FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC - The Tower Collapses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Neo
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:52 pm    Post subject: Stop the Madness!!!! Reply with quote

This is the only specific discussion of 9/11 I intend to get into here, since it is to my mind the only issue that needs to be discussed. NORAD stand-downs, abnormal stock trades, cell phones in airplanes, missing pieces of airplanes, blah blah blah. — What is all this crap? You’ve got controlled demolitions of both buildings on tape. The discussion is over.

I was through studying 9/11 before most of the people who are now “the movement” even got started. It was Peter Meyer's page that got me going. It was originally put up some time around late October 2001, and looked pretty much the same as it looks today, except for what's added after section 12. This guy had the thing cracked six weeks after it happened, and everyone spun off of his stuff in the months that followed, most without even crediting him. I can't remember how long it took exactly, but it was probably over a year before there was really enough traction for anything like a movement to get started. Your so-called "truth seekers" are mostly timid souls, and in the face of the kind of mass fear and reluctance to question-out-loud that you had back then, there were very few people willing to stand up and say this was bullshit. By the time that started happening, I was already sick of dealing with it.

If Fintan is actually going to try to hold a debate about "whether" the towers were blown up, then I'm audi. You got yourself just one more slick disinfo agent in that case. There is absolutely no refutation of this statement possible in the real world. -- Alas, how few people still live in that world.

How do we know this to be the case? For the very simple reason that the amount of energy necessary to accomplish the demolition was many times the gravitational potential energy of the towers themselves. -- Exactly how many times you can only estimate; but certainly it is something of at least the second order of magnitude greater. -- That is, several hundred times as much as the energy the towers possessed simply by virtue of the height of their materials above the ground. There was a certain amount of energy invested to hoist the girders into their positions. And we recognize, as a matter of common sense ("Common sense is very uncommon." --Doc Kumra, my Grade 10 physics teacher), that all of this energy is a mere drop in the bucket next to the utterly massive amounts which were required to break hundreds of steel columns in hundreds of places each (essentially at every floor level, or at least every other floor); to turn 4 inches of poured concrete on every floor foundation into fine dust which coated the streets around the WTC for blocks; to rip the steel sheets ("baffles" I think they're called in construction) on to which the concrete was poured literally to shreds; and so on. All of that destruction came about through the agency of something entirely other than the "pancaking" of the floors, falling on each other in turn.

I think the "pancake" explanation works on most people in this country today because it's such a close analogy to the state of their own minds. Most of them have got a big stack of blueberry pancakes with a side of bacon filling in for the space that, in human beings of yesteryear, was occupied by this organ called a "brain." We have a free-fall collapse of two buildings, where everything holding the floors apart, and holding the building in an upright position, suddenly decides that its day is done, and it will now offer no resistance to the will of Allah, which dictates that it shall one and all come to pieces and disintegrate into a pile of billions of shards of broken metal and fine particles of dust. -- And this is supposed to pass the bar of public opinion. -- And, wonder of wonders, it actually does. Providing proof-positive of the above-stated contention that most people in this country have some platter from a Denny's menu standing in for anything resembling rational intelligence.

Take a wrench. Drop it off the top of your favorite building. — Does is break? — Then why the hell do you expect massive steel girders to break? Look at a wrench. Look at a girder. What exactly is going on in your brain when you buy this stuff about girders breaking because they fall some distance, or some girder falls onto them? -- Or did you think they just welded them together like popsicle sticks? This building was just a bunch of little break-away sections, nutted and bolted together like an erector set.

The actual mechanism of the collapse is irrelevant. You’re not going to be able to prove one way or the other what it was that provided the energy. For curiosity’s sake we can speculate that, as the WTC was originally commissioned by NWO architects David and Nelson Rockefeller, it was most likely constructed with this very purpose in view. When the plans were first on the table in the 60s, there was a huge outcry from property owners in lower Manhattan who didn’t want this monster being built. -- What if there’s a hurricane? An earthquake? And these things come down? Can you imagine the result? -- Suddenly all that opposition ceases. Because, one speculates, they were shown the plans for a fail-safe that was built-in to bring down the towers down in a controlled manner in the event of their becoming unstable. And that fail-safe was the concrete. The concrete was itself an explosive compound. Which explains why it all became dust on September 11. And why the Port Authority and FEMA would never show anyone the plans for the buildings.

