The 911 Mystery Plane

[Wokeman]

http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

[MadgeB]

And here's a 3 minute video from genghis showing the same plane with (whisper it) a beam weapon fitted...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKGaoGt4isM

[telecasterisation]

[marky 54]

or rather here is a blurred plane with bumps on, and now here is one with laser equipment to make you assume the other plane must of had lasers attached and it could possibly be anything else.

the plane may of had lasers on it for all i know but from that clip i dont know and would have to assume the plane over the pentagon must of had a laser on it even though the attachments are hard to make out due to the blur.

miltary aircraft have alsorts of attachments for various reasons, radar being just one. if it can be shown or proved better that plane did have a laser on it then good. but its down to the claimants of the theory to show clear evidence of it and that is the only problem im having with the theory as it stands. clear evidence or at least provable without doubt.

where were these planes when the towers fell for example? or was the equipment in the helicopters etc, there is still alot to answer that from experiance dosnt get answered. ive tried to understand it and posed questions where i see problems and your left standing around forever waiting for the answers. the above clip dosnt prove much from what i can tell apart from planes CAN have lasers on and shot down MISSLES, it dosnt prove the blurred plane at the pentagon had one or that they can cause what happened with the towers.

there is far more research to be done if beams was the reason as nothing has convinced me yet that i have heard or seen that could'nt be something else or for some other reason.

if i said the plane at the pentagon had a radar device on it can you show im wrong and it was indeed a laser? if so do so cos that clip aint conclusive.

[marky 54]

[MadgeB]

You're quite right and I am duly chastised - although I put "911-TYPE mystery plane..." in the subject line, I didn't include it in the body of the post. I didn't mean to say that this was the exact model of plane used on the day, and there are many pictures of that USAF plane without the laser in Wokeman's post that I was responding to.

The point was to show that USAF also fit it with a laser weapon, and I think genghis' video allows you to draw your own conclusion. Many other military planes (eg helicopters) are also shown in rodin's recent post with laser weapons.

As we do not have access to military secrets we will never be able to 'prove without doubt' in advance that DEWs were used, unless and until we get our hands on the perps.

But the ground is shifting in that the "laser weapons are science fiction" argument is now untenable and now it's more (or should be, if 'truthers' have any real desire to uncover the truth) "OK they exist, but how do we know they were used?" I would suggest that a directed energy weapon company's involvement with the NIST report is a bit of a clue here, but not of course proof.

I would be interested to know what you have seen marky54 to make you say "nothing has convinced me yet that i have heard or seen that could'nt be something else or for some other reason". I'm certainly open to persuasion that something else was responsible for e.g. the melted fire engines, but I haven't yet seen even a single attempt to explain them. I'd love to know what other reason you've seen that accounts for the 'unexplained' phenomena on Judy Wood's website.

Ain't it wonderful to have a Bank Holiday weekend to fritter away on delving into all this stuff...

[marky 54]

i have seen and read numerous posts on beams and have not been able to come to a conclusion that beams were used for certain as yet, that dosnt mean they wasnt used as far as i know, but the evidence isnt convincing enough so far.

as for the firetrucks im always open as to what coursed it if it can be shown or explained and not just on somebodys say so.

explain how this/these lasers totally obliterated steel concrete towers yet only took of the paint of cars/firetrucks and melted the engines if it was coursed by a beam or numerous beams.

are you certain ONLY beams can course this ? can it be shown ? this is the problem with beams so far, asking people to believe something that cannot be shown or explained by a theory mainly because there are no examples that can be shown.

im just suppose to believe beams because people say so rather than anyone proving or explaining the whole process they believe went on to course the destruction we see.

the clip you linked is a good example of what the evidence is like to convince people, it may well be that beams were used but you can only believe it if you let the following clip decide for you rather than having a mind of your own and being honest the first part of the clip with the plane over the pentagon is to blurred to tell.

