Government Official Says 9/11 Directed Energy Weapon Research "Worthy"

CB_Brooklyn said:
I'm not a scientist, but from my understanding they would disintegrate. I believe this has to do with the resonant frequency of the metal in question. Note the pictures on Dr Wood's site..... many unburned papers, no reports of burned bodies on the streets surrounding the towers. It wasn't that hot!!
Even if you were a scientist, why would anyone accept your understanding of DEW's? You could be, for instance, a scientist in the field of biology or chemistry. The again, even if you were a physicist, what you say about how anything would respond to directed energy would be irrelevant without specific data that could be analyzed.

In other words, you are only attempting to push emotional buttons, here, not further understanding. I think you've read some exaggerated claims that included words like "resonant frequency" and, since they had an effect on you, you are tossing them out here in the hope that someone else will be suckered, too. Think logically about this for a moment. You are claiming that engines have disappeared from cars and from a fire engine. The cars are most likely gasoline engines, while the fire engine uses a diesel engine. The composition of the engine blocks is different. They don't use the same materials. Why would there be a resonant frequency common to engine blocks of differing materials that would not be shared by the metal frames of the cars?

As others have already asked, what is to be gained by theorizing on exactly which specific technology was used to bring down the towers? The mere fact that the towers were apparently dropped in a controlled demolition of some sort is enough. That fact is undeniable simply because the tops of the towers could NOT have dropped at free-fall speed without demolition of the floors below to clear the way. An explosion cause by something like thermite seems pretty likely as it would also have created a vacuum underneath, reducing air resistance to the fall.

Isn't it interesting, though, that will all of that data available at any Blockbuster (just rent a 9/11 documentary and time the fall of the towers for yourself) the Pentagon is still rarely mentioned? The fact is, everyone did see the planes fly into the towers. That gives a great cover story that most will accept for the events of that day. How many people saw a 757 fly into the Pentagon? None. The original eyewitness reports were of a smaller craft roughly the size of a business jet that made a whooshing sound rather than the characteristic roar of a commercial jet.

I've looked extensively at both events. For my money, the Pentagon event is the one to focus on.
It’s obvious the towers didn’t fall without help. Whether it was bombs, thermate, energy weapons, or a combination of these and other stuff. But why should the onus be on us to solve the crime of how it was done? How would the perpetrators ever be made to admit it anyway?
But the pentagon is different. The government says it was a 757 because they’ve got the videos etc. So if everyone pulled together and sat down and refused to go to work until they produced the videos, then the game would be up without anyone wasting their time and energy on trying to solve the crime.
anart said:
Ultimately, those in power got what they wanted and no one has stopped them to this point. So, perhaps, the focus should be on the best way to reveal this - whether that involves proof of DEW, I do not know - but I do know that a lot of time and energy seems to have been, and continues to be, spent on relative minutia when the world is literally on an unprecedented precipice.
Yep, that's the way I see it too. People making up more fancy theories when there is already enough evidence from the Pentagon strike that "something is up".

It seems to me from discussions I've had that people are more concerned about the "why" of September 11, rather than the "how". This is why the official story is so hideously plausible to the average person - "Why" is answered by "Religious extremism", which is a historically established and easily understandable motive, even if it is completely incorrect in this case. "Debunkers" often use Ockham's razor as an argument against the conspiracy fact, which is somewhat effective because without the knowledge of psychopathy/ponerology the remaining explanations tend to be convoluted or overly complex, and ponerized human psychology tends to prefer "simplistic and doctrinaire" explanations.

However, the concept that psychopaths have formed a fascist network and engineered 9-11 in order to consolidate their power (in the same way that Hitler used the Reichstag fire), is a reasonably simple alternative to the "Why?" question, and has the advantage of being true. If people could accept this, then the "how?" question would likely take care of itself with evidence available.

So, why are so many 9-11 researchers creating more elaborate theories of "how?" rather than looking at the "why"..?

Perhaps to keep people asking the wrong questions, so they'll never get the right answers?
Ryan said:
So, why are so many 9-11 researchers creating more elaborate theories of "how?" rather than looking at the "why"..?

