Was a "star-wars" beam weapon used at the WTC? [View All]

Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”

By: James Gourley (January 9th, 2007)

Introduction

This paper critiques the work and thesis of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds suggesting that a "Star Wars" beam weapon was used in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers (referred to herein as the “WR thesis” or “WR paper”). The WR thesis is presented in a web-based paper entitled “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”, which can be found here. The central claim of the WR thesis is that the phenomena observed during the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 are only consistent with the use of some type of directed energy weapon, either originating from outer space or reflected from outer space (thus, it is referred to herein as a “space beam weapon”). The main arguments in the WR thesis are examined in this paper and a case is made that the WR thesis and its supporting paper contain several scientific flaws, including, the use of corrupted data, ignoring data that contradicts its claims, not considering more reasonable explanations for observed effects, and, in the case of the Kingdome demolition, incorrectly comparing data.

Reliance on Corrupted Data

One of the key points of the WR thesis is that the collapses of the Twin Towers should have produced ground shaking sufficient to cause a Richter scale spike larger than the spike generated by the demolition of the Kingdome in Seattle. Even assuming the WR paper is valid in all other respects, the WR thesis is based in part on faulty data, which invalidates a major part of the thesis, as will be demonstrated below.

The WR paper relies exclusively on seismic data readings obtained from the Lamont-Dougherty station at Columbia University taken during the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, the WR paper readily admits several times that this seismic data has been corrupted in some way. To quote from page 1: “It is almost as if the data from 9/11 have attenuated, that peak movements have been reduced by some kind of filtering process. Does this difference reflect real data, that is, differences in real phenomena accurately recorded? Or have the data been filtered asymmetrically or differently? Or have the data been completely manufactured? We do not know, but for the sake of the analysis we use the Richter values reported. Could they have been lower than reported? Yes.” It goes on later in the paper to state “Although these data seem to be corrupted by unknown filters…” and continues the analysis based on admittedly corrupted data.

Ignoring basic, fundamental tenets of scientific reasoning and analysis, the WR paper forges ahead with a “scientific” analysis that is based on admittedly corrupted and untrustworthy seismic data. The WR paper acknowledges it is using faulty (even possibly manufactured) data, yet presses ahead with the comparison to the Kingdome and asserts that space beams caused the destruction despite this fundamental flaw. All sections of the WR paper that rely in any way whatsoever on this admittedly corrupted data have no scientific value because reliable data is the foundation of any sound scientific analysis...

Continued...
http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters/b/scientific-critique-of-judy-woods-paper-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf

Why the damage to WTC Bldg.’s 3 and 6 does not support the beam weapon hypothesis and some correspondence with Dr. James Fetzer about it

Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer (January 26, 2007)

On Jan. 17, 2007 Dr. Steven Jones was a guest of Dr. James Fetzer’s, on his radio show. The discussion on the show centered mostly around the recent debate, in the 911 research community, over the actual mechanism which caused the destruction of the Twin Towers (other than the official story of plane impacts and fire, which is rejected by both groups involved in the debate). Additionally, there is debate over what caused the great collateral damage to the buildings and vehicles around them. The damage to the WTC complex bathtub, or perceived lack of it, is also a point involved in the debate. This debate has pitted the controlled demolition theory and the somewhat recently proposed beam weapon theory (which postulates that an energy or beam weapon could have been used to destroy the towers and cause damage to the adjacent buildings) against each other.

An archive of the Jan. 17th Steve Jones interview on Jim Fetzer’s show can be heard at

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/JimFetzer-StevenJones_20070117.mp3

One of the main reasons the beam weapon theory has seemed to have garnered support by some 911 activists, like Dr. Fetzer, is their attempt to reconcile in their minds the horrendous damage to WTC Bldg.’s 3 and 6, which were located directly adjacent to the towers. Bldg. 3 exhibited a large vertical slash through it and Bldg. 6 a large vertical hole after the collapse of the towers. The photos below show WTC3 during the collapse of Tower 2 and both WTC3 and WTC6 after the collapses of both towers...

...As a mechanical engineer involved in the design of aerospace equipment I am quite familiar with both dynamic and static loads. One other interest I have here is that at one point in my career I worked for the company and engineering group that designed and built the antenna mast which sat atop the North Tower. The group that designed the WTC antenna mast belonged to RCA at the time it was built.

It is obvious, from the photos, that a huge amount of heavy debris, falling from great height, collided with the buildings immediately adjacent to the towers. It is probably safe to say that those grasping for an explanation of the damage to WTC3 and WTC6 do not appreciate the forces that would have been involved and the destruction that debris was capable of. While it is not entirely possible to know the exact magnitude of the forces it can easily be shown that they were tremendous, since the loads would have been impulsive. Impulsive loads are dynamic and they amplify the force involved to many times the weight of the impacting object...

Continued...
http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters/b/the-damage-to-wtc-bldg-3-and-6-debate-between-controlled-demolition-and-beam-weapons-by-tony-szamboti.pdf

Introduction To An Interview With Dr. Judy Wood Conducted At The National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on January 10, 2007 Regarding The Use Of Directed Energy Beams In The Demolition Of The World Trade Center Towers.

Letter, by Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D., Physics, submitted February 6, 2007

In order for the viewer to clearly assess the interview with Dr. Judy Wood, I would like to preface the video with two fundamental concepts which guided my questions as well as two pertinent photographs. I will submit a more comprehensive analysis in the very near future regarding the implausibility of directed energy beams demolishing the world trade center towers.

The Associated Massive Energy Scale

My first two questions in the interview pertain to the method and energy scale associated with the demolition of the World Trade Center towers. I will postpone the analysis pertaining to method for a later publication, and discuss here the massive amounts of energy required to vaporize steel.

It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers. I will leave the details for later, but suffice it to say that the energy is approximately 4x1014 Joules. If you consider that this amount of energy was pumped into the towers during a time span of roughly 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel 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.. This is with no loss. 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. The scenario becomes more bleak when considering beams of particles that have mass since the ionizion energies required to generate such beams would require additional massive amounts of energy in conjunction with the aforementioned inefficiencies.

Most of the energy required to vaporize steel is contained in the term relating to the latent heat of vaporization. This is the amount of energy required to vaporize steel once it is already at the boiling point. Since this is the dominating factor in the energy scale, this can be thought of as the energy required to break all the bonds which hold the steel together. Any magical method which hypothetically could be used to ‘dustify’ (a word evidently invented by Dr. Wood) the steel would necessarily involve breaking the bonds holding it together. 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...

Continued...
http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters/b/interview-judy-wood-at-national-press-club-regarding-the-use-of-directed-energy-beam-in-the-demolition-of-the-wtc-by-dr-gregory-jenkins.pdf

Watch the Interview:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017