Jim, Judy, Jets and 9-11
Howdy Big Bart -
My point - I'll direct this to you Jim, and howdy do - is the
astonishment I felt, as did many others,
that a Ph.D such as Judy Wood could ever craft a theory on the
destruction of the World Trade Center
as preposterous as that it was dustified by an orbiting particle beam
weapon. The unease I felt watching
the video interview is simply because I, like every other human except
for the rare psychopath - experience
empathy for other folks. I think she failed miserably at her
explanation and her discomfort made an impact
through the camera lens. This was a few years ago, so I'm sure
she's told the story to herself enough times
by now. Betcha her once timorous and stumbling oratory has done
the quick fade. Betcha she has much
more confidence in her theory. Yet to me - the grist of her
position is no less preposterous. Probably the
worst thing that could happen to Judy is for her to be completely
ignored. At least I'm not doing that.
However, I will not buy her book or watch her further, however.
Jim, you'll have to go to bat for her
and explain this.
I'm not going to go into specific figures on power requirements because
the egghead physicists do that
and are paid handsomely. And it would bore folks to tears
anyway. However, you do have to explain
how a directed energy weapon, an orbiting particle beam weapon, made it
to space and no one knew
about it. You are aware that everything in a regular orbit around
the Earth down to the size of a basketball
- although I'll wager smaller - is tracked? We know of its
existence. So how could a HUMUNGOUS
particle beam weapon go undetected? Or was it here on Earth, with
the beam bounced by strategically placed mirrors?
The power required to drive such a weapon is some astronomical amount -
perhaps the smart guys and
ladies at the JREF Forum can clue you in. There's another fact
about particle beam weapons, and that is
the degradation of the beam power brought on by our rather thick Earth
atmosphere. Do you have any
ideas - or does Judy - what proportions are realistic for the power
plant and the business end of the
weapon itself to overcome the atmospheric obstacle?
Here's a rough parallel, and please keep in mind, Jim, that I'm a
science enthusiast - but no scientist.
Therefore excuse the crude parallel. Anyway - lightning.
Tremendous and sudden release of energy,
so much that we visibly see its effect as a huge blue-white ionization
of the air. Then the tremendous
shock wave (thunder) caused by the expansion of the superheated
air. I'm thinking of a line in
Back To The Future: "One point twenty-one gigawatts of
electricity!" Don't know how accurate that
figure is - but lightning kicks butt as an energy discharge. Yet,
people are hit by lightning (such as Lee
Trevino) and survive. Cars are hit by lightning and are not
flattened. Houses, buildings and so forth
- generally hold up quite well. My point? Imagine the
immense energy that a particle beam weapon
would be required to unleash - to pulverize New York's tallest
skyscraper, 200 feet on a side. Twice.
Then another, WTC-7, about half that size. Judy's explanation has
to be as rock solid as the Moon
landings because if not? She's going to catch harsh criticisms by
the canyonful, and deservedly so.
If I made that claim? I'd probably just be laughed at.
She's a Ph.D and the knocks will come fast
and furious from her peers. Science has a self-correcting nature
about it, and they'll be at her in droves.
Take care, Jim, and Big Bart!
e-mail to Bart
Back to Bartcop.com