[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Ah yes we forget you are privy to all the latest Pentagon and Darpa weapons technology experimentation.

Do you understand that a weapon of power in the GW range and higher focussed on a building for a long period of time is enough energy to dustify the building? Try frantically googling power and energy next time you do your "research". We are talking petajoule ranges and above here. And that is just what we know in the public domain.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Can you explain the physical principle behind this "dustification"? Why would the building turn to dust rather than just being vapourised by the heat? And why is concrete dust magically resistant to the energy that was sufficient to destroy the concrete in the first place?

There is no evidence of temperatures high enough to even melt steel let alone vapourise it.

I suggest reading up on how DEW work. And some background reading on Planck's quantum theory (to understand how EM radiation causes oscillations of particular molecular frequency.)

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Is it these oscillations that cause concrete and steel to turn to dust?

Before I extend further seemingly endless generosity to aid your awakening...

Are we now in agreement that progressive collapse (inward buckling etc) cannot account for:

1. The collapse time of WTC1 and 2;
2. The strange holes that appeared in WTC5 and 6?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

LOL

Indeed, that is really all there is to say.

If you lack the understanding that classical mechanics disproves progressive collapse then what hope do you have in grasping how electromagnetism and quantum mechanics can help understand what DID happen?

No hope whatsoever.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

No, of course we are not in agreement. The fact that you chose to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore all criticisms of your argument and follow up questions that you didn't want to answer doesn't make them magically disappear.

Written in 2003, "high power microwave weapons in the hundreds of gigawatt power range". Note the development over "many decades", since the 60s in fact.

https://lexingtoninstitute.org/directed-...

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Ah I see.

So you can't do the classical mechanics to disprove prog collapse. But you want chapter and verse on how dustification can be caused by EM radiation. Got it.

How's your thermodynamics basics? That will also need to be in place prior to any discussion of DEW heat transfer.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

The fact I don't agree with you doesn't mean I can't do classical mechanics. If anything, it means that you can't. You didn't disprove any particular collapse model, you showed that the collapse times given in some papers were probably incorrect. The times were not the output of any collapse model, so claiming that this disproves any model is a complete non sequitur.

Don't worry, I will be verifying anything you say anyway, as you seem to have quite a high propensity for making mistakes.

Fact checking courtesy of...

Some folk'll never eat a skunk
But then again some folk'll
It's..

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Maybe one of these days Billy will tell us about his calculations of the power necessary to destroy a 110 tower in the middle of the busiest city in the world without anyone seeing the weapon or the energy source. All he has shown is so far are weapons that can destroy a missile or smaller gear.

Or he will attach pictures of “holes” in a collapsed building…..

Does this building (wtc5) look collapsed to you?

Note the verticality of the holes. A projectile from WTC1 or 2 would move parabolically and would not cause a vertical hole - see map.

Another reason why falling debris could not have caused the holes.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

It looks pretty collapsed to me, yeah. At least large portions of it.

Looks like a giant skyscraper fell on it. From above. Which would make largely vertically aligned damage. What a truly bizarre argument.

Well played, Billy, you are maintaining a rating of 0% credibility.

You can’t do the calculations, can you.

You can't!! I never claimed otherwise! I would like to encourage you to read what I actually say more carefully moving forward.

Here is a version of the Scientific Method I learned:

1. Identify a phenomenon to be explained.
2. Formulate an hypothesis.
3. Recognize the logical implications of the hypothesis.
4. Gather data.
5. Analyze the data.
6. Evaluate the hypothesis in light of the analysis of the data.

My actual claim was that #2 precedes #4.

Obviously #1 is the first step.

Has Billyboy showed us his preferred map of Earth yet??

I apologize if I somehow missed it.

Is this English?

If the ratio of the horizonal component of the velocity to the vertical velocity component is small enough, the parabola is steep enough that it might as well be a straight line for practical purposes. Since the force that is accelerating it in the vertical direction is continuously applied (g) and the force that was accelerating it in the horizontal direction ceases to be applied at the point of ejection, one would intuitively assume this to be the case. But feel free to put some numbers on it and provide a formula. Try to remember to not model objects in motion using a formula for a static object this time though, yeah, you classical mechanics master, you?

Wait now it's a giant skyscraper "fell on it"?

So you are saying WTC1 and/or WTC2 actually collapsed a distance of, say 50 metres or so, LATERALLY to then collapse other towers, while also falling DOWNWARDS in a vertical crush you claim caused their own destruction?

And it is my argument that is bizarre apparently.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Excellent. Well done.

Identifying a phenomenon requires gathering data. So the first thing we need to do is gather data.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Are you planning on explaining the physical principles behind steel and concrete being turned to dust by a laser then?