would have registered 3.8 on the Richter Scale per Tower (based on the height and mass, etc. of each Tower). Even one collapse, at this level, would have decimated the Bathtub, and flooded Manhattan Island.

How, then, to destroy the buildings (blaming Arabs) without damaging the Bathtub?

The next stage of the argument moves to Seattle. Where data is available in respect of the Controlled Demolition of the Seattle Kingdome.

The Kingdome was ONE QUARTER the mass of each Tower. It was circular, and had a WIDER FOOTPRINT than each Tower (so the weight was spread over a larger area), and was only about as high as the 36th Floor of the Towers. The Towers sat on bedrock, whereas the Kingdome sat on a much softer, more porous, foundation.

Furthermore the 'Centre of Mass' of each Tower was roughly 7½ times higher than that of the Kingdome. The 'Centre of Mass' can be looked as 'the average height from which the entire mass of the building has been dropped'. Everyone knows that the higher something is dropped, the harder it hits, when it reaches the ground.

When the Kingdome was demolished, it registered 2.3 on the Richter Scale.

When WTC1 'disappeared of the face of Planet Earth' it registered 2.3 on the Richter Scale. A few minutes before that, WTC2 'disappeared', registering 2.1.

These 'collapses' were SMALL ENOUGH TO ENSURE THAT THE BATHTUB WAS NOT RUPTURED.

How did they manage to minimise the demise of each Tower such that it registered such small ground shakes (relatively speaking, of course)? A ground shake equal - in one case - to that of the Seattle Kingdome of ¼ the size & mass?

The answer is 'by dissolving the top ¾ of each building'. Yes - DISSOLVING. Into the fine toxic dust that anyone who has looked at the pictures, or seen the videos (e.g. 911Eyewitness) can see only too well.

The lower 36 (or so) floors were more or less equivalent to the Kingdome. They were demolished by 'conventional' means (could even be Steven Jones' 'thermate', who knows?) in order to provide sufficient 'debris' such that no-one would 'notice' that 'nothing' was left to show that a Tower has stood there.

It was these lower floors that created the seismic readings.

So that explains the way the Towers were brought down, in accordance with the known (and verified) data measurements.

Now … you explain how to DISSOLVE (so that it simply blows away on the wind), THREE QUARTERS of a steel-framed high rise.

Your explanation needs to take into account the circular holes in the buildings & streets, and the 'toasted' cars … some up to ½ mile away.

WTC1 & WTC2 were not 'demolished'. They were 'destroyed' … basically they were 'dissolved'.

Profs. Judy Wood & Morgan Reynolds have made an attempt to explain this 'destruction' here.

Maybe you can do better?

Feel free to Google "directed energy weapon", and see how many hits you get.

The top one will probably be this.

The PAPER? Well, consider what happens to paper (and card, and plastic) when you put it into a Microwave Oven. The FOOD warms up (equivalent to 'people'), but the paper, card or plastic container is unaffected..

Maybe this also explains the 'jumpers'. Were they being cooked …from the inside (just like a Microwave Oven works)?

The theory is that energy was directed at the Towers. This was chosen to 'resonate' on a molecular level with steel, concrete, and all the major materials (there is plenty of evidence for more than one beam).

Don't bother to ask "How much energy would that take". The answer is "Are the Towers still standing?"

Don't bother to ask (as Steven "Kindly Face" Jones does) "Where did the energy come from?" Jones the liar knows full well where it comes from. Read up on Nikola Tesla. He undoubtedly worked on the very device that was used, during his time at Los Alamos. YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT THE *MANHATTAN* PROJECT HAS COME A LONG WAY SINCE THE 1940s.

Veronica
November, 2006

[scubadiver]

Although it does sound convincing, I would need to know:

where would this device have been stored?
How big?
From where would the weapon have been fired?

If this weapon works on a molecular level, why were no other surrounding buildings affected?

After all, to bring down the towers like that you would need a very large or very powerful weapon?

[Thermate]

Interesting that the theory is pinned on the bathtub being undamaged, when in fact it was severely damaged in many locations, with some parts of the walls moved several meters.

Theory for theories sake. CD covers it all and is far more likely.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Hi Veronica

That was an excellent post.

I wish you would post more frequently on this site.

More and more people are accepting that conventional CD of the whole building is no longer plausible - however as you can see from the last couple of posters some are still in denial.

Don't let them put you off - they still believe that planes can cut through buildings like a knife through butter

[Andrew Johnson]

Thanks for that Article Veronica which serves to highlight the evidence and attract some interesting responses from posters with interesting handles....

[chek]

[andyb]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Fallious]

[Patrick Brown]

[This post copied from here: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=37633#37633 ]

There's no reason why normal explosives can't account for the CD of the towers. The “beam Weapon” is a silly shilly distraction game and isn't even clever.

Let me please resolve this issue about the concrete turning to dust as it's really rather simple.

The concrete used for the floors of the twin towers, only 4 inches thick, was lightweight concrete.

[brian]

Veronica, what is the basis of - "Jones the liar"

Reynolds and Woods attack on Jones was a ridiculous hotch potch of lies and disinformation yet there appears to be a crew not only willing to swallow their lies hook line and sinker but propogate them. Why?

I have already posted similar and asked if anyone can point out the lies of Professor Jones, not one of his detractors answered. Why?

Jones has used the scientific approach to demonstrate the official explanation is false, that cannot be denied or retracted. He gave/gives the movement a credibility that is undermined by the likes of Veronica and TTWS3 spouting Tesla and suchlike with no credible evidence whatsoever.

I am baffled.

