[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
Can you imagine how short buildings would be if each floor was required to support the collapse of 4-5 stories above it?
Billy has no clue about modern building codes.
But from photographic evidence it is most definitely a shearing effect, as with all the "strange holes".
Back to believing you analysis of the photos as your only proof of any type of shearing effect.
The staggering level of stupidity it takes to pick out a single piece of debris amongst an entire building collapsing and calculate that it alone could not have caused the damage (with literally laughable physics) therefore nothing from the building could have caused it is unfathomable.This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. It would be like me dropping a wheelbarr
Physics?
What's that?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
It is pretty funny that researching the meteor indicates that the experts are unable to say which WTC tower it came from nor do they claim it damaged WTC6. Only silly billy makes such claims. And with his rejection of their explanations about the meteor. he falls back on a DEW theory that has no support in the evidence or even that they exist.
The failure to demonstrate the existence of any such weapon of the required power (because it presumably doesn't exist) is a bit of a problem.
The failure to demonstrate the existence of any such weapon of the required power (because it presumably doesn't exist) is a bit of a problem.
"is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts"
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Here is a recent article suggesting DEW were and are used routinely by the Isrealis and other militaries.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The failure to demonstrate the existence of any such weapon of the required power (because it presumably doesn't exist) is a bit of a problem.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
As I mentioned once here before, one of the objectives of 9/11 was to showcase the tech.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
.
Billy’s scientific theory boils down to a quote from a fictional character from the early 1900s. Just shocking!
That DEWs, ie space lasers, destroyed the WTC buildings because you ruled out all other possible explanations, stupid.
Here is a recent article suggesting DEW were and are used routinely by the Israelis and other militaries.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
First tested 2022, power about 100kw, and only useful for shooting down drones and rockets (a bit like the Royal Navy's DragonFire). This does not prove the existence of a supposed omnipotent building-dustifier in 2001.
First tested 2022, power about 100kw, and only useful for shooting down drones and rockets (a bit like the Royal Navy's DragonFire). This does not prove the existence of a supposed omnipotent building-dustifier in 2001.
Yes but if you read a little more of your frantic googling square brackets citation needed you will see the scalability up to megawatt ranges and beyond. And that is just available via simple online searches. You may announce yourself as 2p2 resident military expert General Bore but you are unfortunately not privy to what state of the art technology can actually do.
So we know DEW exist and have existed for a long time. We know they are scalable to the power ranges required to level a building. We also know they are cheap, which is both an advantage and disadvantage.
In any case, Dr Wood's conclusion was not based on military knowledge. The conclusion came based on the evidence, and lo! the weapons exist after all and are being pumped all over the world.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
When I say for a long time I am talking since the 1960s btw.
Here is a piece that claims power ranges in the "hundreds of gigawatts or higher".
https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News...
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Guys he's probably right. That paper he referenced says that back when 9-11 happened, these weapons were capable of destroying entire artillery shells and mortar rounds with DEWs small enough to be contained in a tiny entire jumbo jet.
Between 2000–05, a prototype chemical laser successfully destroyed 46 rockets, artillery shells and mortar rounds in flight during field tests. However, these lasers were generally large and heavy. In fact, the megawatt-class Airborne Laser developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s required an entire 747 aircraft to hold the equipment. Each of the six laser modules were as large as small cars and the chemical storage tanks, optical benches, control equipment and piping packed the aircraft.
Obviously demolishing multiple skyscrapers undetected would've been easy.
They've come a long ways. Back in 1985 they were only using them to pop popcorn.
Yes but if you read a little more of your frantic googling square brackets citation needed...
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Billy... That was your own link. And the weapons now coming into service are the best presently available. And they aren't huge-massive-building dustifiers.
And the article focuses on the weapons becoming smaller and lighter and producing 30-50 kw. He finds the one line that talks about scaling up the power and uses it as “proof” that something was possible 19 years before the article.
"is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts"
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
In the Scientific Method, formulating an hypothesis always precedes the gathering of data. Unless virtually every textbook on science is wrong ofc.
In the Scientific Method, formulating an hypothesis always precedes the gathering of data. Unless virtually every textbook on science is wrong ofc.
Wrong. Vacancy on clown committee if you are interested.
Please tell me how in your world of stupid you can form a hypothesis without first knowing the phenomenon you are explaining? Just try it and see.
Let me help. Hypothesis: the load on a [insert unknown thing we have no data for] is directly proportional to the ... ?
Shall we guess? The load on a sausage is directly proportional to the frequency of a neutron star.
You observe the phenomenon FIRST. You gather data FIRST. Then you form the hypothesis. Then you test it by gathering further data.
Oh and by the way this has feck all to do with any of the above.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
And the article focuses on the weapons becoming smaller and lighter and producing 30-50 kw. He finds the one line that talks about scaling up the power and uses it as “proof” that something was possible 19 years before the article.
Yes in the...
*checks notes*
... gigawatt ranges and higher. Gigawatts. And higher. Higher than gigawatts.
So yes, this can bring down the towers, easily given the time the weapon was potentially active on the site.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
