"Concrete Smashing" via exotic beam device

This just in -- no evidence of explosives being used to bring down the Twin Towers. And in related news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

LaViolette weighs in on plausibility of exotic beam weapon destruction of WTC

See http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=215&Itemid=60



RS = Richard Syrett
PLV = Paul LaViolette

RS


“Could you use it, say, to knock over 2 very large buildings”

PLV


“Yes you could. In fact Podlkletnov cranked this up to 10 million volts with a sharper discharge and was able to put a hole – a 4-inch hole – through a concrete block – also dent a half-inch steel plate, so you’re talking about huge forces.

RS


Could you bring down the World Trade Centers with it?

PLV


Easily. In fact, I believe that a beam weapon could have been used – I mean when you see what they talk about – like the concrete pulverising – that indicates microwave energy.

RS


There’s no question this technology exists.

PLV


Oh yeah – I mean even it’s public that certain of these aircraft companies have microwave transmitters that were putting out … gigawatts of power in pulses – very short pulses – so the technology is there and in fact – a conference that Jacques Vallee was with another fellow who had worked on some classified programmes and he sort of spilled the beans about what he called the mylar microwave platform and Vallee told him [French] ‘Quiet’. So these things are out there, apparently.

RS


Suddenly Dr Judy Wood doesn’t seem like someone who is on the outer fringes of the 9/11 truth movement. We’re talking with Dr Paul La Violette – Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion – and it would appear that that technology – something capable of bringing down the twin towers – does exist. Is it at all related, Dr La Violette, to Scalar Technology that Tesla was, of course, toying around with nearly 100 years ago?

PLV


Um – yeah – for propulsion – they use it for beam propulsion in space craft but it can also be used to err – to heat buildings to the point they collapse. It uses some of what Tesla was toying around with – a technique called Phase Conjugation – it’s able to keep the energy in the beam as a result. Like, for example, the radio station you’re broadcasting from – the radio waves go out in all directions – scatter – sort of – the idea of entropy, you know – with this technology, electromagnetic waves end up staying confined in a beam – more like the phaser beam idea of Star Trek. I mean a lot of these concepts you hear about in Star Trek actually are viable technologies that have been developed.

Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)


As an aside, Greg Jenkins' criticism of a beam weapon was attacking a specific interpretation of Judy Wood's claims, which are exaggerated and/or wrong to begin with. Besides coming up with a power requirement orders of magnitude higher than a less dramatic "pulverisation" would actually require, there was no treatment given to extracting the energy from the environment, in the manner that Tesla indicated was possible. This is, admittedly, still uncertaina after all these years, but there has been (I believe) solid experimental work on scalar energy, with claims by the author of understanding theoretically, also. The author in question is Dr. Konstantin Meyl.


Another point: if the Podkletnov phenomena is real, then I would expect the beams to reinforce wherever they intersect. (This is a sheer guess. Perhaps they can interfere with opposite phases and cancel out. Or maybe an effective wavelength is so short it doesn't matter - move over a few angstroms and your cancelled beams are now reinforcing.) Let's say you take 8 beams, each exerting 1/8 of 4,000 psi when focusing on the same concrete floor section, and 1/8 of whatever you need to crack a column weld when focusing on the column weld.

If the beam device would fit, the smartest place to put them is inside the building, say 4 in a basement level and 4 more on floor 15. If you plan for the plane impact to be well above midpoint, you can fire your beams without fear of windows getting blown out, in the first second or two of collapse before dust would obscure such events. (Well, you can't aim guns close to an opposite perimeter, so maybe for some points in the first 1 -2 seconds you can only fire 6 of the 8 guns.) Of course, I'm assuming that the beam can be directed, and more rapidly than rotating the entire device. (Also a sheer guess).

BTW, a pravda article claims that Russia has developed a table sized beam device that generates billions of watts:

“The devices generating such power – billions of watts – used to be very large in size before. This appliance has a very short impulse, which makes it possible to have it on a desk – it is a very compact device,” the Director of Lebedev’s Institute of Physics, Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Gennady Mesyats said.

Mikhail Yalandin, one of the creators of the miraculous machine, said that the scientists had assembled two of such devices in Yekaterinburg – a bigger and a smaller one.

Never before had a relatively small device ever been able to generate electromagnetic impulses the capacity of which could be comparable to a huge water power plant. It is ten times as much as any foreign-made analogue.

Click to expand...

