The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers

Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics

Co-author: Matt Sullivan

“In fact, the whole interview with Greg Jenkins was very troublesome to

me because it was so clear that he was seeking to put words in Judy's

mouth and demand an exactitude of answers that she was going to be

unable to provide...”, Dr. James Fetzer during the Dynamic Duo radio

broadcast on 02/06/07 regarding an interview conducted at the National

Press Club on 01/10/07 ( )


As Dr. James Fetzer suggests, Dr. Judy Wood may be unable to provide answers to basic questions regarding her own speculative hypothesis. However, this paper does quantitatively analyze those issues raised during the interview as well as address other evidence advanced by Dr. Judy Wood and others that the WTC towers may have been destroyed by directed energy weapons. The following arguments will prove that the degree of implausibility places the hypothesis squarely in the realm of the impossible.

Dr. Wood’s hypothesis is predominantly based upon the premise that large amounts of debris were ‘missing’ from the post-collapse rubble. A detailed analysis clearly demonstrates that all the debris is accounted for if sublevel collapses are considered. This paper addresses the massive energy requirements, issues involving the use of directed energy weapons, and misinterpreted phenomena used to support the thesis such as the Richter scale measurements, Bathtub damage, holes in adjacent buildings, charred cars, etc.

Part 1: What Missing Debris?

  • Analysis of the Debris
  • Potential Energy Versus Richter Scale Readings
  • Bathtub Damage

Part 2: Analysis of a Hypothetical Method of Destruction:

Directed Energy Weapons

  • The Associated Massive Energy Scale
  • Analysis of All Known Energy Beams

Part 3: Analysis of Specific Directed Energy Sources and

  • Miscellaneous Phenomena
  • MIRACL Laser Operation Specifications
  • Energy Comparisons to the MIRACL Laser and Ramifications
  • Reflecting Satellites
  • Directed Energy Beams from WTC 7, HAARP, and Plasmoids
  • Perpetual Motion Machines: the Violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy
  • Holes in Adjacent Buildings
  • Charred Vehicles
  • Paper
  • Disappearing Acts of Steel


Sublevel collapses together with minimal surface debris easily account for all the debris from the WTC towers, WTC 4, WTC 3, and holes in WTC 6. The percentage of iron in dust samples shows that no significant amount of steel was dissociated into dust. The minimum amount of power required to dissociate the steel in one of the WTC towers is astronomically large, over 5 times the total power output of the world. A very conservative estimate of loss mechanisms swell this to at least thousands of worlds of power. Any method used to dissociate steel would require at least this massive amount of energy. Any mechanism claiming to dissociate the steel with less than the minimum required energy is breaking fundamental tenets of physics and can be labeled a perpetual motion machine…

Other phenomena which have been ascribed to the directed energy beam to support the hypothesis such as burning vehicles, intact paper, and videos supposedly showing disappearing acts of steel, were shown to have much more plausible explanations.

You just made my day...


Show "real 9/11 scholar, jeff" by

5 times the entire power output of the Earth in one year

“The energy required to vaporize all the steel from both towers was pumped into the towers during the collapse time, approximately 10 seconds... is over 5 times the total power output of the entire earth including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc. This is with no loss.”

“If you take into account losses from scattering and absorption in the atmosphere, reflection by aluminum and steel in the building, and inefficiencies from storing this huge amount of energy and generating photons, then the power required swells to at least thousands of earths worth of power. The scenario becomes more bleak when considering beams of particles that have mass since the ionization energies required would add massive amounts of energy in conjunction with the aforementioned inefficiencies.”

“In short, the energy required to ‘dustify’ steel, if such a thing were possible, would be about the same as the energy required to vaporize steel.”

There is no direct evidence that a significant amount of steel was vaporized or “dustified”, only speculation which is left entirely unsupported by proponents of ‘missing’ debris. Currently available evidence directly contradicts the unsupported hypothesis. Furthermore, photographic and video evidence does not support that significant amounts of debris moved upwards during either collapse of the World Trade Center towers. An example of such a picture used to support the claim is shown in the earlier letter publication and highlighted in an interview of Dr. Judy Wood by the author.”

“The power required to evaporate the steel in one of the WTC towers is astronomically large. To get a feel for the huge size of this number, we will compare to the largest laser in the western hemisphere, the MIRACL laser... we would need 57 million MIRACL lasers of power!”

“Since the energy scale to vaporize steel is astronomical, some proponents argue that some ‘secret’ method may have been employed which dissociates the bonds holding the steel lattice together with only a small fraction of the energy normally required. Let us consider a hypothetical situation in which the bonds holding molecules together are dissociated using less energy than the bonding strength. We now set aside fundamental tenets and sensibilities which have been established in science over the last 400 years through arduous and tedious experiments, particularly the law of conservation of energy.”

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "so thermite has enough" by

Misguided argument

The steel in the towers was not 'pulverized' to dust, nor vaporized, nor was it magically 'dustified'. *THAT* is the point. The power required is absurdly large. Furthermore, there was no significant amount of steel (iron) in dust samples. All the debris from the WTC complex (not including Building 7) is accounted for when considering the sublevel collapses. THERE IS *NO* MISSING STEEL!!

Now, if you want to talk about concrete, how much was pulverized? How much energy does it take to pulverize 1%, or 10%, or 50% of the concrete in the towers? Do you need a DEW to account for it, or can conventional explosives in addition to gravitational driven collisions account for it? The numbers I have been playing around with for the pulverization of concrete suggest that somewhere between 1 and 10% of the concrete could be pulverized to dust due to the gravitational PE of the building alone. This is a problem I am still working out, so I am not going to go into details until publication. One thing to note here is that the building can fall at near free fall speed *and* have some appreciable percentage of the concrete pulverized when you consider that all the kinetic energy eventually is released when the debris impacts the ground, meaning that a significant amount of pulverization would occur at that point. However, If you disagree, then I invite you to quantitatively prove it ---

Before you answer, take a look at the Building 7 debris pile. It seems much of the concrete, office furniture, and wall board was pulverized when that building collapsed:
No DEW destroyed Building 7, right?