I put this synopsis together from a few different pieces. The explosive concrete was Jim Hoffman’s. For some reason he was reluctant to discuss it publicly at the time he gave it to me. The information on the debate over the construction of the towers I found in various articles that I’d have to go back and search for at this point. This was all years ago. Back when I decided that, if people can’t get their heads around 9/11, and proceed onwards, then there’s absolutely no point in wasting your time with them. Our real problems are yet to come. But you still want to debate whether there was a controlled demolition? And this nearly five years later? — Just go home and enjoy what time you have left, before the real show starts. You’re no good to anyone in that case. You’re no good to yourself. When you see the guys in gas masks coming up your front yard, then you’ll know people like me weren’t just bullshitting you.

There were a bunch of other bombs used to assist the principal demolition. These started going off right after the planes hit, making a mess out of the lobby. The foundation was probably vaporized by a micro-nuke a few seconds before the collapse begins. It was still molten metal months later when they got down that far. — Whatever.
Back to top
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:12 pm    Post subject: Not so much... Reply with quote

Quote:
But you still want to debate whether there was a controlled demolition?


Not so much that, IMHO, but more just looking at the way that the story is being fashioned. I think the question is more,

"Is this any sort of *known*, conventional demo technique?"

and if not, then what...

Obviously the towers were brought down by something other that just vanilla 'planes - but what?

Personally, I think there is a good possibility that the buildings had the means of their demise built into them. Doesn't *have* to be RDX or C4 or anything that's even publicly known about.

Don't you think that the Mil/Ind complex has more than likely come out with classes of explosives over the past 60 years that're hugely time-stable, and don't resemble anything known about in the open literature?

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok - I agree this concept is not a complete no brainer, but IMO, no where near comparable to Mickey Atta and the Mainstream McWhoppers.

I think Christopher's site shows sound logic and analysis, and cites ample evidence, where available. I have searched the internet for more information on the construction process of the towers, and curiously, it appears to be absent. Nothing. Try for yourself, please.

The writing style on Christopher's site is terse and direct, and presents his theory with little editorializing and no fart jokes. Dan Brown he ain't. Thank God.

So, perhaps I will attempt an analysis of his theory in my own words, using my classic 'Live from the Comedy Club' routine. At least then I'll be able to quote my own hilarity, or focus on my own lack of clarity.

In the meantime though...

Just0 wrote:
Building explosives into the structure still seems like a risk not worth taking, especially since the plan is to slam 767's into the towers, theres a chance that things could deviate from the script..... and thats not their style.


Building the demolition procedure into the design would only be a risk if the building were to be demo'd any other way, as there was no other way to take the buildings down without triggering the demo sequence.

Therefore, some other 'cause' needed to be present to explain the collapse, hence the planes. The 'script' involving the planes was not an influential factor in the building design. The actual demo sequence was triggered by the explosives pre-planted in the buildings where the planes hit during the top half 'powerdown' which occurred the weekend before.

The trigger charges were on timers, and were gonna blow, plane or no plane - so that's why FOUR planes were 'hijacked', and why the other two 'disappeared' - they gave themselves four opportunities to hit two towers. IMO, if either of the planes had missed, there'd be no Pentagon or Let's Roll controversies right now.

WTC 7 was brought down in an attempt to direct suspicions of 'controlled demolition' toward pre-selected patsies that could never be proven, as none of the evidence suggests the towers were 'classic demolition'. In fact, that kind of building could not have been brought down with 'classic' demo techniques, as the towers were not designed at all like 'modern steel framed high rises'.

The problem was not that the C4 'might go off', while the towers were standing, but rather that there was no way to remove the building without triggering the demo sequence built into the core and the floors. They knew damn well that the trigger charges would initiate the sequence, they just needed to provide an 'explanation' for the rest of the world - one so surreal it would temporarily short circuit rational thought through trauma. Enter Osama McDonald and the flying Scamburglers .

Rumple wrote:
...or have these photos been faked?


I think they actually are evidence in favor of this concept - you can see that the core is not simply a bunch of steel pipes, but a concrete box design, built up a few floors above the rest of the building (by a 'special' government team, after the area had been 'cleared' by explosives experts, I might add..)

