Helicopters Didn't Explode: Thoughts on Star Wars Weaponry
3/4/07: SEE UPDATES at bottom.
Magnus made a good point here that I thought about independently then forgot about posting.
Helicopters were clearly flying around the trade center just prior to and during the collapse, and they didn't explode. This kind of wrecks the argument that aircraft could not be around the trade center if it was attacked by directed energy weapons because the aircraft might explode. It's an important argument.
HOWEVER-- we still have to deal with the fact that military aircraft were ordered out of the sky from 9:45am to 10:31am.
This order was probably for "non-essential" military craft (which makes you wonder about that C-130 that just happened to witness the Pentagon hit and the Shanskville crash scene a few minutes after they occurred) -- since there were supposedly scrambled intercept jets in the air at this time.
Still, what possible reason could there be for most military flights to be grounded until right after the WTC was demolished? Wouldn't making these flights land create more confusion when there was already plenty of confusion? And surely the military could recognize its own aircraft and not shoot them down, so it's not like they needed to get down to avoid being shot.
One explanation for all the military craft being ordered down is that a beam weapon was fired from the upper atmosphere and or space, and spill-over effects ONLY affected the upper atmosphere-- where high-altitide jets were. This could explain why helicopters were not affected-- once the beam reached the lower atmosphere it was highly directed a there was little spill-over (until it hit the ground).
One thought is: could this beam weapon technology have actually harnessed the energy in the ionosphere or magnetosphere?
This is all very speculative of course. But I tend to prefer a aircraft- or space-based weapon, rather than land-based. One reason, is that the WTC was blown top-down, not bottom up-- and this is easier to achieve from the sky. Another reason to believe the weapon was sky-based is those holes in the top of WTC5 and WTC6. Another reason is the weapon could be more easily hidden in the sky, then on the ground (I'm not crazy about the argument that the weapon was hidden in WTC7). Lastly, beam weapon technology has clearly been designed for use in air and space, and likely has exisiting platforms in the sky/space.
As far as energy requirements, I don't think they used a laser to vaporize things. That is far too energy intensive. But microwave beams could be produced with far less power than lasers and I favor the idea that microwave beams were used to blow up the concrete in the towers. Microwave beams could have weakened the steel enough to make to facilitate the collapse.
Perhaps simply blowing up the concrete in the towers-- turning it into to dust-- was enough to lower the overall impact of the building as it fell to the ground.
As to whether steel was "dustified" is an open question. I think it is possible but hasn't been proven conclusively.
Finally, there is quesiton of what technology was used to make the huge section of WTC1 west wall do a pirouette so that it fell north instead of hitting the WFC*. Such a technique would be more feasible from the air, in my view.
*This still amazes me. They even maneuvered the upper part of the wall section to go between two of the WFC towers. Thus, instead of falling straight west, the wall piece did a turn in mid-air en masse so it went north, and the top part of the wall section was twisted to head west in between WFC towers. This is really a smoking gun for high-tech demolition.
UPDATES:
Two thoughts worth adding here---
1) could the towers have been constructed with highly stable explosives built-in AND then satellite-based microwave weaponry were used to help detonate the explosives?
2) there is in fact some evidence that a plane exploded in the air within view of the WTC-- from the eyewitness account of EMT Patricia Ondrovic:
Magnus made a good point here that I thought about independently then forgot about posting.
Helicopters were clearly flying around the trade center just prior to and during the collapse, and they didn't explode. This kind of wrecks the argument that aircraft could not be around the trade center if it was attacked by directed energy weapons because the aircraft might explode. It's an important argument.
HOWEVER-- we still have to deal with the fact that military aircraft were ordered out of the sky from 9:45am to 10:31am.
This order was probably for "non-essential" military craft (which makes you wonder about that C-130 that just happened to witness the Pentagon hit and the Shanskville crash scene a few minutes after they occurred) -- since there were supposedly scrambled intercept jets in the air at this time.
Still, what possible reason could there be for most military flights to be grounded until right after the WTC was demolished? Wouldn't making these flights land create more confusion when there was already plenty of confusion? And surely the military could recognize its own aircraft and not shoot them down, so it's not like they needed to get down to avoid being shot.
One explanation for all the military craft being ordered down is that a beam weapon was fired from the upper atmosphere and or space, and spill-over effects ONLY affected the upper atmosphere-- where high-altitide jets were. This could explain why helicopters were not affected-- once the beam reached the lower atmosphere it was highly directed a there was little spill-over (until it hit the ground).