All the concrete in the WTC towers was not 'pulverized to fine dust'. This is important to consider especially when deriving the energy requirements. In a few pictures of ground zero, you see fist-sized concrete chunks in the debris. Also, consider the sample given to Steven Jones:
“Along with others, I examined the sample obtained by Janette MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower. The windows of her apartment were blown in during the collapse of this tower on 9/11/2001, and her apartment was filled with dust and debris. She collected a sample of this material in her own apartment in a plastic bag – which is good procedure – and the chain of custody went directly from her to me. (In the presence of other researchers, I collected more samples from her large plastic bag, while visiting in her home.) As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.”, Steven Jones, “From Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Letter A (January 19, 2007)

Chunks of concrete…. Note that, by weight, if you had equal amounts of gravel/small chunks in contrast to 1-100 micron sized dust, then the number of chunks would be a suprisingly small number----

No planes, are you serious?

The 'no plane' theory regarding the WTC towers is complete nonsense. See the paper written by Mark Salter here for a nice review:

Exterior columns of both WTC towers were bent inwards at the point of impact. There were many hundreds if not thousands of photographs and videos showing a plane, and they were from many different sources --- that is called redundant data. The geometric damage pattern on the exterior of the building matches that of a Boeing 767. The movement of the WTC towers swayed and torqued at the expected oscillation periods as measured from video evidence using Moire interference techniques by NIST, a very slick, well done analysis. The movement amplitudes were consistent with the momentum of a 767. The planes were shown to decelerate by 12% of the initial velocity by analyzing the Evan Fairbanks video footage before impact, consistent with what is expected based upon the momentum transfer to the tower upon impact. The exterior box columns were constructed of less than 1/4" plate metal near the impact, so it is reasonable that the momentum of the plane, including the wings, could severely damage the exterior columns. This is similar to the momentum of a copper bullet which is able to pierce plate steel ---- it is a question of momentum, not merely hardness of the target material compared to the projectile. Thousands of eyewitnesses saw and heard the impact of both planes.

Knock it off. No one is buying this nonsense.

I am a little confused

Are you endorsing Salter's method here? My understanding is that your latest Letter at Journal of 9/11 Studies is a critique of this method. This is a genuine question, and I'm sorry if I am wrong.

I discuss the projectile comparison in my latest comment in our discussion at the "Riveted on Rosie" blog.

Yes, but that was then...

[Edit: For other readers to follow this conversation, read the following published letter:

When I wrote this remark, I did not realize at the time that there were these confusions between Centerof Mass and Tail-end motion. I only realized this recently. With that said, let me elaborate:

I have not personally analyzed the tail-end deceleration of the Boeing 767 going into the tower. I don't know if Salter's analysis is correct or not. At the time I wrote this, I was only quoting what I saw written in his paper.

You are correct, basically, that my latest letter is a critique on his analysis methodology. That is, I can not say whether his deceleration *measurement* of the tail is accurate or not since I have not done it myself. It is definitely inconsistent with what NIST measured, and it is not a completely simple matter to measure ---- distortions in field of view of the camera, the location of the camera with respect to the plane to adjust for angles, and the angle of approach with respect to the building of the plane. NIST outlines their methodology for measuring the approach of the plane and the angles, and how they triangulated from multiple camera angles. They were mainly concerned with nailing down the approach angle of the plane (as well as the pitch and yaw of the plane itself) and the initial impact velocity of the plane. The methodology they outline is good stuff --- however, I am not saying I checked their work.

So, I don't know if the NIST 0% or Salter's 12% (I think this is what is written in the paper) is correct.

What I do in my letter is show that this particular analysis done by Salter doesn't really matter for its intended purpose. The tail-end deceleration is unimportant if you want to know how much the plane (necessarily defined by the center of mass) decelerates upon impact.

That means his approach to the problem, trying to justify that it was a 'real plane' impacting the building by measuring the tail-end deceleration, was misguided. A near zero percent deceleration of the tail-end definitely does not prove that the planes were not real.

I'll get to your other posts, at least in part, sometime tomorrow.

Show "Still not enough desceleration" by Peggy Carter

please check out the letter publication

Yes, please check out the letter publication as Arabesque suggests. It is very short and easy to read.

In particular, review the Sandia National Labs test case: An F-4 Phantom jet colliding with a massive solid block of concrete in a test crash. The tail-end does not decelerate appreciably (<3% for sure). The reason this is not particularly strange is, at least partly, explained in the letter.


Isn't there some kind of rule against spamming threads with huge posts like this?

Prove you are not clueless

I guess that the flames from the cars were holograms since you don't see paper burning beside the cars, right? Perhaps some type of cool burning flame which can only be caused by special 'space beams' of an ill-defined ilk? Why would flames literally on the street beneath cars not ignite paper on the street? What could possibly cause this?

There are plausible explanations, but I doubt you are capable of coming up with an answer. The plausible reasons directly relate to the answer as to why there are not many pictures of burning or burnt paper. I will post the answer at a later time to give you an opportunity to show off your critical thinking skills. Consider this an IQ test..... C'mon, smart guy? What's the reason the flames from the cars appear to not ignite any paper?

Does this mean you can't answer?

Are you throwing in the towel? C'mon, put a little effort into it! Just answer my question. What's the problem?

To address your questions, again (this is very one sided --- I answer all of your questions, and you snub one simple question that I ask)

Before so doing, let me state the obvious. Listing a bunch of DEWs with no specifications proves absolutely nothing. I can link to a bunch of sites to pen-sized laser pointers, but it does not prove they are capable of vaporizing the steel in the towers &/or the damage matches in any reasonable analysis that expected from laser pointers if they were powerful enough. Your post is ridiculous. Show me one DEW that puts out ~1000 earths of power in that rats-nest of links.