i dont have the answers but i certainly will not fall for stuff that trys to fool the watcher/reader into believing something that simply isnt clear enough or just tells us the reasons without explaining.

so how did the beams do that to the firetrucks and the towers etc? or do i just have to believe that it was beams with no explaination of the how or even to get an understanding of how it could work/happen.

infact there are still alot of questions that are yet to be answered before beams can even be considered as far as im concered. ive asked them numerous times and always get a negative response by those who dont like you to question their theory. but i will not believe it just on someones say so.

look firetrucks with melted engines must mean beams, yes if you can explain it or show it, if not then there are still other possibilitys and i have no reason to assume beams over mini nukes or anything else at this stage.

what has the theory got overall that it can show and/or has no doubt or demonstrates very well that it could well be beams and not anyother weapon? im intrested just not convinced at this stage.

infact i think its wrong to assume a weapon before knowing if it can cause that destruction and how many beams it would take or how large the beam would need to be.

we know what CD and nukes are capable of, are we aware of what beams are capable of other than intercepting missles(which already have tons of explosives inside them)? what can beams do to non explosive material?

im not saying it aint beams i'd just like to understand the reasons why i must be convinced only beams can do all this stuff.

it could even be a mixture for all we know, beams to start collapse of the top portion by cutting crucial supports mini nuke in the basement to weaken the foundations and CD to bring it all down, but who knows and what evidence is there to say it was beams or just beams that proves beams were used on 9/11.

[MadgeB]

Marky 54,

As you rightly say, it could well be and probably was a mixture of methods/devices that was used on the day. I honestly can’t understand where you get the idea that you are supposed to ‘believe’ in beams, ‘believe’ it was beam weapons, or ‘only’ beam weapons, or that people are trying to fool you or tell you what to think. If you look at Judy Wood’s site for example you’ll see dozens and dozens of questions - ‘what could have caused this?’ - and then an attempt to find some kind of device that would seem to fit the bill based on what knowledge we do have. This seems to me to be a matter of scientific enquiry rather than ‘belief’.

As I said previously, we are all scratching around in the dark here as we don’t have access to ‘black’ projects. We will not be able to answer all your questions until we bring the perps to justice and access their knowledge. What we can do is look for possible answers in existing technology and see how they relate to the known facts of the case. As more and more pieces fit together, it looks increasingly probable that directed energy weapons were used.

Please take note that the stuff below is not Judy Wood’s argument or the argument from anyone else who tends towards the beam weapons analysis, I can only speak for myself.

As to your question, “what can beams do to non explosive material?”, we can find some evidence and some is given on Judy Wood’ site. She references a TV programme on ‘Star Wars in Iraq’ which follows similar methodology to hers, ie gets information from people on the ground who have suffered from or seen the effects of ‘mysterious’ new weapons being used on civilians by the US, and then interviews people who can give some info about what the US military is actually developing to see if it can explain some aspects.

I previously watched the video from her site but it may now have been pulled by Google (another clue). However there’s also a transcript of the programme. Here are a few selections from the transcript (I’ve inserted “Ed” to show editorial comment or narration in the film, and dots are where I’ve cut out text). I’d also like to point out that not only paint jobs and engines of vehicles were affected at ground zero, some showed ‘wilting’ of the chassis or other parts amongst many other effects that you can see.