Quote:
Regarding helicopter photos referred to as pictures of core columns at upper phases:

What you see in the photos of tower construction within the official story are the kangaroo cranes used to move material, the interior forms, and elevator guide rails, or to position the rebar hanging into the concrete pour. The steel framework was built up to 7 floors over the top of the concrete core being constructed inside of the steel frame obscuring the core construction from view. Other photos when the construction is lower show elevator guide rails. These are being mis identified as "core columns" on some web sites.

Photos and the tower construction.

Before another core tier could be formed, the elevator guide rails had to be lowered and set in place to a level 2 floors lower than the top of the present concrete pour. They are what is shown in the diagram at the top of this page, the FEMA core. The guide rails are presented as multiple, narrow rectangular tubes that supposedly ran full length for the tower. Elevator guide rails can be identified by their square ends.

Photos at ground zero.

There is a photo showing the bottom basement foundation level where various columns, cut off, protrude from the concrete bottom. There is a workman near center in the photo wearing brown coveralls, firefighters are in the foreground. These columns are often referred to as "core columns". The columns that rise up from inside the concrete channels forming the interior base of the concrete core are mostly elevator guide rails. To the right of the workman in the background is an interior box column that has a fresh torch cut, at an angle, with slag hanging from the cut. Its dimensions, proportions and thickness are different. The photo is looking north through the line of the north perimeter wall of WTC 1 from just west or perhaps still inside the tower core footprint.

If they were the full length core columns shown in the FEMA diagram, where are they in the image below that shows the concrete tubular core of WTC 2 standing momentarily, half fallen, without the outer steel framework?

[...]

The actual slowdown in construction was when it was revealed by the government agency constructing, and the videographers had to pry for this information, that there was a special anti corrosion, anti vibration resistant coating on the rebar of the concrete core structure. The coating was flammable and special precautions were to be taken, meaning the government would handle the butt welding of the 3 inch vertical bar prior to regular crews running the horizontal minor steel that is tied with wire.

A special crew with armed escorts outside visual screens removed the coating from the bars, beveled the bar ends, welded the bars (welders working on the main steel couldn't be used because they didn't have security clearances) and x-rayed them. After each tier of concrete was poured the welding had to be completed before the concrete forms could be built again.

Keep this concrete core deception in mind because every single web analysis out supporting the official story uses the FEMA information. Floor truss analysis use a different beam system, less, than what was actually in the towers.

[...]
THE SPIRE


The core shown on the FEMA site, nor the other core design released right after 9-11 WILL leave a spire standing like we see below and no visible multiple, heavy core columns. No part of the FEMA core could have this appearance as it is halfway demolished!

[...]

Below is image of a spire that stood for 14 seconds comprised of one corner of the interior box columns that were fastened to the outside of the concrete core. This connection between interior columns and the concrete made the core a load bearing and anti torsion element for the steel framework configured as a tube around the concrete tube comprised of four smaller vertically interrupted tubular elements formed by the interior walls.



THE REBAR


The below photo has a comb like shape of the remnant of the reinforcing bars of the core, briefly standing. The FEMA core cannot leave this shape. There are too many elements and they are too small. The box columns in the spire image above are about the same size as the steel columns the core was supposedly made from. There were 47 and they were hand fabricated in 40 foot sections then 100% welded in place. The below photo was taken at approximately the same distance.


Below are a long row of 3" rebar on 4 foot centers seen at approximately 7500 feet.


In the video documentary of the construction it was noted that the special plastic coating was tested after sitting for longer periods during bad weather that didn't allow pouring of concrete. When good weather returned, the concrete was poured. Following this, it was discoverd that the coating of the rod had lost some of its viability. It was noted that nothing could be done and construction continued with freshly coated horizontal smaller rebar. The new rebar was critical to removing the concrete and LEAVING the large vertical rebar standing as we see it in this photo.


The slope to the top of the rebar was mentioned in the documentary. The engineers specified that the concrete pours not terminate with level opposing joints across the tower to maximize the strength of the tubular concrete tower core as an anti torsion element. Also the rebar was to be welded in series of butt joints in a slope across the walls of the core. Slopes ran in opposite directions on opposite sides maximizing torsion resistence of the tube. The slope of the tops of the rebar in the photo below show this.