1) I explain in detail that Toni Szamboti's paper clearly shows impulse forces from falling steel beams can inflict major damage to surrounding buildings. The amount of debris expected after the impact if partial collapses ocurr can be found by using the expected volumetric compression from steel framed buildings. I find the volumetric compression based upon building 7 which had all kinds of office furniture, kitchen sinks, troll dolls, picture frames, etc.. This is not guesswork like your work... oh wait, you don't show any work to back up your claims that "space beams *had* to do this damage". Get real,and stop applying such a blatant double standard. Prove that impulse damage could not have caused the damage seen to surrounding buildings and then prove that the amount of debris observed is unreasonable. Between Szamboti and myself, we have already proven the contrary.

2) I observe spires falling. Period.
You can say you see them dissappearing, or turning to dust even though the steel was not found in dust samples. It's up to you whether you want to willingly ignore pesky obvious evidence or not.

3) I am not addressing the paper issue until you address my question.

Please don't flunk the IQ test. All you have to do is *try* to explain the phenomena, and I guarantee a score above chimpanzee.....

Show "2) I observe spires falling. Period." by Peggy Carter

Notice how someone else shows up

just as someone else disappears from the discussion...

...almost like it's coordinated.

Show "Paranoia Strikes Deep" by Peggy Carter

No, actually

I've noticed this phenomenon on many other blogs as well. Talk about organized groupthink.

Well I suppose it could be a coincidence, but you know how suspicious those conspiracy theorists can be.

I doubt Andy and Peg are working together...

though I could be wrong. Andy seems daft sometimes, but he's sincere.

Peg on the other hand is a Nico cheerleeder.

Yes, we've got your number, love.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Please stop, Peggy

your videos are taking up a lot of space.

They are also intended to mislead people.

We're not as dumb as you think.

Show "why would you think I think you're dumb?" by Peggy Carter

That's it?

"The paper was not near the fire"

Are you putting out the proposal that *none* of the paper which heavily littered lower manhatten burned because *none* of it happened to be near the many flames from cars, buildings, and rubble hot enough to ignite paper?

This is not about "the answer I want". This is about a plausible explanation, and to suggest that *none* of the papers were near the flames is highly unlikely i.e. implausible. The explanation is critical to understanding the lack of picture evidence of burning or burnt paper. I know you can do better than this.....

The question is not simply "Why would flames literally on the street beneath cars not ignite paper on the street?". The original question (stated last in my previous post) was "What's the reason the flames from the cars appear to not ignite any paper?"

You can actually contribute positively to a discussion for a change. Please put a little time into it and think harder. I guarantee there are plausible explanations, and if you fail in your assigned task, I will post them.

As long as you continue to try and answer this question with each post, I will continue to address (that is, re-address) the issues you raise.
The spires fell under the influence of gravity. That is my observation. There was heavy dust on the spires as well as quite alot of concrete which comprised the core region. View this video for a close up of the spires, and watch the tall column behind the others from the ABC clip to see how thick the dust is near the spire before collapse ( The top of that particular column moves from left to right, but you can not see the mid-section of the spire due to the thick dust. This does not mean that the top of the column was floating in mid air and the middle of the column was turned to dust. It means that the column was obscured by thick dust, just as the spires are obscured by dust as the concrete crumbles and spires fall.

What is your reasons to suspect the spires turned to dust, especially in light of the fact that I observe the spires falling from videos regardless what you observe? Can you refute my observation on any scientific level other than "you didn't see those there spires falling, 'cause I seen 'em turn to dust"?

I do not blindly trust any study. Nor do I blindly disregard studies for no good reason. I read the study and decide upon its merits. I also look at other studies to see if the data is corroborated. I do not find any reason to disregard the USGS data. The data disproves pre-conceived, unsubstantiated, and disproved notions that steel turned to dust, and based upon that fact alone is certainly no reason to suggest the USGS data is not credible.

What reasons do you have for disregarding the USGS data? It goes against what you want to beleive, therefore it is not credible? What data unambiguously supports that large amounts of steel were turned to dust?

tell me you don't smell the irony

I am not glibly disregarding the spires. I clearly address your questions. I concisely lay out the evidence. Because you are not satisfied with my answer, you regurgitate the same information. You babbled some nonsense as to why you are unsatisfied which, frankly, is incoherent.

Here is a clearer view of the spires (ABC clip) which is not embedded in the Google video. It is a higher quality since it has not been compressed by google video:

Your quotes:What kind of scientist would chose an ambigious, inadequate and incomplete item of evidence in preference to one, such as my four photos, that is clear and precise?

Your photos do not unambiguously show spires turning to dust. Your insistance on interpretting this as a 'fact' is inherently flawed. I clearly see the spires falling in those 4 frames, and in all the video clips. Upon collapse, the dust is generated from the concrete and wallboard that was built into the core region as well as remnant dust. Again, the *only* evidence you have for the spires turning to dust is provably ambiguous: I see spires falling, you don't. Thousands of people would say they see the spires falling, maybe hundreds would say they see spires turning to dust. That is just about as close to the definition of 'ambiguous' as you can get, and you *know* that this is the case. Alot of people see spires falling, it is not just my singular interpretation. Do not blame me if the only piece of evidence you have for the spires turning to dust is inherently ambiguous. Now, reread "your quote" from the previous paragraph and tell me you don't smell the irony!

Your quote: It is that it is in contradiction to the facts. Facts are not what we are told is true. They are what really is true. I for one do not believe any of the official reports. Do you think the scientists who wrote the NIST report were telling the truth?

Judging the merits of *any* report requires analysis. I think there are sections of the NIST report that are well done. I think there are section which use over-reaching assumptions. Some sections are flawed in methodology. To disregard *all* of the work from NIST without evaluation is overly simplistic. To then disregard all reports from government institutions, and all companies that have ties to government contracts, and all people that ever took a dime from the government, and work that appears in the same publication which published story "X" which you don't agree with, etc., is called paranoia. You must cut through the crap/misinfo/disinfo that institutions and individuals generate using the scientific method applied directly to the work.

Please answer all of my questions, and don't be so flippant. I am taking the time to thoroughly address your questions, and you disregard my questions.

