Dr. Wood's research has revealed that Applied Research Associates (ARA) was not only a major NIST contractor in the clean up of the WTC site post 9-11 but was also a major contractor for the NIST in the preparation of the NCStar 1 report series.

ARA is also at the very epicenter of the development of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW).

...

The organization that ARA is a founding member of: Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) appears to be a major hub of the Military-Industrial-Complex.

Jerry V. Leaphart
Attorney
MEMORANDUM To: Dr. Judy Wood (232 kb)
30 March 2007, Jerry V. Leaphart, Attorney

Full Memorandum Here:
http://911scholars.org/Media/DEW/jvl_memorandum.pdf

Dr Wood's Supplement to her Original RFC to NIST:
http://911scholars.org/Media/DEW/Wood_supplement1_to_RFC.pdf

Dr Judy Wood's site: http://www.drjudywood.com

---------------------------------------------------------------

TIME TO TAKE ACTION!

Email Directed Energy Weapon people and Military personnel and ask whether they agree with Dr Wood that the visual effects seen are consistent with directed energy weapons use.

Well, they are not consistent with directed energy weapons for a whole host of different reasons.

Best,
Badeskov

Could you give some detail please?

Coughy, sorry for the late response, but I am at work and it is one I'd like to keep for a bit longer

There are several aspects of DEWs (Directed Energy Weapons) that contradicts the 9/11 stories of this. The main two are really the energy required to bring down a building the size of WTC and how it is done. Lets take the latter first.

The structural integrity of the WTC was clearly compromised from the fire and the heat inside the building. I still firmly believe that it was due to the burning jet fuel, however, let us just entertain the idea of a DEW bring down the buildings. There are only two kinds of DEW that are looked at for high energy applications, which is the LASER and the MASER. We all know the laser, but the MASER is the microwave equivalent of the LASER, just at a different wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. The MASER is basically a large scale microwave oven (your microwave is typically at 600W or above, a MASER much more). In a microwave you can heat your food almost inside out. And this is exactly why DEWs could not have been used at WTC.

It is all a question of energy absorption. LASERS delivers all the energy to the surface of the target, and in the case of WTC, so would a MASER because of the metal structure. Ever tried leaving a piece of metal in your microwave? Not good. And the face of the WTC no matter from where you looked, was glass and metal girders. Yes, LASERS are used to cut metal and could also cut the outer layers of the WTC, although it would be a slow process. MASERS are a little different. What happens is that when a MASER hits a metal grid like the face of the WTC, it will induce currents in the metal structure and that heats up, and if energy enough is supplied, they will melt. Thus, to cut through an I-beam or the like, a LASER is clearly preferred simply due to the efficiency. But both LASERS and MASERS would probably have been focused in a very small beam, as they would have to be in the neighboring houses (more on that later). That also means that if it was really a LASER or a MASER responsible for this, we should see the effect of said DEWs literally walking across the face of the building at the floor where it collapsed, which we obviously do not. And no LASER nor MASER would ever penetrate deep into the building without leaving a nice entry hole at the front.

But that means that one would need a couple of such DEW systems to ensure the collapse, one for a couple of sides of the building. And such DEWs are not only rather large, but also extremely energy hungry. Trust me, you can't just plug them into a wall plug. You'd blow every fuse before you even brought the system to a temperature equilibrium.

And the notion that it is Airborne or spaceborne is a no go as well. The only systems are the ones at White Sands test range and the Airborne ABL. But if the Airborne system was responsible, we would have seen it eat it's way down from the roof, with molten metal running off everywhere. Obviously, that didn't happen.

Finally, as also mentioned before, the energy required to bring down such a building is far beyond what any DEW technology can currently offer. The largest laser is currently able to melt and deform the skin of a theater ballistic missile, causing in-flight break up. The energy to cut through an I-beam is a lot more and given the number of I-beams and other stuff in WTC, completely unrealistic.

Thus, in my honest opinion the whole notion of DEWs being used is outright absurd and the dear Doctor bringing this forth should probably read up on DEWs and do some math on the actually energy requirement for that endeavor. If they really wanted to bring the WTC down, explosives would be the way to go.

Best,
Badeskov

If the towers "collapsed", then where did all the building material and contents go? See the animation on this page:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-conte...es/HTRHome.html


Where's the thousands of desks, computers, xerox machines, etc ?

