Fetzer suggests beam weapon in WTC7

[Bowery Boy]

Jim Fetzer is suggesting that WTC was not only the control centre but also had the beam weapon. As someone has pointed out, the large hole cut in the tower was up/down not across. There must have been a weapon from above : possibly - just - another from 7.

[Newspeak International]

Where was JF suggesting this BB?

[Bowery Boy]

[quote="Newspeak International"]Where was JF suggesting this BB?[/quote]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=646337772656177512&q=Jim%2BFet zer

[Thermate]

Mr Fetzer has lost all credibility with me, a shame.

[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."

[Fallious]

Why is this posted in news?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Hey Fallious

I would be interested to know what campaigning you have done?

[flamesong]

[Andrew Johnson]

Well, I know Flamesong HAS done some campaigning because I sent him my Rubber Stamp of "9-11 Was an Inside Job"!

I think TSWU3's question is fair - and one which I sometimes ask people. May I take this opportunity to remind people I have a page of cost-price campaigning materials - which I will send FREE to people on low incomes here:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/orderpage.html

Don't like my posters and stuff? Well, download these files and make your own (in most cases).

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/911_campaign_materials_download.ht m

[flamesong]

Andrew, I have been challenged by this question by people in the past when they have nothing further of any value to say. I have confided in one or two people on this forum what I have done as far as campaigning in this movement and others. I don't feel the need to justify myself to anybody and those who know what I have done know that. I would never stoop so low as to try to score points in such a pathetic immature way. Not only is it seen as an attempt to belittle others in a juvenile fashion - it demonstrates poor judgement and serves no constructive purpose.

Your stamp has come in handy but I was reluctant, if you remember, to take it off your hands if it was going to deny somebody else a useful tool. Your statement seems to be designed to be misunderstood to mean that stamping constitutes my total contribution - if it was a veiled Morecambe Gambit you will get short shrift from me!

[Andrew Johnson]

[Ally]

[flamesong]

No, the question was not addressed to me - but that does not mean that I am not permitted to express my opinion on it. If it was merely a question to satisfy curiosity it could have been asked by private message. Having read the threads in which the questioner has recently posted it was perfectly evident that this was not the case - unless he was perhaps seeking more recipes for his 9/11 cookbook!

I had actually hoped that the person making the offensive remarks (which you deleted) could be persuaded to delete them himself. I was greatly disappointed that the task fell to you. I am grateful for your time - two messages to this effect remain in my outbox and are, as yet unread by you. I don't know why this is - but your time and effort was very much appreciated.

We are going through, I believe, a very critical time. There are contributors who are quite adamant in their assertions regarding CGI and beam weapons. The debate on these topics will inevitably not be resolved easily - nobody will give up their hill without a struggle and I suspect that emotional attachment will override the evidence. You have stated that you are privvy to information or discussions to which the rest of us are not. This could be regarded as a little cliquey - but equally a device without subtance has been introduced into a debate in which the evidence seems to be defeating the hypothesis.

I am extremely concerned where this is leading. The people I attempt to wake up to 9/11 can be difficult enough to convince without the introduction of theoretical explanations which I cannot myself accept. If you read the threads on these topics you will see that I am very far from being alone. What some of you seem to embrace as the Holy Grail of 9/11 - most of us see as a poisoned chalice.

[flamesong]

[jomper]

Guys, please.

Think about how this thread looks stuck at the top of the NEWS forum of the British 9/11 Truth movement to any casual observer that may come browsing here.

The first thing they see is: To get back to the issues: beam weapon in WTC7?

The issues? THE ISSUES??

For god's sake.

The issue is that the explanation we've been offered for the collapse of the Towers is deeply inadequate as any casual observer could easily discover.

And instead we've got this.

No-one will discover jack * about a stupid beam.

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

[flamesong]

[Fallious]

[Andrew Johnson]

[IronSnot]

[Patrick Brown]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

He's back! FerricMucus is back!! Had a nice holiday? Tasmania? Singapore? Better than Cleethorpes, almost certainly. How is Pine Gap these days? I hope it's comfy!