1) In the ABC clip, do you witness the spires falling before being obscured by dust? What percentage of time do you clearly see the spires falling before being obscured by dust compared to the total fall time (estimate)?

Previously unanswered questions
2) "What's the reason the flames from the cars appear to not ignite any paper?"
You brought up the unburnt paper as an issue, and I am addressing it. It is a topic you have brought up repeatedly, and I suppose you will continue to bring up. To answer this question does not require a PhD in anything, it only requires critical thinking. I want to know if you can critically think, and I want to know if you can put forward any positive ideas which may benifit the movement. Here is your golden opportunity. This is the perfect question, custom made just for you.

3) Can you refute my observation on any scientific level other than "you didn't see those there spires falling, 'cause I seen 'em turn to dust"?

4) What reasons do you have for disregarding the USGS data?

5) What data unambiguously supports that large amounts of steel were turned to dust?

Andrew punts

"What's the reason the flames from the cars appear to not ignite any paper?"

Andrew has left the building. It is really too bad. I was honestly rooting for him to earnestly answer this question & reclaim some dignity.... it would prove his previous statement incorrect, namely that everyone on this board is a moron. Andrew, a poster to the blog, could have demonstrated to us all that he had actually used his cognitive skills to logically think through a problem thus proving that at least one person, Andrew, was not a moron. Secondly, it would have proven that he can contribute positively to the 9/11 movement raising his credibility from shill (I don't think this, but many do) to misguided (my opinion).

For the record, I was looking forward to Andrew's post and his answers to my questions, and I did not vote down his courtesy post.

If anyone is curious about possible explanations regarding burning paper, let me know ---- I will post my thoughts.

Would that he had indeed

left the building (for good and literally instead of in the figurative/critical thinking sense) but I doubt it. He threatens to leave, he calls us all morons and/or perps (moronic perps?), but he keeps coming back. I have lost all patience with Andrew and I regret it, because once upon a time I felt some affinity for him.

Anyhoo, I'd like to know what you think about the burning paper.

Answer to burning/burnt paper

Andrew failed the IQ test. Alas. I was building the issue up to prod the guy into answering something.... anything.... for himself.

As promised, here are some plausible explanations. Thanks for your interest, casseia, and I would like to hear if you have any other ideas ----

Before addressing the burnt paper, it is instructive to note how vehicles typically burn. A video of a fire in the K-Mart parking lot shows a minivan aflame, and illustrates several pertinent points:
• The pavement underneath the minivan is ablaze
• The car in the immediate vicinity of the minivan catches fire demonstrating how an entire parking lot or underground parking garage of cars parked close together, as is the case in NYC, can burn serially
• The driver-side front tire of the minivan is completely burned off
• The driver-side door handle is missing
• The burnt minivan resembles many of the same characteristics as burnt vehicles at ground zero including missing headlights and deformed hood

Some paper had to burn, especially since vehicle fires leak fluid and drip melted organics onto the ground beneath the vehicle. The ground beneath the vehicle is usually engulfed in flames at some point during the vehicle fire. Any paper located beneath the vehicle would surely have caught fire, and some paper, judging by the density of paper debris on the streets, was surely located beneath some of the aflame vehicles in photographs.

How do you distinguish between burning paper and other burning organic material from the photographs that exist? You can’t. Some of the pictures could very well show paper burning but is indistinguishable from other organic materials which are concurrently burning

Furthermore, single sheets of loose paper dominated the surrounding streets where most pictures exist of vehicle fires. That is to say, large books were not present, only single sheets of loose paper. A single sheet of paper will completely burn in seconds. Statistically speaking, the probability of photographing single sheets of paper on fire is low compared to that of the vehicle fires.

Why is there no burnt paper seen in photographs? Spotting small, crumpled, black remains of burnt single sheets of paper from photographs is near impossible upon a background consisting of various sorts of debris and dust. Burned bits of paper probably are in the photographs but near impossible to distinguish from other debris. Almost no photographs exist of close-up shots of the ground.

Lastly, I do recall seeing a photograph of a stack of charred compressed papers in the rubble pile at GZ. I can not find this photograph, but I do recall seeing it. It is one of the few photographs taken at a zoom level where you can clearly distinguish the charred stack of paper from other debris. However, this was the only photograph I ever recall seeing of burnt paper.

Thank You

I appreciate all of your posts because they reveal so many facets of this controversy that I don't have the expertise to figure out on my own.

The idea had occurred to me, it would be great to do a transcript and analysis of the Dr. Wood Interview (sort of like the analysis of the Robertson interview in the Journal of 9/11 studies). I had thought of doing something like that immediately after I saw your excellent interview.

This could be very useful as something to put in the Letters section of the Journal of 9/11 studies. Every time she evades a question or promotes a misleading argument could be analyzed and then debunked in definitive fashion.

The interview is one thing, but there are many points that not everyone might catch.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Congratulations on the Letter

I just read through it. Good job, excellent citations. The straw-man fallacy was liberally embedded in the RFC's issued to NIST by Reynolds and Woods --- at least they are consistent in their application of logical fallacies. For instance, Reynolds uses physics erroniously causing him to draw false conclusions. He then misinterprets NIST's findings and blames them for breaking the laws of physics, demanding that NIST correct their 'mistakes'. It would all be very funny if it were not so potentially damaging.

We should probably switch over to e-mail for a more candid discussion than can be done on a blog. I have a few ideas of my own to throw into the mix, and I would certainly like to toss some ideas around.

Paranoia is the word of the day

I've already answered every single one of these questions in detail. You couldn't even answer one simple question I possed to you repeatedly, blatantly. I might as well have posted it on a billboard in bright neon signs. You say you don't care about the burning paper, yet you brought it up! Even if you don't care about it, I posed a question to you, and out of reciprocal respect, you should have answered. You didn't, and it speaks volumes about your intellect, credibility, and character as a human being.

And then you demand answers from me which I have already, in detail, addressed? Something is seriously wrong with you.