------------------------------------------

EXCERPTS FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF “STAR WARS IN IRAQ”
Majid Al Ghezali [Iraqi man interviewed]: They used incredible weapons
Patrick Dillon: Experimental weapons?
Majid Al Ghezali: Yes… Yes, I think. They shoot the bus. We saw the bus like a cloth, like a wet cloth…It seemed like a Volkswagen, a big bus like a Volkswagen…….. One year later we heard that they used an update technology, a unique one, like lasers…
Ed: Majid al Ghezali wanted to show Patrick Dillon the site near the airport where this mysterious weapon was used, along with the traces of fused metal still visible…
…[Iraqi doctors describe injuries they had never seen before]….
Ed: We do not know what kind of weapons could produce such terrible effects. We tried to learn more about it, by asking for interviews to members of companies manufacturing laser and microwave weapons. Yet, the US Defence Department prevented any information from being released to us…. We then reviewed the Pentagon’s media conferences released before the II Gulf War. Willingness to test new weapons emerged form the words of both the Defence Secretary and General Meyers…
American journalist: Mr. Secretary, can I ask you a question about some of the technology that you're developing to fight the war on terrorists, specifically directed energy and high-powered microwave technology? Do you -- when do you envision that you can weaponize that type of technology? ………
Donald Rumsfeld: in the normal order of things, when you invest in research and development and begin a developmental project, you don't have any intention or expectations that one would use it. On the other hand, the real world intervenes from time to time, and you reach in there and take something out that is still in a developmental stage, and you might use it. So the -- your question's not answerable. It is -- depends on what happens in the future and how well things move along the track and whether or not someone feels it's appropriate to reach into a development stage and see if something might be useful, as was the case with the unmanned aerial vehicles.
American journalist: But you sound like you're willing to experiment with it.
General Myers: Yeah, I think that's the point. And I think -- and it's -- and we have, I think, from the beginning of this conflict -- I think General Franks has been very open to looking at new things, if there are new things available, and has been willing to put them into the fight, even before they've been fully wrung out. And I think that's -- not referring to these particular cases of directed energy or high-powered microwaves, but sure. And we will continue to do that…..
Ed: But what is meant by directed-energy and microwave weapons? We went to ask retired colonel John Alexander, former program director in one of the most important military research laboratories in the United States, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Ret Col Alexander: The research and the concepts for directed energy weapons go back many decades. What is happening is that the technology has now advanced sufficiently that now we are starting to see these weapons becoming real. There are several types of directed energy weapons and basically what they do is they’re known as “speed of light” because they shoot electrons very fast over very long distances. Lasers of course are in the light range, then there are microwave weapons that are operating at other frequencies, but basically they’re beam weapons, which is nothing physical that goes out, because they move electrons, while the kinetic weapons shoot big bullets to go out and physically hit and destroy something. These work because the energy is deposed on the target and causes some effect.
….What’s emerging now are laser weapons where the effect is that that of the laser. They can be all burners, in what we call High Energy Lasers, because with the concentrated energy you can literally drill holes, you know, in the target…..
Ed: There are other types of weapons made with lasers, such as the device we can see in this sequence. The target is not hit by a projectile, but rather by an impulse of energy that manages to bore through the armor of an armored car…..
…. let’s look at the Pentagon budget figures to see how important the outlay is for directed energy weapons…
William Arkin [Former Pentagon analyst…]: Right now you have about $50 million a year being spent for non-lethal weapons, you have about another $200 million or so being spent on High Power Microwaves, Active Denial type Systems, you’ve got probably another $100-200 million being spent on “secret”, “black” laser programs, and then you have the big lasers, the High Energy Lasers of the Air force and the other Tactical Lasers. So probably, when you add all of that up, you know the United States are probably spending $½ billion a year right now on directed energy weapons. This is a significant amount of money; this is the size of the Defence Budget of some countries in Europe….
[END OF EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT]

-----------------------------------------------

I repeat, below is not Judy Wood’s argument or the argument from anyone else who tends towards the beam weapons analysis, I can only speak for myself.

However, we know the US has directed energy weapons and is spending staggering amounts on them. We have people in Iraq who believe such weapons have been used there and describe effects such as wilting buses, fused metal, pierced car armour, horrific and previously unseen injuries, etc etc. We know there is a lot more ‘classified’ weaponry than we know about, and that Rumsfeld and some top brass were flustered and caught off-guard when asked directly about DEWs at a press conference (a scene well worth watching). IMO it would make sense that if the perps were planning to destroy the WTC in its entirety they would try out these weapons there too - whyever not?