[...]

The below image shows the interior box columns and a stair well sandwiching the thick base of the core. High tensile steel rebar protrudes from the top of the cast concrete. Due to the proximity of the high explosive on the bar with a slight inequality of thickness of the explosive on the side, one side of the rebar was subjected to higher pressures than the other resulting in the uniform coiled shape of the three rebar that are visible.



From: Demolition, the truth of 9-11 and the WTC
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1148354


Cryptic as this may sound, it's the only thing so far that explains what I see in the collapse videos.

It also explains FEMA's insistence on 'steel cores', for if that ain't the case, there's no batter for them pancakes.

It also explains why Larry's insurance adjusters whispered quietly out of the side of their mouth, "uh...core failure.."

I'll see if I can re-present this material to better show why it makes such perfect sense to me... now, where's that rubber chicken...?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8138

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:03 pm    Post subject: Tapering Towers Reply with quote

Here's some tower collapse Video Archives:

Quote:

http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/tower-explosions.htm
http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:4t6-jmJcl6sJ:911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html+&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1
http://xenonpuppy.net/video%20archive/


The image below is from Christopher's website. (Thanks.)
He emphasises that the core is reinforced-concrete surrounded by beams.
(A core without the concrete would have flexed too much.)

And this gives you a good idea of how the tower mass tapers.



The towers look like they go straight up with parallel sides.
But that's just the appearance!

The mass of the building is entirely different.
Everything about this building tapers, in effect.

For example, I have read that the steel in WTC1 where the first plane
struck, is about half the thickness of the steel in WTC2 where the
second plane struck.

A difference of half in steel column mass over only 20 floors or so!

Here's my effort at showing the Towers as represented by their real mass:

Could the tops of these towers have crushed
the lower concrete-reinforced cores??




Last edited by Fintan on Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Could the tops of these towers have crushed
the lower concrete-reinforced cores??


Only if the cores were made of sausage, and the planes were carrying massive loads of maple syrup. This would have initiated a chain reaction of sugary delight, which contradicts both what we see in the collapse video and the conclusions of the independent IHOP investigation. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
Quote:
Could the tops of these towers have crushed
the lower concrete-reinforced cores??


Only if the cores were made of sausage, and the planes were carrying massive loads of maple syrup. This would have initiated a chain reaction of sugary delight, which contradicts both what we see in the collapse video and the conclusions of the independent IHOP investigation. Wink

I waited a long time for the joke u promised, but it was worth it. Laughing

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So.... now that I've stopped waffling, and digested this IHOP feast (sorry, couldn't resist)... what are the conclusions - aside from the technical nuts and bolts - in regards to disinfo?

That - if st911 and the Stephen E. Jones crew are indeed disinfo agents, then... all they have to do is come up with endless theories about HE that would have to have been installed right before 9/11, during the suspicious power-downs of the previous month, while in actuality, the CD device was there all along? Or, are the power-downs disinfo themselves. Would there have to be any suspicious activity at all, other than perhaps the setting of the timers, which could have been placed in the most discrete of locations anyway?

The removal of the "bomb-sniffing dogs" in the weeks before - more red herrings, to shore up the "bombs being installed right then" scenario?

Prof. Jones has flatly denied that nukes could have been used, which takes any conventional suspicion that's already pointed towards him and directs it towards the small nuke theories. If he's lying, then he's covering up the nukes theory, so that looks like it must be the answer.

And it turns out that indeed, the dreaded, the fabled, the proverbial Occam's Razor "simplest theory" once again shines through?

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Neo
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:47 pm    Post subject: A Handful of Dust Reply with quote

The “pryroclastic flow” was originally pointed out by Jeff King, and then hyped by Jim Hoffman in his presentations. That speech by King is seminal. Here’s one video (Windows Media format) that contains it, starting at 43:00 minutes:

http://www.solargeneral.com/video/AwakenAndAvenge.wmv

Notice that he’s talking about the squibs, and his military friend who pointed them out. He was probably the first to do that, as well. -- Talk about squibs. -- Squibs are characteristic of classic demolition. The alternative theories I’m aware of involve scalar weapons. Plasma howitzers and so forth. Disruption of molecular bonds. It’s hard to imagine they have something precise enough to focus, and powerful enough to channel, that kind of energy from a satellite, so the weapon is presumably in the basement and, the theory runs, powered by a small nuclear bomb. Alternatively, it’s in WTC 7. It isn’t necessarily something that looks like a canon, and doesn’t necessarily need a clear path through which to fire.