Perhaps to keep people asking the wrong questions, so they'll never get the right answers?
That is exactly the point. A key trick in disinformation campaigns (especially when evidence for the truth is in plain sight) is to put resources toward misdirecting research efforts. In other words, if you can't dampen the signal (evidence that can't be suppressed), increase the signal-to-noise ratio by introducing a lot of false leads.

In this case, that technique is a difficult one to overcome. Not only are there a lot of paid disinfo guys running around on the Net promoting the asking of dead-end questions, there are a lot of well-meaning people who jump on the bandwagon and help them out.
Re: Government Official Says 9/11 Directed Energy Weapon Research \

i am new to the forum so late in responding here...each comment seems to focus on one aspect of this event. i have been looking at all aspects...the who and the how. judy wood's work was the first to open the eyes in my head to parts of physics and the fall...her work on her site seems a strong presentation. but i understand the bigger picture has to do with the consortium or the who. i don't know, it all seems as important to the event.

mostly though i am fascinated by threads of intelligent discussion about this topic. (i also think there were explosives in the towers but the main thing was something like a directed energy weapon. the explosives and building 7 act as the decoys.) more importantly though, does barack represent a turning away from this direction or is he powerless also? interesting thread though, what will tip the scale of collective knowledge? nothing perhaps? i know i will be making my way through the cassiopean material after the wave series to learn more...
Re: Government Official Says 9/11 Directed Energy Weapon Research \

Hi biggreenpea;

biggreenpea said:
...each comment seems to focus on one aspect of this event. i have been looking at all aspects...the who and the how.

I think it's safe for me to say that one of our goals is to eventually build total objective knowledge...of this event and of everything else...but it has to be done step-by-step.

By the way, welcome to the forum!
Re: Government Official Says 9/11 Directed Energy Weapon Research \

Biggreenpea said:
does barack represent a turning away from this direction or is he powerless also?

Hi biggreenpea,

A dedicated thread deals with Obama.

To find some more relevant threads don't hesitate to use the search engine.
Re: Government Official Says 9/11 Directed Energy Weapon Research \

A Jedi Council Member (Reply #6) suggested that the body of knowledge regarding DEWs can be found in Marvel Comics. Thanks for the humor rs.

Several weeks ago I came across the SOTT article:

Dr. Judy Wood: Where did the World Trade Center go on 9/11?

A reader comments on this article:

Dear SOTT editors: By posting this article on this web site, are you endorsing Ms. Wood's theories? Or are you merely presenting this article for information purposes, i.e., presenting all possible sides of the discussion? For what it's worth, without going into detail, if you apply Occam's Razor to the available facts, Ms. Wood's theories quickly take a back seat to other more credible theories, like James Fetzer's (et al) views on the use of micro-nukes in combination with nano-thermite, controlled demolition, etc.

Re: Dear SOTT editors:

In this case, occam's razor would seem to point to Wood's theory being the best explanation. (Joe Quinn)

I'm grateful for this SOTT reference. It was a major course correction for me. I read her book and watched several videos. I was quite impressed by Judy's work. So I have had the need to express myself in this regard and so, hence, this post. I've looked at all the other references regarding Judy on this forum and hopefully, I am not repeating too much of what others have already said. I'm obviously behind the pack, by several years on this issue, but that is not too unusual.

There has been so much posted on 9/11 on this forum that I am a little uneasy. I feel like anything I can add to this subject is like adding more food to an already bloated stomach.

CB_Brooklyn posted on this forum thread (and another thread too) some interesting aspects of Judy Wood's work and I'd like to add to his or her post a few additional thoughts, but for starters, I put together what the Cassiopaean's said regarding the destruction of the WTC complex. Here it is:

September 24, 2001

Q: (A) I'm curious about this collapse of this building. Did we ask? (L) I think we asked something but. So many people are saying that the building collapsed because it had explosives planted in it. (A) Or something, because it was not a natural act of just airplane impact. There is more to that. (L) Is there more to the collapse of these buildings than the event which occurred that we saw: The airplane impact, the fire, an explosion, jet fuel and that sort of thing. Is there more to it than that?
A: No

October 13, 2001

Q: (A) I would like to ask about how this building collapsed and why. There is more and more discussion about it, and theories are flying. (L) Well, let's ask again just to be clear. Were the WTC buildings collapsed by internal sabotage, or simply as a result of being hit by jets?
A: Airplanes.