[IronSnot]

Andrew, I've got Judy Wood firmly in the 'nuts' section of my files on 9/11. Chief nut is Webfairy (all three versions) followed by Holmgren. Then there's about 4/5 from here, a dozen or so from the Loose Change forum and a bloke called Charon over at the Guardian. (although he's been absent for a few months).

Basically anyone who advocates the following goes into my nuts section (although there should really be a shill subcategory, I can't be bothered figuring out who is what);

* Mossad did it.
* The illuminati did it.
* The masons did it.
* Holograms.
* CGI scripts.
* Beam weapons
* Anyone who thinks chemtrails isn't a joke.

How many of those apply to you Andrew?

[utopiated]

IronSnot - you've just reduced the world we live in to a linear, mechanistic 2 dimensional plot line on a graph.

I would offer the following as a way to deal with the influences of the situation but feel free to skip the suggestion:

http://www.utopiated.net/narcotica/the_addiction_industry/video_-_weav ing_a_meta-model_-_drugs_9%1011_and_jfk.html

[Stefan]

I quite agree with Ironsnot, anyone who tries to bring the discussion beyond phsyical evidence and into speculation on motive and exact method of demolition is doing a massive service to the deniers.

Has no one else noticed that when you try to discuss these issues with people who are dead set on rubbishing them the very first thing they do is ask you about motive and other sides to the issue which can only be answered by speculation?

They do this because if you respond to them they then have a get out of jail free card in the discussion- it doesn't matter how much physical, irrefutable evidence you offer up they will ignore it and keep the conversation based around how there is no proof of neocon/illuminati/freemason/zionist plots and it is all a fantasy. And they are right- it is. So don't let them have that, don't give anything to the conversation which cannot be backed up with facts however much you may believe it.

I also agree that this shouldn't be in the news section. In fact the news section should not be in forum format- a fault in this site is that everything is in forum format, it is confusing to new comers and it also allows all sorts of nonsense to be posted as news and a lot of "cross contamination" between the forums purpose and what is posted there. Design a submission form for news and have it as a bulletin board not a free entry forum; credibility is the most important thing to remember.

Now actually responding the the "Death Ray" theory- this came from above did it?

Then why was the first part of the building to be destroyed that just below the plane impact zone? The top section remained intact at first while the floors below it were detonated- you can verefy that with your own eyes.

How was this death ray able to ignore the top section and start the destruction under the impact zone if it came from above? If it came from below the exact same objection remains.

The building was detonated in waves of a few floors at a time starting just below the impact point (presumably commencing immediatley after the final support collumns were severed and the building was unsupported), I do not see anyway which a death ray would acheive this, or why it would need to be used when explosives could have the exact same effect.

Do these ray beam weapons even exist? This question doesn't seem to bother anyone who brings up this damaging anti-theory.

[Andrew Johnson]

[HERA]

[Bowery Boy]

[quote="HERA"][quote="IronSnot"]Andrew, I've got Judy Wood firmly in the 'nuts' section of my files on 9/11. Chief nut is Webfairy (all three versions) followed by Holmgren. Then there's about 4/5 from here, a dozen or so from the Loose Change forum and a bloke called Charon over at the Guardian. (although he's been absent for a few months).

Basically anyone who advocates the following goes into my nuts section (although there should really be a shill subcategory, I can't be bothered figuring out who is what);

* Mossad did it.
* The illuminati did it.
* The masons did it.
* Holograms.
* CGI scripts.
* Beam weapons
* Anyone who thinks chemtrails isn't a joke.

How many of those apply to you Andrew?

:lol:[/quote]

Is it time for a new by-invitation-only forum for evidence-based-argument posts only ?
It has long become very tiresome to wade through stuff at this level and it does the Truth campaign image no good at all.[/quote]

Long overdue, H.