| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Would it be possible to start another less excitable thread, where what is known about Directed Energy Weapons can be laid out, hard information posted and discussed without all the sensationalised and emotive elements?
Anybody in agreement for that?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Great Idea Chek - why don't you start it off - I'm sure it will be of great interest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Would it be possible to start another less excitable thread, where what is known about Directed Energy Weapons can be laid out, hard information posted and discussed without all the sensationalised and emotive elements?
Anybody in agreement for that? |
Umm - great idea - yeah. I kind of tried to put some bits of evidence here - maybe a bit of jumble of things but, ye know... a few threads for people to look at, n'est ce pas?
We'll be discussing Tunguska before you know it...!!! Oops... I'm damaging the movement again. Soz.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andyb wrote: |
Andrew,
I realise you are your own man, you are also a moderator on this forum that hopefully will be attracting new people regularly. This theory still needs work as it sounds too far fetched for a lot on here, let alone the man on the street or any new members. I started looking into 9/11 after the Meacher article, then went on the internet and saw all the pod stuff and discounted it all for about 18 months, I just don't want this doing the same to others. You at least post the no 7x7 and this theory quite lucidly and answer questions politely, unlike certain others who are less qualified than yourself. Like I said before would it not be more productive for you to lobby engineers etc to get them on board for CD, which you admit is still a contreversial theory. |
I agree Andy, this forum is begining to sound silly and perhaps rather shilly as well! 
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Would it be possible to start another less excitable thread, where what is known about Directed Energy Weapons can be laid out, hard information posted and discussed without all the sensationalised and emotive elements?
Anybody in agreement for that? |
Come on you can't be serious - this would only work if there was ongoing hardcore admin, you've just laid down the gauntlet to every dedicated troll to disrupt with gusto. You really think that simply stating that 'this is a serious thread' would stave off the numpties??
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
23.02 KB |
| Viewed: |
158 Time(s) |
|
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alwun
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 282
Location: london
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: let's go out on a limbo |
|
|
Hey chek,
I posted just your thought a cple days ago in the suggestions forum. We can hang out on 'Delusional Drive', just like the critics on their corner. Let's go.
cheers Al..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:42 pm Post subject: Energy weapons |
|
|
I blame the Flouride....................
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andyb wrote: | | Like I said before would it not be more productive for you to lobby engineers etc to get them on board for CD, which you admit is still a contreversial theory. |
Quite possibly - yes - but we have tried this approach already (and 4 people were involved at the ICE conference March - Ian Neal, Sinclair, Annie and me. Jane also offered to help. I printed and bound about 110 booklets of Steven E Jones paper - as well as burning 110 DVDs of his February presentation. These were distributed to said Engineering conference delegates
The thing is, the evidence is there for people to view and discuss. People will come onto this board, find what they find and form an opinion. Anybody coming on here can PM anyone to ask quesitons, or they can sign up and post them.
The board is already being targetted by "other groups" as has been repeatedly demonstrated. So, I can only think that things are unfolding in a way which is a result of the "push and pull" of forces which are at work in this arena.
I have tried to engage several members of the OPen University and someone I know from 2 other Universities. None of them have chosen to partake in any kind of debate (and this initiative predates the increased polarisation of views as regards NBB and Directed Energy Weapon evidence discussion which has begun in the last few weeks here).
I choose to engage people with CD evidence, as I have stated over and over again - the "man in street" here in Derby thinks only 2 towers fell down on 9/11. They don't know about any of the topics discussed on this thread.
So, I shall continue to spend my time pretty much as I have been doing - sticking up stickers, producing, printing, posting and offering my own campaign materials at little or no cost to others, moderating the board a bit and trying to keep up with those who are ahead of me in this strange game we are playing.
Oops - a bit of a digression, but there you go...
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| xmasdale wrote: | We continue to get tied in knots because it is not clear what the purpose of this discussion board is. Researchers want to use it to discuss the finer points of 9/11 research on what must have happened, while campaigners want to use it to present a credible picture of the campaign to the public. These are mutually incompatible objectives. This website needs to be divorced from the campaign so that on it people can discuss what ever they like without their opinions being taken as those of the campaign.
