Blue_Tackler wrote:
SilvaRizla wrote:
Blue_Tackler wrote:
SilvaRizla wrote:
Blue_Tackler wrote:
Thanks for your responses SilvaRizla.
Do you view this articles/blog and did you see the steel structure get dusted on 'stage one' of the article/blog in slow motion?
leostokes.wix.com/dustification-hints
It didn't get dusted (I've posted this video earlier) but it did crumble. I believe what happened was that the structure was quite close to being "in tune" and its bonds had been weakened as a result of the EMF targeting the inner columns. It failed to support its own weight after being interfered with and then crumbled from the ground up
Is there any evidence that electromagnetic fields/forces can damage or weaken steel?
Yes.
Well no, its not the EMF, the EMF is just a biproduct of the current and the wave.
Laser engravers for instance, wavelengths damaging steel.
I have been snooping about at the available information on DARPA's webpage, I could not see anything about such a DEW.
I know that if it's
Top Secret it won't be published, the problem we have here is a bit like a crime scene lacking evidence.
I'm using buildings and common gunshot murder as an analogy. I don't mean to discredit the real human victims.
1) There are the victims = Towers.
2)
Evidence of firearm discharge found during forensic analysis.
3) No weapon located or identified.
4) No ammunition located or identified.
5) No culprits identified.
6) No location of crime scene positioning of culprits.
7) No witnesses nor potential witnesses identified.
8)
No identification or knowledge of speculated weaponry, only estimations of what could have been used.
I do agree that Dr Wood's proposals are possible, it does seem to be a theory based on constructing the evidence of what 'could have done this' rather than what did do this, as nobody knows.
There is no evidence that such a weapon exists and if so, what the exact effects would be, so what Dr Wood has been able to do is to identify that an unidentified weapon caused this atrocity even though we don't know what it is or if it exists.
Would it not be as plausible to state that the aeroplanes did not really exist and that they were a projection from a 3D hologram laser that is top secret thus we don't know it exists, but that would explain a lot of the inconsistent evidence about the aeroplanes, they way they were maneuvered, the flashes of light, the ease of penetration, etc..... etc.....?
It's a bit like explaining something that we know about by using something that we don't know about.
Hmmm, see what you're saying but for some reason I don't think its clicking with you.
By examining the evidence to hand, we can find out
what happened and more importantly
what didn't happen
We know that 2 jets crashed in to the buildings causing fires.
We know the buildings "fell" down.
We know that 9/11 commission said that the fire from the planes caused the steel to weaken and the building to pancake to the ground.
We know that the 9/11 commission is lying according to the data gathered about free-fall speed, and the seismic impact. It wasn't planes and fire that brought the buildings down, the collapse was possibly pre-planned and definitely implemented.
We have motive (middle east, insurance increases on the towers, asbestos repair bill etc etc etc)
We know that it seems Condeliza Rice may have known something in advance.
We know that people have suggested that there were bombs in the building that brought the towers down with thermite or nukes.
We know that this story keeps changing due to inconsistencies picked up on by Dr Judy wood and others, such as seismic data, and mini nukes would leave a radioactive signature which doesn't exist.
We know that the signature for a controlled demolition of building 7 exists, yet it wasn't hit by a plane and the buildings owner instructed that the building be "pulled".
Your ballistics example I don't really understand. Ballistics would prove the weapon was some sort of gun, this would satisfy death via projectile weapon.
We have all the evidence to suggest the towers came down as a result of DEW. We have those ballistics as it were. The fact that we don't have the gun doesn't matter when concerning the method, it only matters concerning the murderer. Would Bin Laden have such a weapon? Doubtful. Why the need for the hijacking if he did? Why hasn't it been used again?
We know that weapons based on those principals exist.
Until another theory turns up that can explain all of the documented effects of the attack, then at this moment in time it surely must be the most logical.
Your holographic plane theory is a bit of a curve ball. We know the tech exists to some extent but it doesn't matter when there are reports that the black boxes of the real plans were indeed recovered in the rubble. Holographic black boxes you can actually pick up and feel the weight of? Doubtful