[kbo234]

[kbo234]

[Fallious]

[insidejob]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4049
GAMMA-RAY WEAPONS COULD TRIGGER NEW ARMS RACE
19:00 13 August 2003
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
David Hambling

An exotic kind of nuclear explosive being developed by the US Department of Defense could blur the critical distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. The work has also raised fears that weapons based on this technology could trigger the next arms race.

The explosive works by stimulating the release of energy from the nuclei of certain elements but does not involve nuclear fission or fusion. The energy, emitted as gamma radiation, is thousands of times greater than that from conventional chemical explosives.

The technology has already been included in the Department of Defense's Militarily Critical Technologies List, which says: "Such extraordinary energy density has the potential to revolutionise all aspects of warfare."

Scientists have known for many years that the nuclei of some elements, such as hafnium, can exist in a high-energy state, or nuclear isomer, that slowly decays to a low-energy state by emitting gamma rays. For example, hafnium-178m2, the excited, isomeric form of hafnium-178, has a half-life of 31 years.

The possibility that this process could be explosive was discovered when Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas demonstrated that they could artificially trigger the decay of the hafnium isomer by bombarding it with low-energy X-rays (New Scientist print edition, 3 July 1999). The experiment released 60 times as much energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could be achieved.

Energy pump
Before hafnium can be used as an explosive, energy has to be "pumped" into its nuclei. Just as the electrons in atoms can be excited when the atom absorbs a photon, hafnium nuclei can become excited by absorbing high-energy photons. The nuclei later return to their lowest energy states by emitting a gamma-ray photon.

Nuclear isomers were originally seen as a means of storing energy, but the possibility that the decay could be accelerated fired the interest of the Department of Defense, which is also investigating several other candidate materials such as thorium and niobium.

For the moment, the production method involves bombarding tantalum with protons, causing it to decay into hafnium-178m2. This requires a nuclear reactor or a particle accelerator, and only tiny amounts can be made.

Currently, the Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland, New Mexico, which is studying the phenomenon, gets its hafnium-178m2 from SRS Technologies, a research and development company in Huntsville, Alabama, which refines the hafnium from nuclear material left over from other experiments. The company is under contract to produce experimental sources of hafnium-178m2, but only in amounts less than one ten-thousandth of a gram.

Extremely powerful
But in future there may be cheaper ways to create the hafnium isomer - by bombarding ordinary hafnium with high-energy photons, for example. Hill Roberts, chief scientist at SRS, believes that technology to produce gram quantities will exist within five years.

The price is likely to be high - similar to enriched uranium, which costs thousands of dollars per kilogram - but unlike uranium it can be used in any quantity, as it does not require a critical mass to maintain the nuclear reaction.

The hafnium explosive could be extremely powerful. One gram of fully charged hafnium isomer could store more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT. Miniature missiles could be made with warheads that are far more powerful than existing conventional weapons, giving massively enhanced firepower to the armed forces using them.

The effect of a nuclear-isomer explosion would be to release high-energy gamma rays capable of killing any living thing in the immediate area. It would cause little fallout compared to a fission explosion, but any undetonated isomer would be dispersed as small radioactive particles, making it a somewhat "dirty" bomb. This material could cause long-term health problems for anybody who breathed it in.

Political fallout
There would also be political fallout. In the 1950s, the US backed away from developing nuclear mini-weapons such as the "Davy Crockett" nuclear bazooka that delivered an explosive punch of 18 tonnes of TNT. These weapons blurred the divide between the explosive power of nuclear and conventional weapons, and the government feared that military commanders would be more likely to use nuclear weapons that had a similar effect on the battlefield to conventional weapons.

By ensuring that the explosive power of a nuclear weapon was always far greater, it hoped that they could only be used in exceptional circumstance when a dramatic escalation of force was deemed necessary.

Then in 1994, the US confirmed this policy with the Spratt-Furse law, which prevents US military from developing mini-nukes of less than five kilotons. But the development of a new weapon that spans the gap between the explosive power of nuclear and conventional weapons would remove this restraint, giving commanders a way of increasing the amount of force they can use in a series of small steps. Nuclear-isomer weapons could be a major advantage to armies possessing them, leading to the possibility of an arms race.

André Gsponer, director of the Independent Scientific Research Institute in Geneva, believes that a nation without such weapons would not be able to fight one that possesses them. As a result, he says, "many countries which will not have access to these weapons will produce nuclear weapons as a deterrent", leading to a new cycle of proliferation.

The Department of Defense notes that there are serious technical issues to be overcome and that useful applications may be decades away. But its Militarily Critical Technologies List also says: "We should remember that less than six years intervened between the first scientific publication characterising the phenomenon of fission and the first use of a nuclear weapon in 1945."
end1

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Fallious]

I love you, too.

[John White]

[Patrick Brown]

[Fallious]

""Lightweight aggregate concretes can however be used for structural applications, with strengths equivalent to normal weight concrete.""

Equivilent to what? Weight surely? All this means is two lumps that weigh the same are equaly strong. So.. a lump of 'lightweight' concrete, that weighs half as much is... half as strong? .

[Andrew Johnson]

Hooray! Someone discussing points of evidence. Thanks!

[John White]

And just remembering, I never did get any response from veronica to these Q's I posed here:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5344&start=0&postday s=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

[scubadiver]

[Leiff]

[Briaman]

[Fallious]

[Andrew Johnson]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[ian neal]

TTWSU3

Please stop posting bollox. Now I know one person's 'bollox' is another person's truth but in my eyes, posting recipes and the sort of off topic drivel above, you give a very good impression of someone spamming the forum.

Please desist

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]