“Star Wars beam” / DEW theories

In the comments beneath my post 9/11 Truth movement goals and strategy?, a thread has started concerning Judy Wood’s “Star Wars beam” / DEW theories. I’ve decided to move that topic to a separate thread, to which it will be confined from henceforth. Below, I will copy the relevant comments. I’ll then delete the originals.

• Complete copy of comment by slr2337
• Complete copy of comment by me (Diane)
• Complete copy of comment by realitydesign
• My response to realitydesign
• P.S.: Complete copy of another comment by realitydesign
• P.S.: My response to realitydesign’s latest comment

Complete copy of comment by slr2337

On May 1, 2008 @ 7:45 am, slr2337 wrote:

Look into Hutchinson Effect and Dr. Judy Wood’s website for the answer to what was used to take down the Twin Towers and damage surrounding structures. Building 7 was a diversion in that Silverstein said they decided to “pull” the building. If people got very angry and demanded another investigation including Building 7, they would only say that it was thermate… Towers 1&2 would not be investigated again. But John Hutchinson has provided evidence from 1988 that proves the US Military approached him to provide equipment and expertise to make a “particle beam weapon.” This weapon was used to “disentigrate” the metal in the Towers allowing the concrete to crumble into a widespread powder. I have looked for an answer to the towers without much metal since September 11, 2001; this is the answer. Dr. Judy Wood has filed a lawsuit against NIST and its contractor that was supposed to look at all possible methods that would explain the sudden collapse of the towers… It comes up in court in May 2008… NIST should have looked into the US Military systems such as particle beam weapons and failed to do so (or was ordered off). John Hutchinson has this proof and the courts were forced to allow a suit to proceed after several delays and demands…
What I guess I am saying is that this was an inside job to test their new weapon on the American People that paid for it!!! How desperate and scared are these governments to prop up the dollar that is supposed to be used for oil trading… Look into the agreement between OPEC and Nixon/Kissenger in the ’80s that provided assistance and equipment to drill for oil in exchange for trading in only dollars. When Iraq’s Hussien started trading in Euros, they had to act… Iran has started dealing in Euros only… Venezula’s Chevez is now trading in Euros only… Where do you think we will start a war next??? It is all connected!!!

Complete copy of comment by me (Diane)

On May 2, 2008 @ 3:24 pm, I replied:

I don’t think the Star Wars beam theory is at all likely. For one thing, a beam powerful enough to “dustify” steel would also ionize the air, so that the beam itself would seem to glow like a lightning bolt. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

For more reasons why the Star Wars beam theory is unlikely, see the following papers and letters in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

– The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center (PDF) by Gregory Jenkins
– Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence (PDF) by Gregory Jenkins
– Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence (PDF) by Gregory Jenkins
– Journal of 9/11 Studies Letters – see the letters listed under the headings “Discussion of Issues Raised by Wood, Reynolds” and “Was a “star-wars” beam weapon used at the WTC?”

I’ll reply to other comments here later.

Complete copy of comment by realitydesign

realitydesign wrote, on May 2, 2008 @ 6:08 pm:

“Look into Hutchinson Effect and Dr. Judy Wood’s website for the answer to what was used to take down the Twin Towers and damage surrounding structures.”

You know it’s funny you post this because I have recently been checking into this theory. I think Judy raises some very important points that others aren’t. For example:

1. Toasted Cars – 1400 of them from around ground zero, some wilted- missing engine bocks and handles all sorts of trippy shit.

2. The pulverization of the buildings is just SO profound- and she is right- the actual debris radius is actually the whole eastern seaboard. There is just not enough material left after the explosions of the towers.

3. Lack of damage to the bathtub…why isn’t anyone else mentioning this…that’s alot of building to ‘pile drive down’ and not damage the bathtub…oh wait it didn’t pile drive down it exploded.

4. Lack of seismic ‘oomph’ to represent those monsters coming down (if we are to believe they weren’t exploded in mid air).

DEW began in the 80’s- and the military/black ops world has done alot since then- and make no mistake, there is no way for us to know what they may have, so arguing about that is pointless…but if there were mainstream stories about beam weapons in Iraq (which there were), we can imagine what they must have deep behind the scenes.