This article gives no clue on how often the beam can be fired, nor exactly how short the short pulses are.

That's no big deal, I can answer those questions definitively -- the answers are (a) never, and (b) 0 picoseconds.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You actually think that the WTC may have been destroyed by some sort of imaginary energy beam device? That is too funny. Thanks for bumping this thread. metemars. Reading it is the best laugh I've had all day.

metamars said:

If the beam device would fit, the smartest place to put them is inside the building, say 4 in a basement level and 4 more on floor 15. If you plan for the plane impact to be well above midpoint, you can fire your beams without fear of windows getting blown out, in the first second or two of collapse before dust would obscure such events. (Well, you can't aim guns close to an opposite perimeter, so maybe for some points in the first 1 -2 seconds you can only fire 6 of the 8 guns.) Of course, I'm assuming that the beam can be directed, and more rapidly than rotating the entire device. (Also a sheer guess).

.

Click to expand...

Of course you are assuming, you are assuming nobody will see the ifs and assumptions and you are assuming that anybody with bother with your assumptions and ifs.

Unfortunately, ifs and assumptions fail miserably when trying to put forward an alternative theory as why mass murder took place.

Whawhawhawhaaaaaat?

So metamars is a Judy Wood supporter now?

R.Mackey said:

That's no big deal, I can answer those questions definitively -- the answers are (a) never, and (b) 0 picoseconds.

Click to expand...

If this is true, then such a weapon is at best good for frying cell phones.

But seriously, don't you think you should provide a few details?

dtugg said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You actually think that the WTC may have been destroyed by some sort of imaginary energy beam device? That is too funny. Thanks for bumping this thread. metemars. Reading it is the best laugh I've had all day.

Click to expand...

You're welcome. Try to spell my name right, though, wouldn't you?

metamars said:

If this is true, then such a weapon is at best good for frying cell phones.

But seriously, don't you think you should provide a few details?

Click to expand...

The only detail I can provide is "the weapon is pure fantasy."

Seriously, did you even read that bit about "they use it for beam propulsion in spacecraft"?? The individual in question is utterly mad. No further details are needed, nor forthcoming.

R.Mackey said:

The only detail I can provide is "the weapon is pure fantasy."

Seriously, did you even read that bit about "they use it for beam propulsion in spacecraft"?? The individual in question is utterly mad. No further details are needed, nor forthcoming.

Click to expand...

You're conflating LaViolette's statements with the Pravda article. The Pravda article doesn't mention anything about a Podkletnov type beam. In fact, it says it's an electromagnetic device. (OTOH, LaViolette also talks about microwaves, which are em waves. Still, I see no clear connection between phase conjugate masers and the pravda article device, other than both being 'exotic'.)

At least my name is spelled correctly in your post.

stateofgrace said:

Of course you are assuming, you are assuming nobody will see the ifs and assumptions and you are assuming that anybody with bother with your assumptions and ifs.

Unfortunately, ifs and assumptions fail miserably when trying to put forward an alternative theory as why mass murder took place.

Click to expand...

And who is presenting an "alternative theory as why mass murder took place"? Myriad has asked about a plausible use of any such weapon,earlier in the thread. The nature of the question was logistical, not one of criminal motive.

metamars said:

You're conflating LaViolette's statements with the Pravda article. The Pravda article doesn't mention anything about a Podkletnov type beam. In fact, it says it's an electromagnetic device. (OTOH, LaViolette also talks about microwaves, which are em waves. Still, I see no clear connection between phase conjugate masers and the pravda article device, other than both being 'exotic'.)

At least my name is spelled correctly in your post.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, I was supposed to divine that some of what you quoted, you believe in, and some, you don't. It's clearly my fault.

There are "electromagnetic devices" including table-top generators in the gigawatt to terawatt range. But they are not focused at all, they only function for nanoseconds, and they have no effect whatsoever on structures. They are, very simply, the so-called "EMP bombs" which generate an intense burst of broad spectrum EM energy, by pumping an explosive flux compression generator's output through a variety of antennae, which are also destroyed in the blast.

It's a one-shot weapon rumoured to exist on Tomahawk and similar weapon systems. The power, again, is extremely high, basically using a few kg of TNT to operate, but the total energy is bounded by that TNT, i.e. a mere 40 MJ or so for a 10 kg example. And the efficiency is very poor, in the few percent range.