And now, because Judy Wood stuck to her guns and kept investigating (despite one of her student assistants being murdered and a subsequent threat to her), we also know that just as Controlled Demolition Inc was used in the clean-up, a directed energy weapons company was involved in the NIST whitewash. Who better to cover up their use, than someone who knows what NOT to mention? We know there are also people in the ‘Truth movement’ who do not want to mention these strange effects or the possibility that existing ‘black’ technology was used, steering us away from this subject on the basis that we should ‘stick to what we can prove’ and only talk about controlled demolition (to speak only of the most polite response).

There’s plenty more on Judy Wood’s site and I obviously can’t repeat the whole thing. Hell, all this is already over 1600 words, and I’ve done this much because you’re asking similar questions to the ones I was asking a few months ago, and I’m trying to remember some of the many ‘coincidences’, evidence 'match’ possibilities, dodgy trails and cover-ups etc that accumulated to the extent that I came to the conclusion that use of DEWs is the best explanation so far.

But finally, I must say I don’t think looking at other people’s posts on a forum is the best way to get informed about DEWs - you have to look at other sources and there are links all over the place now. Judy Wood’s site is an excellent place to start for anyone interested. http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/

[Bongo]

As with all those 'Theories', it is not something you could ever prove.

And as such it detracts from the facts that are overwhelmingly provable.

Ie. Prior Knowledge, Cover-Up and Complicity!!!

[MadgeB]

In what way does it detract?

[Bongo]

By providing ammunition to those who attack the truth movement.

Whether there is truth in it or not, we cannot prove these theories... hence they are easily denied, or worse... used to discredit the core issues via the 'conspiracy' tag.

[marky 54]

[MadgeB]

Bongo -

1) I haven’t seen any OCT’ers use the controlled media to attack the movement on the basis of the beam weapons hypothesis (or ‘no big boeings either, come to that). Then again, I don’t consume the MSM’s product and only see snippets on the internet, so I may have missed it. I did force myself to watch the recent BBC hit piece and that didn’t mention directed energy weapons as far as I can recall - can you show me where this ‘ammunition’ has been used?

We do have trolls who will continue to attack the movement on any irrational basis whatsoever, and so pandering to them won’t help.

2) “Whether there is truth in it or not, we cannot prove these theories... hence they are easily denied, or worse... used to discredit the core issues via the 'conspiracy' tag.”

The same argument has been used about every feature of the lies and cover-up as they have been uncovered by researchers over the years. We would not have had the ‘core issues’ you refer to if people hadn’t ignored this advice which is so convenient for the perps. You only get ‘proof’ by continuing to dig and uncovering more layers of the onion. It’s a process.

Marky complains that “The first thing [Judy Wood] looked at was what could cause it, she compiled a list of possibilities and picked the most likely.” Isn’t that what those who uncovered the controlled demolition of, say WTC7, did? Should they instead have picked the least likely explanation (I guess that would be suspension of the laws of physics) to research, instead of CD?

Science usually starts with a hypothesis to be investigated, then you see how it fits with the facts and evidence you have before you. Your hypothesis may be proved or disproved at a stroke, or evidence for or against it may be incremental and build up bit by bit. I am suggesting that the incremental indications of use and cover-up over directed energy or other ‘exotic’ weapons has reached the stage of ‘most likely’ being justified.

We can’t ‘prove’ in a legal sense any aspect of the whole operation until we get to court. No matter how much you may call on the laws of physics as ‘proof’ and say ‘buildings can’t fall at free-fall speed without the use of explosives’ (or ‘planes can’t enter buildings intact’), people can always deny that your argument is proof, and as we have seen on this board and elsewhere, they regularly do.

So let’s quit pandering and get on with finding out as much as we can about all areas of 9/11.

[MadgeB]

Sorry, double-posting caused by computer prob...