Q: (L) There was no internal sabotage?
A: Yes.

Q: (L) What caused the buildings to collapse?
A: Structural weaknesses.

Q: (L) We watched one film that showed a strange, dark object, shooting down towards the ground. What was that?
A: 4th Density energy surge.

Q: (L) Where was it surging from and to?
A: Dome of destruction energy time lock to ground.

January 9, 2005

Q: (J) Were there really explosions at the WTC as reported by firefighters on the 24th Floor and in the basement by civilians?
A: Yes, but not necessary to plant charges. Only necessary to plant "conductors" for "shaped" EMP.

[ EMP most likely means electromagnetic pulse, but it could perhaps mean electromagnetic profile. ]

August 6, 2005

(A) Were there some unusual weapons used on the WTC?
A: It was a fairly simple “hit,” with a specially prepared building.

Q: (J) What did they use then to make the steel beams collapse in the way they did, so completely? Did you have a question about that? (A) Well, specially prepared is essentially explosives that would cut the beams. But there are many. (H) But we’ve asked about explosives in the building, and they’ve said it was more something to shape the… (S) Yes, EMP (J) Conductors with shaped EMP. (H) That means that using shaped EMP waves is “fairly simple”. (Laughter) (J) If they could take down the Columbia… (H) Was it the same technology as with the shuttle Columbia?
A: Yup.

Q: (H) Did it come from the same source? (J) Space-based satellite?
A: Now you are getting into warm water.

Q: (H) I guess we don’t want to get into hot water… (Laughter) (A) It’s not our business. (H) Curiosity killed the cat.
A: Let us just remind you that it scared even George.

October 20, 2005

Q: (J) And that then may lead to a question about Italy. What was the cause of the spontaneous fires in Cannetto over the past two years on a couple of occasions?
A: Shall we say “practicing” and refining tech. Imagine, metal pipes that burn; steel beams that “dissolve.” Connection?

Q: (J) You know these pipes that were bursting into flames? (A) Yes. (L) Metal was bursting into flames. (J) Metal pipes. Electrical appliances. (H) And then steel beams in the WTC. (J) A couple of years ago. (R) We were looking at the videos from the WTC and we were wondering where the beams came from. (A) Still, I want to know what kind of physics is behind this because I can’t imagine any.
A: The nanotech you read about is going in the right direction.

Q: (J) You were reading about nanotech? (A) I was. Then I am in warm water. (L) Uh hmmm. (Laughter)

Laura considered in her book 911 The Ultimate Truth the conventional demolition theories but her conclusions were otherwise. From her book:

However there is still a problem: the thermite theory does not explain how the thousands of tons of concrete and other items in the towers were literally pulverized into dust almost instantaneously. Joe Casaliggi a firefighter with Engine 7 commented: “You have two 110-story office buildings: you don’t find a chair, you don’t find a telephone, a computer... the biggest piece of a telephone I found was half a keypad, and it was this big (holds up thumb and forefinger). The buildings collapsed to dust.”

Dr. Charles Hirsch, the chief medical examiner dealing with 9/11, informed relatives of 9/11 victims not to expect remains of their loved ones to be found since most bodies had been “vaporized” (his own word). This was the finding of the chief medical examiner at the WTC site. How can anyone explain that people, human beings, caught in a building collapse were completely “vaporized”, turned to dust, just like the concrete and fixtures of the WTC towers?

Most investigators point to evidence of “explosives” and “squibs” in video footage of the collapse of the two towers, yet to effect the complete destruction of so much concrete and office material and human beings, a massive quantity of explosives would surely have been required, and such a quantity is simply not evident in the available footage. As has been suggested by Professor Jones, an advanced and publicly unknown form of “superthermite” was probably used to cut the steel core beams of the WTC towers, which leaves open the possibility that other similarly advanced and publicly unknown technology was used to disintegrate the concrete that constituted the body of the towers. It this case, it would not be responsible or wise for us to theorize about what specific device or technique was used to turn the towers to dust, however, we will say that ‘sound’ and ‘light’ weapons have been developed in the past 20 years by the U.S. and Israeli military that are capable of ‘invisibly’ destroying hardened targets. To that we will add that part of the prepping of the WTC towers could have included the planting of ‘conductors’ to effect the propagation of such an induced wave throughout the buildings and thereby causing the vaporization of concrete and and fixtures and human bodies alike.

