Star Wars Weapon and the Destruction of the WTC?
Conceptually, the hypothesis that space-based/sky-based directed energy weapons (beam weapons) were used to take down the WTC towers is very novel and very compelling: the hypothesis is consistent with much of the physical evidence, the mechanism is conceivable given current technology and the idea of using Star Wars technology also fits with the political environment of the Bush administration.
However, while I think the hypothesis is probably the best one out there, it is far from proven. And I think it is quite possible several mechanisms were used to bring down the towers besides beam weapons.
What would help prove the beam weapon hypothesis:
1) a more precise description of the device (or devices) that was (were) used
2) a calculation of the energy requirements for the devices/devices and some description of what the energy source was
3) a better description of the technology that can evaporate (cause molecular dissociation of) steel and concrete
In the absence of these, this hypothesis is not going to gain traction. If Wood and Reynolds have this info, they should disclose it. My two cents, and spoken as someone who admires their work.
On a more general note, I really wish Wood and Reynolds would finish their article. It has been three months since the first draft was put up, and it is starting to look bad that they haven't finished it.
However, while I think the hypothesis is probably the best one out there, it is far from proven. And I think it is quite possible several mechanisms were used to bring down the towers besides beam weapons.
What would help prove the beam weapon hypothesis:
1) a more precise description of the device (or devices) that was (were) used
2) a calculation of the energy requirements for the devices/devices and some description of what the energy source was
3) a better description of the technology that can evaporate (cause molecular dissociation of) steel and concrete
In the absence of these, this hypothesis is not going to gain traction. If Wood and Reynolds have this info, they should disclose it. My two cents, and spoken as someone who admires their work.
On a more general note, I really wish Wood and Reynolds would finish their article. It has been three months since the first draft was put up, and it is starting to look bad that they haven't finished it.
posted by spooked at 11:10 AM
8 Comments:
CS-- the problem is that the official hypothesis DOES NOT explain the total evidence for happened to the towers, it fails on multiple levels, and thus the beam weapon hypothesis, while seemingly far-fetched, actually is superior at explaining the destruction of the buildings.
It's called the scientific method. You might want to try it sometime.
Leave him alone CS, he's just spending time between his Star Wars conventions and Trekker festivals finding out the "truth".
the NIST/911 commission's explanation for the demise of the twin towers is not physically possible.
knowing that all the concrete in each tower turned into powder and much of the steel somehow disappeared and some other pieces of the steel were ejected outwards for 100's of feet all at the incredible rate of 11 floors per second which is the same speed that a bowling ball would hit the ground if dropped from the same height, and that many dozens of cars some of which were more than a mile away were spontaneously combusted (yet unexplained by NIST), i accept that it took some form of energy weapon to destroy the wtc complex entirely yet for some reason left the foundation of the whole complex intact making it very convenient for the builders of the new freedumb tower.
who is in charge of building this freedumb tower by the way? could it possibly be larry silverstein the wtc the leaseholder who made a fortune by upping his "terrorist attack" insurance coverage shortly before 9/11?
conspiracy smasher said:
"Another Jew-hating conspiradroid."
i might be offended if i wasn't jewish.
as it is i am somewhat offended (but not surprised!) by larry silverstein's admission that wtc7 was brought down on purpose in a controlled demolition, and even more offended (again, not surprised!) that the american people in general just don't seem to care about that.
you are very amusing! i especially like how you have never even once tried to justify even a single aspect of the official govt 9/11 fairytale - not even 1 time!
one would think that after almost 6 years there would be at least 1 part of it that you might support, but no...
what's up with that?
He cannot defend what is not defendable.
"silverstein's admission that wtc7 was brought down on purpose in a controlled demolition"
Debunked on numerous occassions and sites. You need to get out more clown...
The quote is not "debunked." Pathetic explanations have been offered to explain it -- that's called "spin."
I find the official explanation much less than compelling. The evidence strongly suggests controlled demoliton as the cause of the felling of the WTC towers, though some phenomena, such as the burnt out cars are mystifying.
Star Wars weapon? Lets see some real evidence. Otherwise, this is just "Twilight Zone" speculation. ; )
Post a Comment
<< Home