[marky 54]

qoute:
Science usually starts with a hypothesis to be investigated, then you see how it fits with the facts and evidence you have before you. Your hypothesis may be proved or disproved at a stroke, or evidence for or against it may be incremental and build up bit by bit. I am suggesting that the incremental indications of use and cover-up over directed energy or other ‘exotic’ weapons has reached the stage of ‘most likely’ being justified. qoute end:

thats the problem ive seen no evidence to support the hypothesis that is conclusive other than laser weapons exsist, ive seen nothing that shows they were used on 9/11 or proves they can do what we see on 9/11 yet people(not you) are convinced they were used but on what basis?

it also seems strange to strat a hypothesis by claiming beams were used and then finding evidence to fit it, maybe the evidence side should of been done first before the claiming it was beams, hypothesis - research - result(it was/it wasnt beams), hypothesis - result(it was beams) - research, which is it? seeing as though there is nothing conclusive so far that can show 100% it was beams i think it was a big mistake to say it was beams in the first place, if beams were researched as a possibility without the promotion that it was beams i'd see no problem at all.

assuming the weapon without conclusive evidence misleads people and is a potential downfall when coming to a time of proving it in court, as ive seen nothing so far that stands up, so promoting anything without being able to show it in terms of the how is a big mistake as there is likely only one shot if it goes to court so we'd better make sure we get it right, i am concerned however as noone has shown that beams were used yet promote it as 100% fact(not you) or violently(in speech terms) oppose anyone who questions it(not you).

qoute; Marky complains that “The first thing [Judy Wood] looked at was what could cause it, she compiled a list of possibilities and picked the most likely.” Isn’t that what those who uncovered the controlled demolition of, say WTC7, did? Should they instead have picked the least likely explanation (I guess that would be suspension of the laws of physics) to research, instead of CD? end qoute:

also i love they way you take what im saying as a complaint because i dont support some of the methods used or agree with them so therefore im just complaining:roll:

i feel if i am complaining then i am complaining for good reason as some of the evidence is concerning if it was to be used in court or to make people realise 9/11 was an inside job.

if judy wood did pick the most likely explaination, why are we still waiting for the explaination of how the beams caused all the destruction and proof that beams CAN cause all the destruction on 9/11? CD hypothsis has already done that and matches any other example of a CD.

this is where im puzzled on why or how beams can be uttered when there are NO examples of beams destroying buildings to show they CAN or make people think this is the most likely explaination . CD hypothesis came about because of the matching charactistics of a CD, where did the beam hypothesis come from? other than just picking out a random weapon, what made judy wood think yes it was beams when we have never seen or heard of beams destroying buildings ever before in history before 9/11?

so yes i'd say she picked out the most unlikely at the time or she can see something or has seen something we are all missing and has not been explained to us.

there is one thing most agree on though and that is the how isnt important, thank god.

[Bongo]

[MadgeB]

OK Bongo, so I take it you can’t provide any backup for your assertion that talking about directed energy weapons provides ammo for the criminals. Perhaps instead you could point me to something about how conventional controlled demolition (plus or minus thermite or thermate) explains the wilted vehicles etc. I’ve asked that question before on this board but no one came up with anything. If you can do that, I’ll be glad to look into it and find out how you came to the conclusion that no beam weapons were involved.

Marky - No doubt I put things badly in my previous post as I’m not a scientist, so thanks for making me look again. JW says: “In August 2006, we began looking at the bathtub which protected the WTC and it led us to look at more data. The data told us what destroyed the twin towers. The data told us that directed-energy weapons must exist. We were not aware that the US military had directed-energy weapons. After we concluded that some sort of energy weapon was used, we looked for evidence that such weapons exist and found it, as documented here.” So she says the evidence led her to formulate a hypothesis that some sort of directed energy system was used, because the other theories that were in the running (the official theory; conventional demolition; CD plus explosives; CD plus thermite or its variants; fission or fusion nukes etc) did NOT explain all the data. (Although IMO no one starts closely looking at data unless they are already dissatisfied with existing explanations and therefore they have some kind of ‘hypothesis’ or axe to grind before they start.)