As evidenced by the squibs, you’ve at least got some portion of the demolition wave that’s attributable to conventional explosives. Now, how are you’re going to identify the presence of some other contributing factor? You’re not going to see what’s going on in the videos, because it’s hidden by a huge cloud of dust. You’re not going to know what to look for in any case, because it’s some kind of top secret, advanced physics thingee, and you won’t find any info on it, and what happens when you use it. -- Assuming you can even guess what it is.

So I’d say, look at the dust. The composition of it, as somebody posted above. Can you get that resulting mixture, of such fineness, with explosives? Or are you talking about something more?
Back to top
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8138

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:01 pm    Post subject: Molten, molten, molten. Reply with quote

Few nice lines of inquiry opening up. Good posts folks.

Some more info for the mix.
This details reports of molten steel in the debris area.

Let's just ignore the reports of this by Chris Bollyn of AFP (details at link).
Just see the wide range of reports. Can we dismiss all these?

Quote:
VIDEO
Molten Metal found at the WTC months after 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3D2myMbQjQ

Quote:
Molten, molten, molten.

Molten Steel in Ground Zero Rubble

A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving:

"everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2

A report on the Government Computer News website quotes
Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:

"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel
beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel"
3

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter
"Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep
within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were:

"dripping from the molten steel." 4

A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain
Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:

"The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while
before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten
metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the
heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes
hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat."
5

A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery
work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some
pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
6

A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes
Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for
Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who
arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:

"Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon
layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the
thousands who fled that disaster."
7

An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of
Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural
engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains
this passage:

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running."
8

A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at
Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on
which an article containing the following passage is based.

"Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that
there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains.
Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained
intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
9

The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of
conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage:

"... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from
the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole."
10

A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post
describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling

"heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." 11


* Most of the press reports compiled here were gathered by other
researchers, including Matthew Everett, the author of Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before;
David Ray Griffin; and the author of posts on georgewashington.blogspot.com.

References

1. Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc., The Daily Record, 10/7/00
2. D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime, WasteAge.com, 4/1/02 [cached]
3. Handheld app eased recovery tasks, GCN.com, 9/11/02 [cached]
4. Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02 [cached]
5. The Chaplain's Tale, RecordOnline.com, [cached]
6. Mobilizing Public Health, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, [cached]
7. The scene at Ground Zero, NEHA.org,
8. WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News, , page 3
9. Ground Zero, 12/01
10. American Ground, , page 32
11. Unflinching Look Among the Ruins, NYPost.com, 3/3/04

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html


Now, with Chris Bollyn's entry into this area, his quotes from Loiseaux
and Tully have been undermined and used to discredit the idea of
molten metal in the debris.

See: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

We also have S. E. Jones layering the 'thermite' issue all over the question
of molten metal. And if he's discredited, then the molten issue is also.

See: http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

I'm not forming conclusions yet.
Just playing around with motivations. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 730

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:30 pm    Post subject: New lines/food for thought ... Reply with quote

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123019623
http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/StarWarsNG_NL23.htm
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/spacedeb/canadapl.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/thistems.htm
http://howardgarcia.com/Articles/Shooting_Down_Star_Wars_part_1.htm
http://howardgarcia.com/Articles/Shooting_Down_Star_Wars_part_2.htm

And let's not forget this little ditty ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0Fi1VcbpAI

Enjoy ....
- Hawk

PS Rumsfeld Commission Warns Against "Space Pearl Harbor" by Jean-Michel Stoullig, Associated Press, 11 Jan 2001

Quote:
In January this year US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of a "space Pearl Harbor" and a commission he formerly headed unveiled a report calling for tighter security for American space systems. "The US ... needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on US space systems," said the report "... The US is more dependent on space than any other nation" and the report called for a 'technological push' to foil threats from foreign nations or terrorists.

