Apologies from a noplane beamer

[HERA]

Firstly, could I apologise for the lack of foul language, insults, waffle and irrelevances in this post : I hope that it will still be understood.

Let us follow a simple logical progression ; Q & (my, offered) A.

Does the evidence show that WTC7 was brought down by a standard controlled demolition? Yes.
Does the evidence show that there were explosions within and below the twin towers? Yes.

Does the evidence show that the twin towers were brought down by standard controlled demolitions? No.
Did the twins fall in less than "free-fall" time? Yes.
Were large amounts of the twins steel/concrete "vapourised"? Yes.
Do the 3 answers, above, indicate that there were other unknown factors? Yes.

Were large amounts of WTC7 "vapourised"? No.
Is there evidence for the existence ofpowerful particle beam weapons? Yes : for a long time.
Was there evidence thay they were used : ie circular damage apparently, from above and nearby buildings "sliced."? Yes.

Does the film showng the aircraft entering and, partially, leaving the tower seem realistic? No.
Does the film showing planes hitting the towers include shots of the planes from a long distance or does it seem that the shots appeared when near the towers? The latter.

Before commenting, serious observers might like to look at some of the technical work done by
Judy Wood
B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),
M.S (Engineering Mechanics, 1983), Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
courses taught include
Experimental Stress Analysis,
Engineering Mechanics,
Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
Strength of Materials Testing
at
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com

also
http://www.veronicachapman.com/expkit/Experiment.doc

[James C]

[wepmob2000]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[alwun]

Hera,
Don't tell a soul, but I just downloaded the Vdub software from V and tried the experiment with the single frame stepping. Sure enough, there is a sharply defined trace of electronic interference just at the close of the money shot which supports the theory of CGI intrusion cutting off - job done. Thanks for the heads up - plus great software.

cheers Al..

[Patrick Brown]

Can this dis-info please be moved to CC? Please Please Please? I could point out all the errors but that wont stop them trying will it? So come on mods please make a big statement and move this thread to CC.

[Fallious]

[Snowygrouch]

WTC7 Steel WAS vapourised in small portions as was WTC1 & 2 steel which is exactly what one expects from STANDARD OVER THE COUNTER EXPLOSIVES!!!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
The towers did NOT collapse in UNDER free fall time.

SHOW me the calculations......................................

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
etc etc etc Yawn Yawn Yawn.....

[John White]

[Snowygrouch]

Quotes:

I`d better BACK UP MY STATEMENTS HERE (plug plug).
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, FRIDAY OCT 5th 2001, Page A8.

"Steel was evapourated" Remains Of Trade Centre as Scrutinized"

By Mark Shoofs; staff reporter of the Wall St Journal.

....an I beam from 7 world trade center-the smaller building that burned and collapsed after the taller towers fell-melted and buckled in the fire. But the shock came when Prof Astaneh-Asl examined the ends of the beams, called flanges...he said "the steel was evapourated"
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

[Snowygrouch]

Oh NO I got it all wrong!!!

Its Mark SCHOOFS not SHOOFS!

Idiot.....Idiot....

[andyb]

This has been posted numerous times before but i thought some may not have seen it. It's a critical review of the NPT

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

[marky 54]

please show us these beam weapons that can destroy buildings, no one will take it serious untill that is shown to be true and i dont blame them.

i did ask in a previous thread about certain aspects of beam weps but no beam believer seemed to reply. i want to at least understand this theory regardless of if i believe it over CD. but its like critics corner with this theory, no one answers the questions and they just start a new thread or ignore you.

so how large would this weapon need to be?

if it was from space(star wars type stuff), why dont we see the laser given in examples of other clips of beam weps?

can they destroy buildings? (proof if so)

you need to prove these weapons exsist and can do what your claiming, untill then its difficult to take onboard. we have to be carefull with these theorys as they could be used to distract us from debunking the offical version, instead we are debunking eachothers theorys which is why all this stuff may of been created, to take our attention away from proving 9/11 didnt happen how we were told. so please if you want to be taken seriously start of at step 1 and prove these weps exsist and can do what you claim and can cause everything we see from collapse onward.

guessing they can course that damage isnt evidence even if they can. it needs to be shown or proven they can. controlled demoliton has destroyed numerous buildings and there are plenty of examples and a lot of the characteristics match, so you need to beable to show the same, but with beam weps. if the same cannot be shown then theres no way it can be proven unless your expecting top secret files to become availble?(very doubtful). its partly why even if beam weps exsist it difficult to prove and so cannot be taken seriously.

anyone can start a theory it means nothing untill proven.

[John White]

[Patrick Brown]

Just like to thank the mods for moving this thread. Telecasterisation has decided to leave the 911 Truth Movement because of posts like this and I'm not surprised. Here his goodbye post: http://911evidencebase.16.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?p=180#180

[marky 54]

apparently this discussion has been move to the "still waiting for answers" thread. kind of ironic when you read what i put here then see a new thread has been started and all our questions avoided .

[wepmob2000]

[marky 54]

[James C]

[wepmob2000]

[Headhunter]

Directed Energy Weapons do NOT explode stuff (except in the movie Independance Day when the laser beam exploded the Whitehouse).

[truthseeker john]

Let us follow a simple logical progression ; Q & (my, offered) A.
Logic, yes

Does the evidence show that WTC7 was brought down by a standard controlled demolition? Yes.
Yes

Does the evidence show that there were explosions within and below the twin towers? Yes.
Yes

Does the evidence show that the twin towers were brought down by standard controlled demolitions? No.
No, not standard.

Did the twins fall in less than "free-fall" time? Yes.
No, some enthusiastic people have exaggerated. It took in fact slightly more time than free fall...

Were large amounts of the twins steel/concrete "vapourised"? Yes.
There were some indications of steel being vaporised. All depends on what you mean by large.

Do the 3 answers, above, indicate that there were other unknown factors? Yes.
Yes! But let me ask you something. Do you really know your true self when you look in a mirror?

Were large amounts of WTC7 "vapourised"? No.
Dunno but there was molten metal - will that do?

Is there evidence for the existence of powerful particle beam weapons? Yes : for a long time.
'Particle' weapons, or to be more precise, electromagnetic weapons (arguably using waves rather than particles) do seem to have been used. Ah but Steven Jones has his thermate theory! Why hasn't it dawned on people yet, that it could be both?

Was there evidence thay they were used : ie circular damage apparently, from above and nearby buildings "sliced."? Yes.
I don't know about the sliced, but there were flashes of energy coming from choppers which were flying over the buildings, just before the towers fell. Notice that?

Does the film showng the aircraft entering and, partially, leaving the tower seem realistic? No.
Does people seeing some planes, seem realistic?

Does the film showing planes hitting the towers include shots of the planes from a long distance or does it seem that the shots appeared when near the towers? The latter.
The footage of the second plane hitting the second tower was took at a distance!

[CB_Brooklyn]

[truthseeker john]

[andrewwatson]

Fact: The world woke up on August 6 1945 to find a terrible and hitherto unknown power had been unleashed by the USA.


Why should we know what they used on the WTC? I have a strong, strong gut feeling that it was something so monstrous that we would never guess at its nature. As gut feelings are of no scientific value, you are welcome to dismiss it.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Ignatz]