I don’t think judy is saying which spectrum the weapon utilizes or which type of dew- but just that that type of destruction is what we have been shown.

I’m still looking into this…

End of complete copies of comments.

My response to realitydesign

realitydesign wrote:

1. Toasted Cars – 1400 of them from around ground zero, some wilted- missing engine bocks and handles all sorts of trippy shit.

Have you looked around on the web for other explanations of the “Toasted cars”? If not, I would suggest that you do so. (I don’t have time to do this myself right now.)

2. The pulverization of the buildings is just SO profound- and she is right- the actual debris radius is actually the whole eastern seaboard. There is just not enough material left after the explosions of the towers.

If beam weapons brought down the towers, then there ought to be a lot more molten metal than was seen. Anything powerful enough to vaporize some of the steel would also melt a lot of the remaining steel. However, if you look at a variety of photos of the rubble pile (e.g. on the website WTC Demolition Analysis: Evidence Based Research — or, for that matter, some of the photos in Judy Wood’s own “Star Wars Beam” paper), you’ll see that there was a huge amount of solid steel rubble, nearly all of which broke apart at already-existing weak points, i.e. the welds. If beam weapons were used, more of the solid steel rubble should have been broken in other places besides just the welds.

3. Lack of damage to the bathtub…why isn’t anyone else mentioning this…that’s alot of building to ‘pile drive down’ and not damage the bathtub…oh wait it didn’t pile drive down it exploded.

Have you looked at the responses to Judy Wood’s arguments on the Journal of 9/11 Studies site:

DEW began in the 80’s- and the military/black ops world has done alot since then- and make no mistake, there is no way for us to know what they may have, so arguing about that is pointless

There are laws of physics they can’t violate, so there are indeed some limitations to what is plausible.

but if there were mainstream stories about beam weapons in Iraq (which there were), we can imagine what they must have deep behind the scenes.

The beam weapons used in Iraq were nowhere near powerful enough to “dustify” the Twin Towers. A beam weapon that powerful would have to have an extremely powerful energy source, which would be difficult to hide.

In my opinion, we really should be cautious about embracing “trippy” theories. If we’re too quick to embrace “trippy” theories, we thereby discredit the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole. In my opinion, we’re best off focussing on stuff that is both solidly established and credible to most educated people. So, if one is considering a “trippy” theory, one should first look around for counterarguments and counter-evidence and weigh them very carefully.

P.S.: Complete copy of another comment by realitydesign

After I posted this, I noticed a new comment by realitydesign in the original thread beneath my post 9/11 Truth movement goals and strategy?

realitydesign wrote, on May 3, 2008 @ 8:03 pm:

“- The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center (PDF) by Gregory Jenkins
– Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence (PDF) by Gregory Jenkins
– Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence (PDF) by Gregory Jenkins”

Ok just in terms of the Jenkins stuff…here are my issues with them:

1.He focuses a lot of his writing on ‘the fact of whether or not steel was pulverized or ‘missing’ or how much should actually be left vs. what was supposedly found in the sub basement levels. That’s all great but I think Judy’s main thing is that the CONCRETE is what was pulverized to the point of it being completely gone- spread out over the eastern seaboard and thus there were little remains of the buildings’ tons of concrete- other than dust- that’s not normal.
2.He talks about how the bathtub had seen much more seismic activity before and hadn’t been damaged but fails to mention that HOW that seismic activity plays into Judy’s thinking- THE FACT THAT THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED into the bathtubs. In other words he doesn’t address the point of her point on that. he just says that the bathtub had seen more seismic activity before due to whatever else may have happened in the building’s history an wasn’t damaged- but the mammoths never came down before and that is the point.
3.He talks about the spire not disintegrating but falling (in that famous after shot of the spire)- I find it hard to believe it could fall straight down like that after remaining rigid throughout the ‘collapse’- common sense would dictate that it would have had to crumble in order to fall vertically like that- why would it crumble to bits if it hadn’t been shredded with AT LEAST explosives? Too many tall ass things didn’t tip that day as they should have.
4.He talks about thermite reactions and fallen debris induced car fire/explosions but doesn’t take into account that 1400 cars were affected that day. I wonder, could 1400 cars fit down around those buildings? I have been there- 1400 is a lot of cars and where the hell would they have been to be both exposed to debris and/or the thermite blast wave? There wasn’t THAT much room in the vicinity if you ask me- some of those cars had to be farther out. (I’m not disagreeing that some may have been towed way out to the FDR). Talking about damaged cars and talking about 1400 damaged cars are 2 different things.
5.He spends a lot of time analyzing the ‘lazer’ technology that is out there and why it might be implausible as a weapon. That to me was just silly. Surely it is not reasonable to expect that lay people have access to information about cutting edge/exotic/black military weapons tech. If that’s how we dissect the ills in our society, by staying inside the box like that- well 1984 will be more of an inescapable reality than it already is- in no time at all.