You would absolutely not use this on structures, even if it had any effect. It's designed to fry radars, radios, IFF, maybe some types of night vision, that kind of thing. Only works on sensitive electronics.

If you wanted to use it on structures, you'd just use the explosive part and forget about the transducers in between, which don't help at all. You'll note I already considered this and drew the same conclusion years ago, in my blanket refutation of beam weaponry in Sept. 11th, which I've already linked once in this thread.

Now, please, stop being so damn gullible.

Oooh! OOH! I got it! Oh, this'll be a wicked googly.

They were brought down by... *drum roll*

The Boeing YAL-1!!!

All we have to do now is find out if anyone on the project committee was Jewish or a member of the Bohmeian Grove. Dr. Wood will be pleased.

Oh yeah...and completely wave off any arguments that the power output of the ABL program doesn't nearly approach what would be required for the destruction of the towers.

Facts? Pah. Numbers? Heh. A troofer craves not these things.

metamars said:

You're welcome. Try to spell my name right, though, wouldn't you?

Click to expand...

It is hard to read when you are laughing out of control...

How can someone spell your internet name when they are laughing due to the pure stupid insane idea you propose. It could take days before people stop laughing and are able to see your screen name clearly when they discover through your thick veil of bs that you actually boil down to having a pure stupid idea on 9/11.

Next time skip the techno jargon and just keep your irrational ideas on 9/11 at simple layman terms. Just say a beam weapon did it. Saves a lot of trouble having to read your junk science to learn you are saying, " a beam weapon did it".

I guess Noam Chomsky never wrote a book or article about this concrete smashing beam since metamars hasn't used his "Noam Chomsky said so!" defence yet that he is so fond of using in regards to the giant global media conspiracy to cover-up the truth behind 9/11.

Corsair 115 said:

I guess Noam Chomsky never wrote a book or article about this concrete smashing beam since metamars hasn't used his "Noam Chomsky said so!" defence yet that he is so fond of using in regards to the giant global media conspiracy to cover-up the truth behind 9/11.

Click to expand...

Noam Chomsky says that it is so unlikely 9/11 was an inside job or allowed to happen on purpose that it is not even worth discussing, or something like that. Yet he is metamars' hero.

So even if we had this OMGWTFBBQ super l33t r0xx0r orbital Ronald Ray-Gun...

Why would the gubmint employ it against our own building(s) in secret...

and then NOT use it at all during the "Shock and Awe" phase of the Iraqi Conflict?

ETA: Besides, the closest we've ever come to having DE weaponry is the Active Denial System and the ABL/THEL program. And I don't think either one has been fielded yet - but there is a rather amusing video on the Discovery Channel site of the host from Future Weapons getting fried by the ADS. Pretty funny if you think people getting microwaved at 500 yards is funny like I do.

I saw an exotic beam weapon that could have been used! Really, it was on the Discovery Channel! See, it used compressed air, and it fired 2X4's (dem's de beams, don'tcha know) at structures to see how they would survive in a tornado. That's pretty exotic, and it could easily take down the WTC!
Did anyone think to check for splinters in the debris? If not, my theory is exactly what happened, and you're nothing but sheeple if you think anything else. So there!

JimBenArm said:

I saw an exotic beam weapon that could have been used! Really, it was on the Discovery Channel! See, it used compressed air, and it fired 2X4's (dem's de beams, don'tcha know) at structures to see how they would survive in a tornado. That's pretty exotic, and it could easily take down the WTC!
Did anyone think to check for splinters in the debris? If not, my theory is exactly what happened, and you're nothing but sheeple if you think anything else. So there!

Click to expand...

Doesn't point to anything. Our good friend ULTIMA1 has shown us that impact damage and fire damage cause exactly the same effects on steel.

Sounds like somebody needs an emergency breach.

JoeyDonuts said:

Doesn't point to anything. Our good friend ULTIMA1 has shown us that impact damage and fire damage cause exactly the same effects on steel.

Sounds like somebody needs an emergency breach.

Click to expand...

So, you're another beam denier, I see. Did they check for splinters? Huh? Did they find any? Any unaccounted-for 2X4's laying around? Did they check Home Depot to see if someone who ever had some connection to the government might have, at some point, ordered a large quantity of studs? Am I a large stud?
Well, there you have it. Incompetence at the highest levels. Complicity by all of you in the coverup. Studliness on my part. You've all been exposed, and I've been arrested for public exposure!