One thought is: could this beam weapon technology have actually harnessed the energy in the ionosphere or magnetosphere?
This is all very speculative of course. But I tend to prefer a aircraft- or space-based weapon, rather than land-based. One reason, is that the WTC was blown top-down, not bottom up-- and this is easier to achieve from the sky. Another reason to believe the weapon was sky-based is those holes in the top of WTC5 and WTC6. Another reason is the weapon could be more easily hidden in the sky, then on the ground (I'm not crazy about the argument that the weapon was hidden in WTC7). Lastly, beam weapon technology has clearly been designed for use in air and space, and likely has exisiting platforms in the sky/space.
As far as energy requirements, I don't think they used a laser to vaporize things. That is far too energy intensive. But microwave beams could be produced with far less power than lasers and I favor the idea that microwave beams were used to blow up the concrete in the towers. Microwave beams could have weakened the steel enough to make to facilitate the collapse.
Perhaps simply blowing up the concrete in the towers-- turning it into to dust-- was enough to lower the overall impact of the building as it fell to the ground.
As to whether steel was "dustified" is an open question. I think it is possible but hasn't been proven conclusively.
Finally, there is quesiton of what technology was used to make the huge section of WTC1 west wall do a pirouette so that it fell north instead of hitting the WFC*. Such a technique would be more feasible from the air, in my view.
*This still amazes me. They even maneuvered the upper part of the wall section to go between two of the WFC towers. Thus, instead of falling straight west, the wall piece did a turn in mid-air en masse so it went north, and the top part of the wall section was twisted to head west in between WFC towers. This is really a smoking gun for high-tech demolition.
UPDATES:
Two thoughts worth adding here---
1) could the towers have been constructed with highly stable explosives built-in AND then satellite-based microwave weaponry were used to help detonate the explosives?
2) there is in fact some evidence that a plane exploded in the air within view of the WTC-- from the eyewitness account of EMT Patricia Ondrovic:
“I was looking for another plane. I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn't there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions.”
posted by spooked at 9:08 AM
5 Comments:
i think that a beam from way up above would be tighter and more focused in the upper atmosphere and more diffused by the time it made it all the way to the towers thru the thick air and thicker smog.
but it certainly does seem to have all been done from above. that was some good aim that they demonstrated wasn't it? if i could only be 1/2 that good at darts!
i'm more impressed with the thought that a flying platform could supply that kind of power to a high energy device than i am with the thought of such a high energy device itself.
"dustified steel" - that's as good a term as any - since photos of ground zero reveal that much of the steel disappeared before it even hit the ground, it either turned into dust such as the spire that was recorded turning into dust or it was spirited away by magic.
one thing is for sure: the towers weren't destroyed by the power of gravity as NIST has pretended to claim.
then again it is not much of a stretch to conceive that the twin towers were constructed with the ability for demolition in mind - they were built during the height of the cold war when missile silos were constructed with the ability for instant demolition; in case they were "captured by evil soviets".
if the concrete of the towers was poured around rebar that was coated with the right explosives then the concrete might just poof as was recorded for posterity.
again, one thing is for sure: the towers weren't destroyed by the power of gravity as NIST has pretended to claim.
and by pretended to claim i mean that the NIST "explanation" for the tower's demise is so lame that it almost seems half-hearted, as if they are embarrassed to have had to make such a claim at all.
h.
Good Spook'd,
May I suggest that WTC7 would have been microwaved if it were possible? I cannot find a good explanation for the overkill disintegration of the towers. We can match forensics with guessed effects of unknown weapons. Then we have proven the use of unknown weapons with guessed effects. I do not express incredulity in order to discourage pursuit of this idea, but evidence pointing away from a butt load of bombs and toward exow might be narrowed down to the interpretation of melted cars and disappearing steel.
Original 2hr WTC Video filmed from Hoboken was taken down off net
This video has a rough copy of same see from 4:02 till 6:04 see copter4
A Helicopter hiding in the smoke "dropping a line" tosses several heavy objects into
openings in WTC tower then bang bang bang it falls over this is not bullshit and
has 2 diferent camera views. This collection of copter videos assumes
Copter 4 is part of FEMA's operation TRI-POD begun on SEPT 10th
no coincidence that 3(tri) buildfings fell the next day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VCHmNTXlqU
2 hr video: "Eyewitness 9-11" by Rick Siegel? gotta still be on the net somewhere...
Three buildings, Tri-pod, never thought of that...but weren't MORE than 3 buildings destroyed on 9-11? wasn't the whole WTC COMPLEX destroyed?
Post a Comment
<< Home