I’m not sold on this DEW stuff by any means but Jenkins hasn’t done much for my opinion against it. I’m still swayed by the MANY actual people who reported explosions in the buildings that day, the squibs/demo sequences, the symmetry, the fall times, vaporized parking garage, hydraulic press and melted flesh in the sub basements- not to mention the lava.

P.S.: My response to realitydesign’s latest comment

realitydesign wrote:

That’s all great but I think Judy’s main thing is that the CONCRETE is what was pulverized to the point of it being completely gone- spread out over the eastern seaboard and thus there were little remains of the buildings’ tons of concrete- other than dust- that’s not normal.

It’s not normal for a 110-storey skyscraper to collapse in the first place, either, in the first place, so we have no baseline for comparison. We should expect the rubble from a collapsed 110-storey skyscraper to look very different from the rubble of smaller collapsed building, because of the much greater gravitational potential energy of the skyscraper.

Not all the concrete was dispersed, by the way. Some of it ended up in the so-called “meteorites, which consist of very tightly compressed, smashed-together pieces of floors.

But, yes, a lot of concrete was indeed dispersed. Why do you think DEW would be an especially good explanation of that?

2.He talks about how the bathtub had seen much more seismic activity before and hadn’t been damaged but fails to mention that HOW that seismic activity plays into Judy’s thinking- THE FACT THAT THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED into the bathtubs.

Let’s consider separately two parts of the bathtub: The bottom and the slurry wall at the side. The bottom consists of bedrock – very solid, not going anywhere. The slurry wall would be damaged only if it got hit hard enough.

The slurry wall was extremely thick — three feet thick, according to this article on the website of the National Academy of Engineering and this page on a Columbia University site. Apparently the slurry wall was very strong.

The latter page oontains links to a bunch of articles about what damage there was to the WTC basement levels. The links to Engineering News Record are broken, so I found them on the Internet Archive site:

• Preliminary Report Says Maintaining Integrity of World Trade Center’s Slurry Wall Foundation is Paramount – Engineering News Record (9/25/2001)
• Half of WTC ‘Bathtub’ Basement Damaged By Twin Towers’ Fall – Engineering News Record (10/8/01)

You wrote:

He talks about the spire not disintegrating but falling (in that famous after shot of the spire)- I find it hard to believe it could fall straight down like that after remaining rigid throughout the ‘collapse’- common sense would dictate that it would have had to crumble in order to fall vertically like that- why would it crumble to bits if it hadn’t been shredded with AT LEAST explosives?

The question of what it takes to make a very massive structure fall vertically is explored in the following posts of mine and the subsequent comment threads:

• Review of Hardfire debates between Mark Roberts and Loose Change crew
• Two WTC 7 collapse videos: Can both be real?
• Richard Gage’s avowed enemy, part 2 – and my thoughts about WTC 7

See especially the first of the above posts, in which I discuss that issue in-depth. See also the subsequent comments in which I revise my opinion somewhat.

He talks about thermite reactions and fallen debris induced car fire/explosions but doesn’t take into account that 1400 cars were affected that day.

Where exactly does that “1400 cars” statistic come from? Please track it down to its source, if you have not done so already.

I’m not sold on this DEW stuff by any means but Jenkins hasn’t done much for my opinion against it.

Have you looked at the other stuff about this on the Journal of 9/11 Studies site, on the letters page I called your attention to, in addition to the papers by Jenkins?