Personally I am far more interested in presenting a credible campaign than in discovering details about how the 9/11 attacks were carried out. If I discovered incontovertible evidence that the attacks were organised by little blue creatures from Mars, but the proof of that could only be understood by someone with a PhD in genetics, I would not consider that proof a useful campaigning tool.
The campaigning technique I would employ is one where we show the evidence and pose the tough questions, but do not attempt to describe what we think really happened in any detail. To claim we know what happened only serves to divide us because we all have different ideas about it.
People who want to discuss what they think really happened should be able to do so in a place where their opinions are not taken as representative of the campaign.
Noel |
I agree that Truthers often tend to fall into the 'researcher' or 'activist' category, though they can very easily be both as Andrew Johnson manages most notably to be.
I have to say I think debate, ideally without the absurd and thoroughly chilish name-calling that tends to subsistute for reasoned argument, is a good sign and that a board without lively discussion is a dead board - a bit like 911truth.org, which for all its qualites is as living as the fossil room in the Natural History museum.
I personally, a scientific layman, find the beam weapon hypothesis to be well worthy of our serious and considered attention. It could be the 'missing link' which I have long felt eluded our understanding of how the twin towers came down with so little obvious rubble.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| andrewwatson wrote: | | I personally, a scientific layman, find the beam weapon hypothesis to be well worthy of our serious and considered attention. It could be the 'missing link' which I have long felt eluded our understanding of how the twin towers came down with so little obvious rubble. |
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.
| Quote: | The required properties of the lightweight concrete will have a bearing on the best type of lightweight aggregate to use. If little structural requirement, but high thermal insulation properties are needed, then a light, weak aggregate can be used. This will result in relatively low strength concrete.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=134 |
We can't be sure without more research but we might expect the thermal insulation properties of a lightweight concrete would be more desirable due to the high standards of fire proofing for skyscrapers. Selecting a concrete mix for thermal properties would therefore mean a trade off against strength. Therefore large cast slabs (the concrete for the towers was poured on site) of weak concrete may have been expected to pulverise to dust upon collapse.
More about lightweight concrete here: http://www.cementindustry.co.uk/PDF/Lightweight%20Concrete%20Oct%20200 0.pdf
If we believe that the towers were brought down due to explosive devices we must consider the nature of such explosives. We all understand how thermite works but how about RDX?
| Quote: | The velocity of detonation of RDX at a density of 1.76 grams/cm3 is 8,750 meters per second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX
Explosive velocity is the velocity at which the shockwave front travels through a detonated explosive. It is usually measured in metres per second (m.s-1), but is only ever a rough prediction based upon gas behavior theory, (see Chapman-Jouguet condition) as in practise it is rather hard to measure. Velocities often reach into several kilometres per second, as is the case for nitroglycerin, where the explosive velocity has been cited as 7700 m.s-1.
If the explosive is confined before detonation (such as TNT in an artillery shell), the force produced is focused on a much smaller area (the barrel of the gun), and the pressure is massively intensified. This results in explosive velocity that is much higher than if the explosive had been detonated in open air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_detonation |
So can we stop talking about pulverised concrete as it not really an issue although it may well point to the use of RDX, at least in part.
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patrick, you've accumulated 400 posts in a month and nearly everyone is calling people a shill, it's getting really boring mate.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | | Patrick, you've accumulated 400 posts in a month and nearly everyone is calling people a shill, it's getting really boring mate. |
Err I think the boring bit is having to put up with people constantly pushing sh*t like the no planes theory. Hey maybe I'll p*ss off soon as I'm getting really sick to death of the simple minded shilly shellying that exist on many threads here.
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
+1
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
As said, simple minded.
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bicnarok
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 334
Location: Cydonia
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: ha ha |
|
|
When I read the first post I nearly laughed my head off, but reading some of the links, it makes you think in dimensions one wouldn´t normally wonder.
_________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind..." Bod Marley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