I don't inherently trust the USGS report. Their findings are corroborated by other studies lending some amount of credibility to their findings. You have offered absolutely no reason to distrust their findings except psycho-type paranoia, and demonstrate your affinity to jumping to illogical emotionally based conclusions. For what analytical reason do you distrust the USGS findings, Andrew? Be specific, and be considerate and directly answer my questions. I will entertain all paranoid delusions.

I find sections of the NIST report credible. I find other sections badly conceived for multiple reasons that I have already listed. It takes a mind of a child to disregard the entire 10,000 page report baselessly. Most of their arguments are layed out in a fairly transparent manner where the flaws in the report can be assessed --- I recommend you evaluate their work based upon specifics and not paranoid generalities.

I don't attribute Lioy's lack of reporting the specific number associated with the iron content suspicious in and of itself, no. I have no reason to suspect the iron content particularly important based upon the results of other studies, and his lack of reporting it may be for this precise reason. I would have liked that he reported the iron concentration, but I don't find it suspicious.

Andrew, and answer the question, list all the possible reasons that Lioy may have left this number out of the report (and post them) while concurrently reporting 'large readings' of iron. Are all those reasons you list suspicious? Am I going to have to do it for you again?

Who is taunting who?

You’re previous post is full of errors, blatant lies, and complete mischaracterizations. I outline them in detail. I hope by illustrating these obvious errors that your critical thinking skills may be improved.

And, BTW, you still owe me the answers to the questions I posted. Any reader of these posts can clearly see that I cogently answer all of your questions, and you do not address 90% of the questions I pose. Any reasonable person would conclude that you are either being intentionally evasive, or you do not have the ability to answer them. I have not posed a question to you that would require any formal advanced training as a scientist. The questions I pose require critical thinking which you have failed every single time to address. This is telling. I repost my last 2 questions:


For what analytical reason do you distrust the USGS findings, Andrew? Be specific, and be considerate and directly answer my questions. I will entertain all paranoid delusions.


Andrew, and answer the question, list all the possible reasons that Lioy may have left this number [iron] out of the report (and post them) while concurrently reporting 'large readings' of iron. Are all those reasons you list suspicious? Am I going to have to do it for you again?

A sad affair: analysis of your latest post

Logical fallacy example #1: ironic Straw man argument concluding that I have committed the fallacy!

I brought up the burning paper to show the logical basis of your claim that it was all incinerated was false, based as it was on one eyewitness of an event before the collapse. Otherwise, I repeat that I have no idea why the paper in the photos is unburnt nor do I think it is important. Talk of straw men!

I have never claimed that all the paper was incinerated. This is a text-book example of a straw man fallacy. Please provide a link to any post, any recording, or anything I have published where I state this.

Logical fallacy example #2: Jumping to a conclusion when mutliple conclusions can be reached; more plausible explanations being dismissed for no apparent reason

In answer to your new question about Lioy, I cannot think of a reason why they would leave out the figure for the iron content. Your reasons are invalid. No scientific paper would omit data simply because it was present in another paper. Surely that compromises its integrity. Are scientists that lazy? Of course not.

It is incredible that the omission of this data does not concern you, given that iron made up a large put of the building' s debris. Your lack of curiosity and skepticism is most strange in a scientist

You refer to my skepticism of the official studies as 'psycho-type paranoia' and talk of my 'illogical emotionally based conclusions' and 'paranoid delusions'. This is not scientific language and calls into question your professional credibility. Indeed, your entire response to me has been haranguing, aggressive, patronizing and sneering. I will let readers decide if this is worthy of the ephiphet 'scientific'.

All scientific publications leave out data; every single one of them without exception. Authors select the results they interpret as important and publish them. Especially in a short publication like the Lioy study, it is necessary to publish results which are interpreted by the author to be relevant and important in a short amount of space. Furthermore, it is common practice to publish data which addresses specific points the author wishes to outline based upon his findings. So, I offer the interpretation that I do not find his lack of publishing the iron content in his study suspicious, especially in light of the fact that other studies do not show the iron content to be strange in any way. You then accuse me of a lack of curiosity and skepticism when, in fact, it is your own ignorance that is at the heart of the misguided conclusions you draw. You have not listed any analytical or logical reasons why Lioy leaving the iron content out of his conclusions is ‘suspicious’ even though I have clearly asked the question explicitly. I can only conclude that you base your judgments upon emotional arguments &/or paranoia since it seems you have no logical reasons for you conclusion.

Logical fallacy example #3: Text book straw man fallacy

More importantly , your post reads as one whose concern is to uphold the NIST report against attacks. That I find amazing in one who claims to be a member of the 911 Truth movement.

I have never stated that the official story is true, nor have I in any publication, recording, or post stated that I fully endorse the NIST report. Quite to the contrary, I have clearly stated that I think that the NIST report is flawed. However, there are sections of the report where I think the analysis of the NIST report is well done. Why would you find this ‘amazing’?

Logical fallacy example #4 & #5: ambiguous data does not equal fact + Straw man fallacy

You have blustered and fumed when I have quietly and calmly presented clear photographic evidence to disprove your far-fetched claim that the appearance of the spire becoming dust in mid-air was due to the sudden release of dust that had settled only seconds earlier.

I have neither blustered nor fumed. Do you deny that some people see spires falling which automatically renders interpretation of the videos ambiguous as I have stated previously? I believe you when you state that your observation based upon the videos is that the ‘spires turn to dust’. I have repeatedly told you that I observe spires falling, yet, somehow, you think this simply stated fact is untrue. Two different interpretations of data is the definition of ambiguous data.

The straw man fallacy is that I claim the dust generated from the falling spires is generated solely from dust which has settled on the spires. Do you even read half of what I post? There was much concrete and wallboard built into the core which crumbled when the spires collapsed together with the pre-existing dust/debris which generated what is seen as dust in the videos. Again, link to any recording, post, or publication where I state that all the dust generated is from the dust which has settled on the spires without reference to the concrete or wallboard built into the core.

Necessary last words

As an unversed amateur, I clearly am at a disadvantage in this debate. What is disappointing is that you have used sarcasm and personal abuse instead of calm logical argument, while claiming that is what I have done.