When I read Laura's book, years ago, I obviously glossed over the part I just quoted. Although I read about and I was aware of all the dust, the consequences of this data didn't translate into knowledge.

I agree with Laura's word's:

It this case, it would not be responsible or wise for us to theorize about what specific device or technique was used to turn the towers to dust...

Judy Wood's “Directed Energy Weapons” is actually a broad net. She includes microwave ovens as an example of directed energy and the work of John Hutchinson which includes the interference of radio waves in a strong electrostatic field as another example of directed energy. I think HAARP may be considered a form of directed energy. The C's description of “shaped EMP” would also certainly fit the definition of DEWs.

But do I think it be something other than covert black technology? Sure. Anyone wishing to put this weapon, whatever it is, into the realm of consortium high strangeness seems like a real possibility to me. This is weird stuff. For me, weirder than the commonplace UFOs. I have no trouble considering this as Lizzie technology. Anything in Marvel Comics is up for grabs too. ;)

Evidence Gathering

I think of Judy Wood's work as primarily evidence gathering. She pulls together an abundance of empirical evidence, real data. This data goes a long way in clearing my mind on this issue. Her conclusions based on that data seem almost secondary and it is my contention that her conclusions, because of the wealth of data, are an easy shoe-in. I'm sort of amazed that it took this long for me to get to this point. How long has it been? More than eleven years now since 9/11?

The rest of my post are my annotations to some of Judy Wood's work.

Turning to Dust

The following video clip convinces me that I am witnessing falling objects turning into dust. This video is available in high definition, at 720 by 1280 pixels.

High Definition Clip of WTC Turning to Dust on 9/11 (Slow Motion)

From this video clip I've cut and paste the images below. The image as a whole is contrast adjusted. The falling objects initially have a thick trail of smoke dust following them. Fine dust will not fall as quickly as an object yet dust continues to trail these objects, indicating that these objects are continually transforming to dust. As the objects fall the dust trails diminish in density as the objects disappear.



The Core Columns of WTC 1

The 47 (or so) core columns constituted the twin tower's center structure. Within the core columns were the elevators, stairwells and utilities. Some of these core columns were the most massive steel columns of the structure, especially at the base of the tower where they were fabricated with, I believe, 5 inch thick steel plates. A group of these core columns remained standing for about tens seconds after the “fall” of WTC 1. The tip of the those columns is commonly referred to as “the spire” and it is estimated to be some seventy floors high or about 50% taller than WTC 7 shown in the photo below. These remaining core columns should have remained standing. When these columns did “fall”, they “fell” straight down, into themselves, very much like the tower itself “fell”. I've seen no evidence that they tipped over.


This commonly shown sequence of photos (below) show the spire above a water tank. WTC 7 is just behind and to the right of the water tank. That spire sure looks like it is turning to dust to me.


Dead Center of Ground Zero

Stairwell B of WTC 1 was located within these core columns. Astonishingly, 14 people survived in Stairwell B, dead center of ground zero. After the “collapse” they worked there way out by going up the stairs and out. One of the 14 survivors, firefighter Jay Jonas, said while recalling that event, “Guys, there used to be 106 floors above us and now I'm seeing sunshine.... There's nothing above us. That big building doesn't exist.”

Building Remains

Pictures like this (below) are generally used to demonstrate the smallness of the debris pile raising the question, “Where Did the Towers Go?” When I first encountered a pictures like this (a few weeks ago), I was astonished but it was not the lack of debris that caught my attention. I was astonished that these (relatively) fragile portions of the bottom exteriors of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 remained standing. A collapse of 110 floors should, without question, have not only crushed these remaining elements of the towers, but completely cover them. Quite the contrary – they remained towering over the debris pile.


Remaining exterior portions of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 are also shown in the photo below. You can see the remainder of the WTC 1 core columns where Jay Jonas and 13 others walked out just to the left of the top portion of the red crane.