Where's all the steel? See this video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQ

Please see the pictures I linked to in the other thread similar to this. Secondly, after the collapse the whole debris pile was burning, reaching very high temperatures, thus paper, plastic materials (your desks, computers, xeroxes and so on) would melt and mix with all the other debris. All the debris is there, it is just mixed and melted.

But in the end, it does not change my conclusion that no directed energy weapon would ever be capable of bringing down WTC.

Best,
Badeskov

A stab at this in answer to your supposition.

First, each floor weighs 3000 tons. Dropping vertically 8', unheeded, is an impact energy of some 150,000 tons. The buildings are 208' square on a side which equals 43,208 square feet and that is almost 1 acre in area per floor.

That is also 14.4 tons per square foot. Impacted from 8' that is 1870 tons per square foot and that is enough sheer power to crush a solid concrete block 3 feet square on a side into powder.

Now, factored in a 70 pound hollow desk, a plastic cased computer, a refrigerator, a human head. What would these also look like after that. Multiply this by 110 floors.

That should answer the first part of your question.

Second, the claim is that the towers fell into their own footprint. That would be about 1 acre in area.

In fact, the WTC-1 and 2 fell into an area of 28 acres, minimum, which is 1,242,640 square feet. That is 28 football fields.

There were 500,000+ tons of rubble removed from each WTC tower site, not including basment floors.

Any questions?

RAMS

Those calculations mean nothing as it doesn't take into account the data.

Also, you're making assumptions not based on evidence. i.e. "There were 500,000+ tons of rubble removed from each WTC tower site, not including basment floors.". There's no evidence to suggest that. In fact all the evidence refutes it.



There's zero evidence that 500,000 tons of debris existed at GZ after the destruction of the WTC.

The towers were pulverized from the top down. The contents turned to powder in the process. Look at this picture:

This is not what a "collapse" looks like:

I do not understand your post and the point of the photos whatsoever. Are you serious?

RAMS

That's a new one, directed energy weapons.


Pulverized, burnt and melted, except a few bones here and there.


I would characterize that as an uncontrolled demolition. You can even see the outward bubble of debris caused by the pancake effect. A controlled demolition, on the other hand will have a debris cloud more at street level.

No pancake... everything was blown out of the way.

And the core steel turned to dust on the way down.

Would it be worth to make a real live demo and see how none of it would work without thermite and thermate and little more sulfur
along with the explosions.

Crash a small passenger plane into a similar tower and see what combination works best.

After all the scientific method works on the principle of repeatability. Do it once then do it again is the proof.

Models have been constructed and tested, and dismissed by the conspiracy crowd.

What's your reasoning for believing there was thermate/ite at the scene?

Thermate pulverizes steel. The so called culprit for weakening the core beams and not jet fuel.

Who was in control of the models.

Thermate melts steel. Horizontally. Have you seen a thermate reaction before? It slowly eats through (melts) steel as gravity pulls it downward.

Is your primary reasoning for believing thermate was at the scene the "pulverization" of the steel?

I just posted the 'data' in the post herein, #7.
RAMS

Your point regarding "energy weapons"?

I have done graphic failure analysis for ARA. Most of what they produce is line energy signature development. You may contact Denny Boesen, Chair, DEPS, and inquire on the level energy displacement in the energy transmission field.
This is not weapons.

This is direct infused communication lasers, operating in the 14.2 kilowatt (kW) laser light at an infrared wavelength of 1.61 microns, to avoid drift corruption in the IM field, and the main customer of interest so far is DoD, US Navy. This laser technology is operated deep into the IR band. It is a test bed FEL (Free-Electron Laser) instrument that someday will allow for direct line aquisition as a weapon platform to dazzle incoming missiles.

These platform mounted FELs on orbit will dazzle beligerent assets because it is tunable in the IR band field, avoiding field focus corruption. This is 5 to 10 years off into the future, and had nothing to do with 911.

You and so many continue to further discredit the 911/UFO, et al, conspiracy movement with these sort of claims. To say energy beams were used on 911 day is like claiming the terrorists always take their accordions deer hunting. Your claim and anyone who claims same that energy weapons were used on 911 day is assinine.

Consider.

RAMS

Some of you still believe that it wasn't planes that hit the WTC on september 11th 2001?

I'd call you something, but it's against the rules to point out idiocy. Instead, I'll let this guy do it for me. Again.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

I don't think they're saying planes weren't involved. I think they're saying DEW's (rather than explosives) initiated the collapses.

Which brings up a point - why the departure from the explosives theory?