Again, I recommend that readers view the whole debate and see if that is a fair assessment.

Now, I will not respond to more taunts. Over to you. I will allow you the last word.

I have used concise, logical arguments which substantiate my opinions. I have shared the arguments and opinions in the most cogent manner possible. In many cases, I have made the same points multiple times since you repeatedly fail to grasp the arguments. In your latest post, you have bastardized every single argument. I outlined 5 logical fallacies you committed from your last post alone and then you wonder why I become annoyed?

Unbeleivable! Who is taunting who?

Prove any of the 5 blatantly obvious fallacies wrong! Where is your dignity? How can you sleep at night knowing it has been utterly shredded? You can regain at least some of your dignity by posting an acknowledgement stating that you can not substantiate the false allegations listed above and, therefore, formally withdraw them.

Show "Yep" by Peggy Carter

Missing Paper Conspiracy

Imagine all of the paper in the WTCs. All 110 floors of office space. Now show us how much paper was not burned.

Explain how this is some kind of a “mystery”. Lots of paper was destroyed, some was not.

In particular make note of the paper that was falling out of the buildings after the planes hit them, and that was not on fire.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Directed Energy = Disinfo


Nico Haupt Spam

Nico Haupt Spam.

Take this offensive material where it belongs: 9/



I am inclined to

ignore your baseless and offensive accusations.

I don't mind if you discuss the issues involved, but if you are going to attempt to turn this into a flame war your posts should be voted down and ignored.

For a very silly reason

I was recently on the receiving end of some of Nico's "internet research." Let's just say that when you see how wrong he is able to be with the very simple stuff, it does not inspire much (read "any") confidence in his ability to suss out information about people online.

You WHAT!?!?

" A monumental service to humanity"?!?!?!?

I think you need to go join Griffin in the naivite corner--though I think you'll find you've got him beat in that department--you just linked to a Rick Seigel site. :-(

BTW--I think Griffin believes in a "global democracy", not theocracy. Still some devils in those details, but not nearly as alarming.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Didn't pass the dz Test

Telsa Technology Before Direct Energy Beams

We have all heard the hypothesis by several people within our movement. Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, Morgan Renolds amongst others have offered their support for this theory. I myself have looked at the possibility of the use of advanced weaponry and I have found little evidence to support their theories.

I would like to propose a theory that has far more plausibility than the use of a directed energy weapon. Technology that our government confiscated years ago. Technology developed by Nicola Tesla.
Technology which if implemented in the proper way could easily aid in the collapse and pulverization of materials in the World Trade Center Towers. This would not be the only means of collapse but simply an additional aid.

Nicola Tesla was a mind well beyond his years. He experimented in many areas of thought and science. Without his developments we may not have radio or and efficient way to distribute electricity.
His inventions almost single handedly led us to our current level of technological advancement. Much of his genius is still not understood.

One of the many things that he experimented with was resonance. The use of sound and it's effects on matter. Everything that we encounter every day is composed of atoms. Protons and electrons which join together to form different types of matter. All of these formulations of matter have a reaction between the atoms which bind them together into their form. These atoms in those conglomerations have a resonant signature. If you can alter that resonant signature you can alter the state of that substance. Kind of like when an opera singer hits a pitch with the proper note and shatters a wine glass.

Tesla developed a device that he could use which accomplished this very situation. There are documented stories where he had experimented with this device on a steel structure which was under construction. He pulled it out of his pocket and attached it to exposed steel structure and activated the device. Within minutes the structure was drastically affected. The device used vibration or resonance like ringing a bell. Each wave pulsed through the structure was amplified over and over until the structure was dramatically affected. He hypothesized that this device could transform the Brooklyn Bridge to dust in less than an hour.

Could this have been the noises that William Rodriguez heard coming from the 34th floor? The sounds of heavy machinery moving around. If this type of device were to be used, In my opinion that would be the optimal location, Essentially 1/3 of the height of the building. A perfect place to amplify a resonant pulse throughout the structure. Vibrations which would be amplified over and over and over which would work their way through every material in the structure. This would excite the materials to their atomic level in essence making them more easily affected by outside force.

I know that this theory may seem a bit fringe for those who have not researched the discoveries of Nicola Tesla but this theory has much more plausibility than the use of a "Direct Energy Weapon from Space". Our government has control of all of the findings of Nicola Tesla. All of his research, his findings and his devices. If a device which fit in his pocket could reduce the Brooklyn Bridge to rubble imagine what it could do if applied to a structure like the World Trade Center Towers. ;))
Together in Truth!

Dear JJJames:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo oooooo oo

JJJames, why? Why oh why oh why?

"that is what the military does when there is nothing else to do." -911truthiness


Together in Truth!

Then how do you explain the squibs?

Smarty-pants? ;-P

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I didn't say

I didn't say that it was the only means of collapse.

Wood??? Fetzer???

It would have merely been an aid. The vibrations caused by the resonance device would have simply made the buildings structural components and concrete more susceptable to the force of the explosives.

Vibration would excite the atomic structure of the materials. Making the materials more vulnerable. It is kind of an advanced philosophy. I'm really not sure if it had even made it beyond the minds and experiments of Tesla or Keely.

Together in Truth!

And once weakened by excitement...

All Guiliani or Silverstien had to do was stomp on the ground REALLY HARD and the atomic structure of the buildings would FALL APART!

My god! I think JJ has got it!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Closer than a space beam?!?!

Together in Truth!

Walk VERY softly around any potential "terrorist" targets

On tip-toe if you have to--Lord knows where other atoms have been "excited"!

I didn't expect anyone to grasp

But everytime CJS gets sassy I can't control my atoms
Together in Truth!

Speculation: Provable and Unprovable

Well I find all of this interesting but ultimately it falls into the category of "non-falsifiable" theories.

This means that a theory can't be tested, therefore it can't be proved.

I don't claim to know exactly what happened at the WTC, but increasingly it looks like some advanced kind of thermate was used (i.e. superthermite) to destroy the WTC towers.