Where did the energy go? The Seismic Data

Judy takes a close look at the seismic data that was available on 911. Since I think this is worth looking at, allow me to elaborate in a technical way for all you fellow slide-rule types. Yikes, did I just say how old I was?

If you raise a 15 pound bowling ball ten feet off the ground you give it a potential energy of 15 pounds x 10 feet = 150 foot-pounds. It is just as easy to calculate the potential energy of a building if you know its weight and center of mass (about half it's height).

When you drop that bowling ball, the energy is said to be converted to kinetic energy and the energy of impact will transfer into the ground and the earth will quake. Obviously the heavier the ball or the higher you drop it from the more the ground will quake .

There are many units of energy besides foot-pounds, such as joule, calorie, kilowatt hour and BTU. These various units can be converted from one to another. The appendix of any good basic physic book will give you their relationships. One ton of TNT is also considered a unit of energy. Atomic explosions are often quoted in units of kilo-tons or mega-tons of TNT. One tons of TNT is equivalent to about 3.1 billion foot-pounds.

An Example Calculation: One ton is 2,000 pounds. WTC 1 weighed about 500,000 tons = one billion pounds. Its center of mass of that 1368 feet tall building is about half it height or 684 feet from ground level. Multiply weight times height and you get a potential energy of 684 billion foot-pounds which is equivalent to 220 tons of TNT.

The magnitude of the earthquake is determined from a seismometer recording. The earthquake seismic magnitude is a logarithmic scale and thus a dimensionless number but the magnitude is, by definition, a measure of energy released by an earthquake. The seismic earthquake magnitudes can be converted to any other unit of energy. Here, I convert the seismic magnitude to tons of TNT. I also convert the buildings potential energy to tons of TNT. Then I compare the two numbers.

It has been observed that a 1,000 ton explosion of TNT is approximately equivalent to a 4.0 magnitude earthquake. From this the magnitude of any earthquake can be converted to energy released during that earthquake in terms of tons of TNT.

A useful table for our purposes is this:


In a normal building demolition a portion of the energy is converted to heat from the crushing or bending of materials as well as deformation of the ground (clay, silt, loam) below the building's footprint. It is not clear what portion of the kinetic energy of a falling building is converted to heat and what part is sent off in traveling waves in the earths crust that can be detected by a seismometer. If a detonated building is resting on bedrock (which does not deform), I would expect considerably more energy detected by the seismometer than a building not on bedrock.

In the case of the Seattle Kingdome (detonated in March of 2000 and used by Judy as a reference) which does not rest on bedrock, only about 18% of the buildings potential energy was detected by a seismometer (see table below). Knowing this, my guess is that the seismic impact of a detonated building on bedrock (such as the WTC complex) might record an energy signature on the order of 40% to 80% of the building's potential energy. [ Anyone who has a better feeling for this, please feel free to inform me.]

Hope you all are still following this.


However, referring again to the above table, the seismic energy detected by the “demolition” of WTC 1 and 2 is about only 1% of it's potential energy rather than my estimated guess of 40% or 80%. For WTC 7 that seismic energy detected is on the order of 0.02%. These very small seismic impacts are totally ludicrous numbers when considering any of the conventional demolition explanations. However, for buildings that turned mostly to dust, these numbers make complete sense. Falling dust will not register as a seismic impact. If a building was turned to 100% dust the seismic impact would be the same as falling snow – nothing.

We've all see videos of the top of WTC 7 falling at free-fall speed. That building fell as quickly as if a great hole opened in the ground below it. The free fall speed could never happen with a conventional demolition where the ground is always the source of resistance to the fall. It makes complete sense now. The ground could offer no resistance to the fall because there was nothing between the bottom of the falling building and the ground but dust.
Possible testaments of a space time alteration and other byproducts from the use of Directed Energy Weapon Tech.

9/11 Firefighter Witness Story - Joe Torrillo
Mar 22, 2012 / 12:49

Testament of Car fires and other observations of those FF's on the ground.

Joe Falco: 9/11 FDNY Survivor
Sep 10, 2016 / 36:27

Other Observations:

I Survived.. 9/11
Apr 29, 2015 / 1:27:35

David Long, 9/11 Eyewitness (Molecular Dissociation:)
Oct 1, 2011 47:23 First 10 min.
Last edited:
Top Bottom