Anyway, it looks as if her point is not easily understood and it would help if she could try and explain in a non-technical way what characteristics directed energy weapons in particular would have (‘slicing’ etc) that would match the data she wanted to explain (eg holes in the buildings). Also the relevance of the power cuts, the meaning of ‘energy wave reflections’ (relevance to the toasted cars etc), to this particular focusing of energy. In other words, can she explain for the non-scientist on what basis she inferred the existence of DEWs?

I know you said Marky that you don’t believe it’s important to find out how all those people were murdered, but do you think people who do want to look into it should be silenced?

[marky 54]

[MadgeB]

Well I’m glad you’re not of the hush-‘em-up tendency Marky. I want to try and explain one reason why I think you might get an overly aggressive response in questioning the use of direct energy weapons.

Let’s assume for a moment that the perps did use DEWs. It would obviously be the MOST secret thing about the operation, as the crime couldn’t then be pinned on any patsies etc - only the military (or shall we say the military wing of the military-industrial complex) could have pulled this off. As their story begins to unravel, they could be tempted to say, for example, OK - we admit bombs/thermite etc were used to bring down the towers and now we know who did it - here are the guilty parties who were working with Al-Qaeda (the ‘limited hangout’).

So if it was true, then the perps would have a direct interest in turning 9/11 researchers away from that path of enquiry and discrediting their ideas within the truth movement. From this perspective it looks like those who relentlessly attack Judy Wood (and others like her) are really working for the other side. I’m not saying that an aggressive response would be the right way to tackle this problem in all circumstances, but it explains the bitterness between the Jones/Wood camps and why feelings often run high.

Also, in this scenario if you did get to court with just the ‘their story can’t be true’ argument, the criminals could still get off the hook with the limited hangout, as you wouldn’t be following the right line of enquiry to lead you to those ultimately responsible.

Now that there has been a rift in the 9/11 movement between the two major camps I’m afraid it affects every aspect of research, activism, internet forums etc, and this problem will not go away until we get nearer the full truth of the matter. Hopefully Judy Wood’ challenge to NIST will help in that.

[Bongo]

Madge B wrote...

[MadgeB]

No Bongo, I was asking for BACKUP of your assertion that talking about DEWs provided ammo for the OCT-ers, not just a repeat of your assertion.

If it's 'ammo', then surely it must have been picked up and used by OCT-ers? Can you point me to an article, book, TV clip, anything, which says something along the lines of, "Well those people are so looney they actually say the government used beam weapons in destroying the WTC. I might just have been able to accept that the government let it happen or made it happen, but the idea they should use advanced destructive methods is so crazy it just proves these 9/11 truthers are all nutters! Case closed."

In the meanwhile, I'll have a look at the wilted vehicles clip - thanks for offering a response anyway.

And BTW I haven't posted under any other name than this one.

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

1 this building was damaged by fire.

2 this building was damaged by explosives.

3 this building was damaged by energy weapons.

what one thing must you know first before coming to those conclusions when investigating a crime/accident?

this is the only other way i can think of wording it to explain better what my point is.

if you know the answer then you must agree the person coming to that conclusion must have evidence to explain or demonstrate this and has a full understanding of how these things work enabling them to be sure which one it was. therefore where is that evidence that says it was beams and how did she know before knowing if they exsisted and how they worked and what their signs were?

[MadgeB]

Unfortunately the clip linked to by Bongo didn’t address the question. I was already aware that explosions could cause damage, burning etc to vehicles. The question was about what might cause the metal on one part of the vehicle to ‘wilt’, while the rest of the vehicle remained intact, what might cause an engine to catch fire while the gas tank didn’t explode, etc.

I would imagine, from a common-sense point of view, that if a car was engulfed and turned over by a fireball it would likely suffer damage all over, and we do see completely burned-out cars. The intriguing thing is that we also see, for example, a fire truck which is part scorched and wilted, part intact. I’ve attached one picture from Judy Wood’s website below but there are plenty more.