The latest findings of Dr. Jones indicate that dust samples thrown into an apartment over a football field away contained thermate elements. Now how did it get from the WTC to that apartment? This would seem to suggest that this thermite was explosive (thermate/thermite are not). Was this material ejected through a combination of explosives and thermate? I don't know.

But I prefer to stick to what we can prove.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Why should I waste my time falsifying your theory?




Wow. Now Casseia is attacking me. What next? At least I know for sure that you're joking. (;

If you remember my post about the Wood/Reynolds thermite paper. I’ve been introduced to Dr. Jones and he likes my writing. I've written another version of this essay and it has been reviewed and is now posted in the Journal of 9/11 studies in the letters section:

I seem to remember Andrew calling my essay “Orwellian”. Another thing of mine is still being reviewed and will appear very soon.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

*Very* cool

I remember that well and it looks great/ is very readable in pdf format.

@ all above

I'll sue for hurting my midriff!

interns < internets do realize most of this is tongue in cheek?

...and I AM a Tesla fan.

Then again this is a page break and I'm not sure which post you're responding to.

JOKES! Mostly.....;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.



(Would someone kindly point me to where this initially came up? LOL)

interns < internets


Ironically, we were talking about non-falsifiable theories (like DEW actually) and then someone misinterpreted what I meant and assumed I was a "disinfo troll" attacking him [friendly fire!].

It was a case of "unintentional friendly fire" because I wasn't actually intending to 'attack' the person and then people began to defend my post.

The person who thought I was a "disinfo troll" called me a hermaphrodite because Casseia said she wasn't sure if I was a man or a woman.

I had to reveal the truth that indeed, I am not a hermaphrodite.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Resonance problems...

JJJames, I usually enjoy your posts. I have to say that I normally do not spend time addressing the 'secret' Tesla technology issues people bring up, but out of respect I figured it may be worth while to explain a couple of things that you may find useful.

The resonances of the building can be found from its natural period of oscillations. NIST does a fantastic analysis using the Moire patterns generated between the vertical lines that form the exterior columns and the grid of pixels in the CCD of a video camera. The idea was to look at the building oscillations after the Boeing 767 impact and compare to the natural frequency of the building. If the natural period of some of the modes (explained later) changed after damage to the building, then structural damage could be assessed. For the record, NIST did not see any observable changes in the natural frequency of the modes of the building implying no measurable structural damage using this technique.

What are modes? Picture the building swaying from North to South. Call it mode NS_0. The next higher mode would be where the top of the building moves, the point 2/3 the height does not move, and the point 1/3 the height moves in an opposite direction from the top. Call this mode NS_1. There will also be NS_2, NS_3, etc...

Now there are modes of the building when it moves in an East-west direction. These are actually different since the core columns were rectangular in cross section, so the building stiffness is different. However, the mode geometry is the same as the NS modes, but they have slightly different frequencies. Call these modes EW_0, EW_1, etc...

There are also twisting modes, called torsional modes. Picture grabbing the top of the building and twisting it. Call these modes T_0, T_1, etc...

All of the '0' modes are in the range of .1 Hz to 1Hz (I am doing this from memory, but each mode NS_0, EW_0, and T_0 will be a specific number in this range). Say, for the sake of simplicity, it is 1 Hz. The '1' modes will be roughly twice the frequency: 2 Hz. The '2'modes will be roughly 3 Hz. etc...

1) If you excite the higher resonance frequencies, you would have heard it since these modes are audible. (~20Hz-20KHz)
2) the movement of the building would have been *very* visible, much more than that observed from the comparative flea-sized jet impact. The building was observably not moving before the plane impact. I don't know for absolute certainty if the building was moving just prior to collapse, but I really doubt it, especially the violent motion necessary to weaken it to any substantial degree.

Please keep in mind that Tesla exaggerated.... alot... it was good publicity. It helped to gain funding for his next round of experiments.

A small device pumping resonant energy into a building, or bridge, or any large complex structure will not just add indefinitely. Sure, if you had a device with enough power, you could obliterate the structure. However, a small, not-very-powerful device could not do this. There are loss mechanisms involved which would dissipate the energy you pump into the building. The flexing of beams and concrete generate heat through friction, for instance.

So, the story does not add up. I, personally, would scratch the idea. However, if you feel like thinking about it more, you necessarily have to circumvent these problems.

I must admit...

... how I myself love to fantasize about the world changing possibilities of "re-discovering" Tesla's fantastic visions (and please take my word when I tell you I've read absurd amounts of material in his vein) ... yet an astonishingly rock-solid case has been established for opening a criminal investigation to get THE BASTARDS THEMSELVES to tell us how they did it in detail... or they'll assuredly hang from the neck till dead.

That said, hsgsj has once again soundly offered a cogent explanation for pause... to leave such additional speculations aside (for now), as these are not necessary (and VARY time consuming) on our down hill race to justice.

When the chalk board is wiped clean of the PNAC's and their ilk's versions of a NWO... I trust there will be ample time and forums as far as the eye may see... poring over how we will reinvent our energy paradigm with Tesla, or whomever, ridding high.

Tell you what!

I've got at least three names, of living people... who trump Tesla by orders of magnitude.

Yet, for those lovers of all things Tesla (don't make me call you blinded cult followers), these three names are reverentially respectful for the man himself and his undeniable discoveries and innovations. However, they lay out in massive detail where he was right... what he never finished... and where he was wrong.

I'll trade these three names to anyone who prints out this comment and presents it to me, when the current infestation of high-office bastards and their sicko schemes of death and domination have been dashed upon the rocks of history.

I used to think that solving the energy paradigm FIRST... would make the bastards obsolete to where they would then wither and die away.

I have since come to hold... that it is WE who must solve our tendencies to slide into bastardizations which must be solved FIRST... and then... the Universe with all her marvelous secrets, will be opened like a cornucopia of extraordinary adventures, excitement, love and general lasting peace.