_________________
"Look up here, I'm in heaven. I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen. Everybody knows me now." - David Bowie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8138

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:59 pm    Post subject: Lasers Reply with quote

Riiiiight.....
So, in one of those links in the post by Hawkwind above is this little gem:

Quote:
The U.S. military's first high energy weapon is likely to be the Airborne Laser mounted on a Boeing 747, it is being designed to acquire, track, and destroy theatre ballistic missiles[13]. The system is expected to be deployed in 10 years. The Air Force has proposed spending $11 billion to develop a fleet of seven airborne lasers that could be used for battlefield anti-missile defense at a cost of about $10,000 per shot, based on the price of the laser fuel.

Last month Raytheon Electronic Systems, a subcontractor to Lockheed Martin Space Systems, carried out a 'first light' test of the Track Illuminator Laser (TILL) at the High Energy Laser Centre in El Segundo in California. The TILL is part of the Beam Control/Fire Control system for the US Air Force's Airborne Laser (ABL) programme, which will aim and fire a high-energy laser at a target missile in its boost phase.
http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/StarWarsNG_NL23.htm

And a little more research uncovers this:

Quote:
Raytheon Delivers Key Component for Missile Defense:
First ABL Track Illuminator Laser provided to Lockheed Martin

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Nov. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company has
delivered the first Track Illuminator Laser (TILL) to Lockheed Martin for
use in the U.S. Air Force's Airborne Laser (ABL) missile defense program.

The ABL TILL is the first diode-pumped Yb:YAG laser that has qualified for
flight operation aboard a military aircraft.

In March 2001, Raytheon's TILL was the first of four critical ABL solid-
state lasers to conduct a successful 'first light' test at its High Energy
Laser Center in El Segundo, Calif.

Team ABL - Boeing, Lockheed Martin and TRW -- is developing the
revolutionary airborne boost-phase missile defense system under the
direction of the U.S. Air Force and Missile Defense Agency. The ABL
system will use a megawatt-class chemical laser aboard a modified
747-400F to shoot down missiles in the boost phase.

Boeing is the ABL team leader and is responsible for developing the
surveillance battle-management system, integrating the weapon system
and supplying the modified aircraft. TRW is providing the complete
chemical oxygen-iodine laser system. Lockheed Martin is developing
the beam control/fire control system, which will acquire the target, then
accurately point and fire the laser.

Link


First off, if Raytheon is delivering technology --above the line-- for a
publicly-funded defense project, then it's a safe bet that this type of
research has been ongoing below the line for years previously.

So, this stuff is deployable on satellites.

But we got the possibility that an aerial weapon could be mounted in a
747 (along with a nuke-power unit) and stuck at 50,000 feet over the WTC.

Close to the target and thus beam-focussing, and targeting would be
easier. Would such a flight and it's technology be perhaps easier to
conceal than a strike from a satellite system? Either way, we got
satellite or 747 mounted possibilities.

I'm not saying what kind of beam, or frequency, or effect would be
involved --lots of possibilities. I just think it's a feasible technology;
it involves certain elements of the US MIC; and it's likely feasible
technologically --given the almost 20-year duration of the
Reagan/Bush cabal's Star Wars Program.

In the end they scrapped the mass deployment of lasers for missile defense.
Too many incoming missiles to shoot 'em all down, they said.
Which is a bit strange. Figuring that out after spending billions.

Sounds like the "national interest", "defensive shield", missile defense
system was a cover for an offensive space laser program.

Yeah, they called off the SDI program.

But, they developed the lasers, didn't they.....

Now what could you do to a building with a nuke-powered laser
operating at god-knows-what frequency?

Just wondering. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 730

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:38 pm    Post subject: By The Way ... Reply with quote

For those of you who're not playing along ... lets take a look at your man Robert M. Bowman as the possible lead fart in the spacesuit known as the 911 truth movement ... now on to the main disinfo site pushing this turd.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/july2006/bowman.htm

Quote:

Robert M. Bowman is widely ackowledged as the father of the
Star Wars missile defense program before it became public.
Bowman, who is currently running for Congress, has emerged as
one of the most credible 9/11 whistleblowers.


Jeez ...

_________________
"Look up here, I'm in heaven. I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen. Everybody knows me now." - David Bowie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 3 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.