So the question is partly about selective damage, and this is why the term ‘directed energy’ seems to fit here, as I was envisaging something that could be focused on a relatively small specific area (see for example the ‘holes’ in WTC buildings), maybe a beam whose edge might just ‘catch’ and superheat part of a vehicle, leading the metal to ‘wilt’ while leaving the rest intact.

I take your point Marky that it needs to be explained better and I said above that the relevance of the power cuts, the meaning of ‘energy wave reflections’ (relevance to the toasted cars etc) needs to be clarified for people such as myself. But no other theory has even attempted to explain these strange phenomena so far.

[Bongo]

[MadgeB]

Bongo - I did watch the video you keep posting, I’ve also watched a video of a presentation Judy Wood prepared http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=77942 and obviously looked at the website.

These show that she doesn’t at all base her arguments on one ‘single photo', any more than I base what I said on one photo of a firetruck. Even if it was the case that Judy Wood didn’t do her argument justice when Greg Jenkins was badgering her, that doesn’t invalidate her argument in itself - surely as a scientist you must agree the logic of that. The constant attacks on her prompted me to look further into what she was saying, what Steven Jones and Co were saying about her and where they were coming from, and come to my own conclusion.

Lumps of concrete and steel may well have fallen onto the truck in question, as you say. But I still find the pattern of destruction very strange, in that those lumps of concrete and steel seem to have been hot enough to cause the metal to wilt and droop in front and the nearby part of the top, while leaving the door next to them unscathed. As I said, there are many photos of many unusual phenomena, and it starts to get like a ‘Popular Mechanics’ thing where Wood’s critics offer (if you’re lucky) one reason for one photo, then different reasons for every other photo until the whole chain of circumstances becomes too improbable.

Anyway, I’m glad to see that Rosie O’Donnell has her head screwed on and is interested in Judy’s research:
http://www.total911.info/2007/04/rosie-curious-on-911-exo-weaponry.htm l

[Stefan]

I don't quite know how this artical lead to a discussion of beam weapons, but to return to topic...

I can't be the only person to think that in retrospect this sighting is perfectly consistant with the half theory proposed in the "pentacon" film and suggested if not explicably stated by PFT and snowygrouch's findings.

I'm referring to the idea that the plane did not hit the pentagon but over flew over it.

[Snowygrouch]

There is nothing "secret" or wonderful about a laser. Its just an attempt to create another thing to shoot down enemy satellites or ICBMs.

All a laser is; is this. A high energy beam of light with a very very narrow width. Very good for buring through things.

Laser cutting is now a standard industrial process. I`ve had loads of "laser beam weapon cutting" done over the years.

Great for making little holes or cutting shapes out of metal sheet.

Absolutely no bloody good at all for blowing things up. All any laser can do is to durn a pencil tip thin cut in things. It`s not about to go all "independence day" on you. Things that produce that prescice effect DONT EXIST outside of Hollywood.

C.

[Bongo]

Thank goodness and well said Snowy...

If a super high energy beam was used to melt (explode the buildings) (again... ), wouldn't the people inside the buildings who got out after the collapse have fried?

Anyone with an iota of scientific understanding KNOWS that conventional explosives were used to bring the towers down.

And... Madge... our conversation is now over.
I give up... you are obviously right OK? (once again )

[MadgeB]

I understand the term ‘directed energy weapon’ encompasses more than lasers. Apparently ARA, the DEW company employed by NIST, was a founding sponsor of The Directed Energy Professional Society, which says it ‘fosters research and development in directed energy (DE), including high energy laser (HEL) and high power microwave (HPM) technologies’. Including, but not limited to, presumably.

My own view (so far) is that conventional CD was used as well as more exotic stuff.

BTW Snowygrouch I finally watched your Ipswich presentation today and the plaudits are well-deserved, it was really good. Funny to think you would have been branded a threat to the truth movement if you’d suggested a few years ago that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon!