Physicists Explain Why Directed Energy Weapons Can Be Ruled Out

What About Directed Energy Weapons?

What About Directed Energy Weapons?

(There are 4 articles in this section)

This section will provide videos, audio recordings, printed documents and presentations of physical evidence that will show that the the amount of energy required to vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors of just one of the World Trade Center towers in the approximately 10 seconds it took to completely disintegrate to the ground, would be 4x1013 Watts. This is four times the total power output of the entire earth, including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc.. Additionally if you take into account losses from scattering and absorption in the atmosphere, reflection off aluminum and steel in the building, and inefficiencies from storing this huge amount of energy and generating photons, then the power required would swell to at least thousands of earths worth of power, strongly indicating that the use of any kind of directed energy weapons to destroy the World Trade Center Highrise towers on September 11, 2001 had a vanishing small probability of occurrence and for all practical purposes can be ruled out as one of the possible causes for the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.

This is the FULL, 'unedited' interview of Dr Judy Wood by Dr Greg Jenkins. The reason for this upload is not to discredit either Dr Judy Wood or Dr Greg Jenkins but is to provide viewers with a perspective currently not shown on Youtube. Several claims have been made on the Internet that Dr Jenkins was using 'ambush' techniques and that Dr Wood was simply caught 'off-guard' during this interview but I have also uploaded this to let viewers/listeners judge for themselves. Playlist showing the interview in its entirety : Dr. Judy Wood is the 'scientist' that made claims that…
Jim Fetzer: "I must say I think we're finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I'm just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11... I'm going to make a wild guess Judy; I'm going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?" Judy Wood: "Nope. I don't think so." Fetzer: "Planes?" Judy Wood:" No... I think it's very likely it's in orbit." Fetzer: "Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my oh my oh my oh my. This is…
Wood continues to evade the main question here: did the debris from the buildings fall in an area larger than their footprint in contrast to her analysis of the Kingdome. Instead of answering this question she debates the term "collapse": Misleading Argument #14: Dr. Wood boldly asserts that "The Towers did not collapse". She states that the use of such terminology is "false, deceptive, and misleading." One might agree only if the word was even slightly misused. The definition of a 'collapse' is given by the American Heritage English Dictionary, Third Edition as: Collapse (n.) 1. The act of falling…
In response to speculation that "advanced" weapons or other advanced technologies were used to destroy the World Trade Center Towers from a distance, this article will examine the magnitude of energy that seems to have been on display on 9/11 and will consider some potential sources for this energy. The magnitude of energy available through the ubiquitous electric energy grid will be used as a reference and compared to other known sources of energy. As expected, it is not possible to quantify energy produced by advanced "Directed Energy Weapons," but published data does suggest some limitations on this class of…

Joomla! Debug Console


Profile Information

Memory Usage

Database Queries