Shriveled Steel Beams

From FEMA report: (Fig6-10.) Why is this beam shriveled up? This seems to be a common theme. [Link(pdf)]

(11/10/01) Source

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

- George W. Bush, November 10, 2001, Bush's address to the UN

Translation: The truth is pretty outrageous! And, exposing this outrageous truth will implicate the true terrorists, those who are guilty.

PLEASE REVIEW:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt2.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt3.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt4.html

This building did not fall, it was "poofed"



This van went postal!!
More on "toasted cars":
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

PLEASE REVIEW:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt2.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt3.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt4.html

NSF Whistleblower Information
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/telloig.pdf
Also, an archived copy is here.

National Whistleblower Center
http://www.whistleblowers.org/

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
http://www.nswbc.org/

Whistleblower Hotlines, House Oversight Committee
(Congressman Waxman, Chair)
http://oversight.house.gov/contact.asp

Jerry Leaphart Attorney-at-Law 8 West Street Suite 203 Danbury, CT 06810 p-203-825-6265 f-203-825-6256 Jsleaphart@cs.com

Dr. Judy Wood Former Professor of Mechanical Engineering . Clemson, SC lisajudy@nctv.com

Morgan Reynolds Professor emeritus at Texas A&M University Former chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush's first term. econrn@suddenlink.net

"The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion
to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him wrong."

- - Harry Segall

Is your "space beam" hypothesis testable?

At this point, it has not been determined exactly what type of weapon was used, but the visual data as well as the issues related to the bathtub fragility and ground shaking eliminate the conventional demolition methods that have been proposed to date. The buildings “floated” to the ground as dust.

Aren't these weapons classified?

These weapons are classified and are not public knowledge. As noted previously, piecemeal evidence of their existence exists in news briefings of defense personnel (including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld), defense websites, and other defense contractor websites. It is common knowledge that the Bush Administration has made weaponization and total dominance of space a priority. Countless billions, if not trillions, of dollars have been budgeted for space weapons development as part of the SDI program noted previously.

How do we know they even exist?

As noted previously, this has been accumulated via numerous sources to paint the picture that they do exist. Further, past developers from government labs have indicated that they were involved in their development as far back as the 1960s.

Isn't this science fiction?

Though science fiction has fantasized about DEWs since back in the 50s, microwaves and optics (lasers) have been available since that time. That their further development could not have exceeded what is currently available in industry and at academic research institutions is not likely since typical military technology advances are 15-20 years ahead of that which is known on the street.

Why do the "toasted" cars matter?

The “toasted” cars matter because they are observable evidence. If a theory cannot explain all evidence, then it must be incomplete at best, incorrect at worst. That other theories do not explain this phenomenon lend credence to the DEW theory which could easily explain this through reflection and refraction of directed energy at the WTC site.

Why does pulversization matter?

Pulverization matters because it requires an outside energy source that allows the building to be destroyed without destroying the bathtub. Further, it is consistent with the lack of ground shaking that would be expected based on the mass of the buildings and the footprint within which the debris should have collapsed. Further, it explains the tremendous dust clouds and layers of dust found over many square miles of Manhattan. Last, it explains the lack of damage to neighboring structures (WTC 4, 5, and 6) due to falling debris which is not found in the vertical damage there. Non-WTC structures showed little damage except for one vertical cut in one building and some dust, minor debris, and broken windows elsewhere.

Where would all that energy come from?

The energy may not be as tremendous as needed to vaporize or melt the masses of the two towers. It may be similar to a microwave oven in that certain electromagnetic or sonic waves are used to excite the specific materials in the buildings to allow them to turn to dust without heating or vaporizing. Remember what we saw, not what theoretical known science would be. The sources of this energy may be from solar collectors in space or transmitted from ground based sources using transmission in the atmosphere using aircraft or satellite technology.

What hypothesis, precisely, are you willing to commit yourself to at this stage of research?

The hypothesis that the WTC buildings were all destroyed in a way that has never been seen before (save WTC 7 which was demolished by conventional means), consistent with the use of Directed Energy Weapons.