Any takers?

it supports the bombs scenerio quite well

Thanks for the post. I have seen this clip. The audio track is not the original --- it is overdubbed from "9/11 eyewitness". The audio track can not be trusted at all in correlation with the video.

If you were going to mechanically resonate the tower, why would the building many blocks away shake and the WTC tower not obviously visibly move during that time?

One thing that has always bothered me about this video clip is that it is so easy to debunk. There are *many* reasons for a camera to shake and most of those reasons do not include bombs in the WTC tower. Personally, I tend to think it supports the bombs scenerio quite well with other corroborating evidence...

Gee-wiz, look ma, I got more funding

Do you enjoy being suckered by gee-wiz funding grubbers?

Pressure = Force/ area. If you make the area really tiny, then your pressure can be huge. It means nothing.

The Atlas is not a 'power multiplier'. It is a power converter. It takes some amount of energy from the power grid, call it E. Power is energy per time, or E/t. If you make the time really small, then your power goes up. It means nothing in this context. In this case, imagine making t a femtosecond, and E is 1 J. Then your power is 10^15 Watts which is much more than enough power to bring down the towers and vaporize the steel IF, and I stress this very much --- IF you could make it last 10 seconds. However, it only lasts 1/10^15 of a second. If you used this same amount of energy in 1 second, it would only run 1/100 of a 100W light bulb.

In this case, a few millionths ~ 10^-6 seconds ---- To get 4 earths worth of power for 10 seconds you would need 10 million Atlas's. Ten million of these things should be no problem, right? Piece of cake for the New World Order, no doubt, with all their 'secret' technology and their 'secret' physics....

Gee-wiz, look ma, I got more funding.

Andrew, please try to think before posting.

Vaporized by a slice of cheese cake:

Well, maybe not vaporized, but surely dismembered, IF the total calories could be released within a fraction of a second inside one's gut. However, because of the particular makeup of cheese cake, and the metabolizing brilliance of the human body, the total energy can ("must" if you don't like having a cheese cake ass) be walked-off over a great distance.

A similar difference helps understand the proximal 'focus' of a given total energy released within a given time of dilation (longer and slower) vs. compression (shorter faster). The difference between an incendiary, old school TNT, and High Explosive.

Although in a given example, there may be equal quantities of calories in each... a given of cheese cake, a given of lamp oil, a given of incendiary, a given of TNT and a given of High Explosive.... setting one of each under it's own manhole cover... and lighting with a match to ignite, or with a capacitor powered radio-controlled electrically shorted hot wire coil, or compression-detonated (thus the need for "Caps" as many high-explosives will not even be 'set off' by simple fire):

One will just sit there (till the ants carry it away)

Another will be dissipated 'away' by the cover itself, and too fast (by the size of the cover) to properly cook a roast sitting on top.

Another will melt the manhole cover, as it then follows gravity.

Another will toss it high.

And yet another will make shrapnel of it.

Might you agree, hsgsj?

Assume you had the same

Assume you had the same amount of chemical energy (say 5000 calories) stored in a cheesecake, TNT, and thermite. Then, there are two things that can differ in the release of this energy. 1) the form of the energy when released and 2) the time duration of the release.

Burning a cheesecake and thermite will both release heat. However, the rate that thermite will burn is much faster (especially if the Al is fine powder). Therefore, the power =E/t will be much greater for thermite. Thermite will burn the same amount of energy in a much shorter amount of time and may reach temperatures hot enough to melt steel.

For TNT, the mix is usually explosive. Heat is generated as well, but the reaction is violent enough to cause rapid expansion of gases involved in the reaction. This explosive release of energy, if done over a short duration, may be enough to blow a manhole cover off the ground (especially if the TNT is packed into a cylinder and burried in the ground beneath the manhole cover so that pressure is allowed to build up behind it)...

That's right, good points.

The configuration of packaging and placement will play a significant role IN ADDITION to just the chemical makeup any particular combustible, incendiary, or explosive.

Your example about TNT: It does need a buildup of back pressure for it to really lift the manhole cover, such as rolled tight in paper, in a piece of pipe, and buried down even deeper in dirt... to really take advantage of the comapritively slower chemical reaction to say, RDX. Where as high explosive itself can react so fast, that it can create its own pressure envelope for building and completing the chemical reaction within its own pressure/speed. This is where the idea of a 'shaped charge' works even better, such a forming like simple Playdoh into cones and cups to all the better 'focus' in a chosen direction.

Differing blends and positioning of incendiaries would also be necessary considerations. (btw hsgsj, might you have a link or reference for the patented device discussed by Jones as a possible cutter example? I've been talking with a guy about making some for Burning Man... he wants to set up a big piece of steel art sculpture, and cut it down with some good music.) The incendiary placed below the manhole cover, is disadvantageous. Placing it on top, or using a special package (such as the patented device), helps to focus and direct a jet stream, or even a laterally moving line of super hot material. Again, thus helping to take better advantage of the chemistry through packaging and placement.

But no matter how many heat producing calories in our slice of cheese cake, smearing it on a steal beam will at best just draw more ants or raised eyebrows.


That's the exact one I was thinking of.

Thanks. my good man.


I don't litter

I return a sincere thank you for your posts --- I really do find them highly entertaining in a comedic sci-fi way.

I don't litter the 9/11 landscape with speculation. Contrary to your guiding principles, I certainly don't promote ludicrous notions which have been thoroughly discredited.

I have some ideas which are firmly based upon observables, but why would I just offer you speculation? Surely, you have higher standards. I am sure, quite positively sure, you respect yourself much too much to indulge in such things....

BTW, nothing promotes the official story like the promotion of 'space beams'. You need to give yourself a big pat on the back for a job well done ----

High energy bullcrap!

This whole Judy Wood high energy weapon thing is very obviously disinfo. But its not even good disinfo, it shows how desperate these people are becoming to get all these wacky theories out there to attempt to discredit the movement.
They are running scared and we of course are getting better at recognising this garbage for what it is.
Nice try guys, but why dont you come out with your hands up now, cos you know we will win in the end.