posted ago by axolotl_peyotl ago by axolotl_peyotl +101 / -13

"Directed Energy Weapons" refer to any number of types of unconventional and exotic weaponry.

The full range of these weapons is classified information, so no attempts will be made to distinguish between categories within the realm of energy weapons, as doing so would imply specific knowledge of all that are available.

In addition, no claim is be made about whether the directed energy weapon operates from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform, nor are any claims made about whether or not it involves sound waves, antimatter weapons, scalar weapons, a facility like HAARP, etc.

However, the evidence appears consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives.

Wikipedia article on Directed-Energy Weapons

Although speculation about DEWs on 9/11 began shortly after the event, one of the first scientists with relevant credentials to publicly propose the DEW hypothesis was Dr. Judy Wood, a former professor of mechanical engineering.

The following material is largely from her book Where Did the Towers Go?, as well as from her old and new websites.

Where Did the Towers Go?

I. 9/11 Enigmas

II. New Nomenclature

III. Hurricane Erin & the Hutchison Effect

IV. Stars Wars & Psyops

Comments (62)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
axolotl_peyotl [S] 4 points ago +9 / -5

Stars Wars & Psyops

Many express disbelief that energy weapons exist outside of science fiction, until they're reminded of the Star Wars Program, also known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

Energy weapons do exist and have been developed over 100 years, and most of this technology is classified information. It can also be assumed that such technology exists in multiple countries.

The evidence from 9/11 rules out a Kinetic Energy Device (bombs, missiles, etc.) as the method of destruction as well as a gravity-driven "collapse."

The "Bathtub"

The World Trade Center was built on terra firma protected by an underground "bathtub" or foundation ring down to bedrock seven stories below the surface of lower Manhattan.

This sturdy enclosure some call the "slurry wall" shielded the foundation of the Twin Towers as well as WTC buildings 3 & 6. According to Wall Street Journal architecture critic, Ada Louise Huxtable, this structure "…saved lower Manhattan from the waters of the Hudson River" (WSJ 9-28-06, p. D8).

Many observers worried about whether the wall would continue to do its job to prevent flooding but "To the relief of the engineers, there is no evidence that the 70-foot-deep retaining wall around the basements has been damaged or breached, although the collapse of the towers left one section perilously unsupported.

In the SPIKE TV documentary about the iron workers at Ground Zero, one remarked, "You know, it was amazing, it didn't really damage [that much] ... if they had fallen over sideways, could you imagine the damage to Lower Manhattan?"

There was no significant damage to the bathtub on 9/11. This picture looks west-northwest, from the center of the WTC 1 footprint.

WTC Station Platform after the event; this PATH train wasn't crushed.

On September 11 the bathtub mysteriously remained without significant damage despite two quarter-mile tall towers allegedly collapsing on it. How did the bathtub avoid significant damage despite a million tons of WTC material supposedly slamming into it?

Even if no material directly hit the bathtub, serious seismic impacts on bedrock would have damaged walls, wall corners and tunnels under WTC leading under the Hudson River because of motion similar to that caused by an earthquake.

The bathtub was not built to withstand such colossal impact, we may be assured, because New York is not an active seismic zone. Although a disputed number, each tower weighed an estimated 500,000 tons and the official story insists airplane damage and fires caused each tower to collapse symmetrically into its own footprint.

No bathtub structure could remain unscathed after a mountain of quarter-mile high material was dropped on it twice. The intact bathtub appears to contradict the official theory of a gravity-driven collapse in which virtually the entire weight of the Twin Towers would crash into the bathtub.

This figure show diagrams of the PATH (Port Authority Trans Hudson) rail lines from New Jersey under the Hudson and up into the bottom of the bathtub of the World Trade Center. The south rail lines that run from New Jersey and the north lines return to NJ.

The base of the bathtub is bedrock and the Twin Towers, rail lines and tunnels were anchored to that bedrock. If the bedrock were dramatically shaken, fissures in the tunnels would allow water to back up into the bathtub.

The Ground Zero site as of August 2006, showing the location of the buildings relative to the bathtub walls - This gives a graphic look at how large the PATH layout is within the big bathtub. The rail lines and platforms remain in their original locations, suggesting that the underground damage to PATH was not devastating.

This image shows Ground Zero and the big bathtub with the shallow bathtub in the foreground, lending another perspective. Some superficial damage to the top of the bathtub is visible in the foreground along the eastern wall, beneath where WTC 4, a 9-story building, once existed

The big bathtub suffered only minimal damage. There was no functional damage, only superficial. PATH trains resumed operation in November, 2003.

Outside the bathtub east wall and in the shallow bathtub, even the subway suffered surprisingly little:

Considering the devastation near the trade center, and the fact that the tunnels were only five feet below the road surface in some places, complete tunnel collapses were not as extensive as some engineers had feared.

This picture shows store contents from the Warner Bros. store in the WTC shopping mall at the concourse level (first subbasement).

This shows figures recovered from the Warner Bros. store at the World Trade Center mall kept at hangar 17 at JFK international airport. Roadrunner does not have a scratch on him despite surviving destruction of WTC 2 above him.


This image shows the amount of ground movement from a 2.4 Richter scale earthquake that hit NYC in January, 2001.

Here is a similar diagram for the destruction of WTC 1 on 9/11, which measured 2.3 on the Richter scale. The data appear very different from the earthquake, with smoother, fewer spikes and with no distinctive S and P waves.

Most importantly, the amplitude of the 9/11 disturbance is less than half that of the January earthquake, despite a similar peak Richter reading. 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.

Kingdome vs. Twin Towers

The Seattle Kingdome was demolished on March 26, 2000. Built of reinforced concrete, it had a 720-foot outer diameter, a footprint of 407,000 square feet, stood 250 feet tall and weighed an estimated 130,000 tons.

The implosion "created the equivalent of a magnitude 2.3 earthquake, with no vibration damage to adjacent structures." The Kingdome left a debris pile 30 feet high, 12% of its former height.

Each twin tower, by contrast, had 43,000 square feet, just over a tenth of the Kingdome footprint, and weighed an estimated 500,000 tons, or nearly 4x the Kingdome.

Both the footprint and the weight of the twin towers were an order of magnitude different from the Kingdome, yet the Lamont-Dougherty station at Columbia University only reported a peak of 2.3 Richter scale reading for WTC 1 and 2.1 for WTC 2, about the same as the Kingdome.

A reading similar to the Kingdome would be impossible if the twin towers were destroyed by conventional means (bottom up) because much greater weight would have slammed into a much smaller chunk of land and therefore would have shaken the ground far more than the Kingdome did.

Each tower’s collapse should have registered at least four on the Richter scale given two orders of magnitude difference between the twin towers and Kingdome dimensions.

The apparent fact that the Richter reading peaked at 2.3 and the disturbance lasted only 8 seconds indicates an extraordinary high-energy weapon was used top-down to preserve the bathtub and surrounding structures.

And where are the data from the other seismic recording stations shown here? Are they being withheld?

Careful data on the Kingdome demolition on March 26, 2000 are available. They allow us to estimate what the earthquake-equivalent impact of the Twin Tower destruction should have been. The Kingdome data are pre-9/11 and unlikely to be politically corrupted.

Bedrock conditions are important in affecting earthquake-equivalent (Richter) readings. If a structure is anchored directly to bedrock, its demolition will yield a higher Richter than if it were not anchored in bedrock.

Why? Because if not anchored to bedrock, the energy released by demolition is dissipated via the earth "cushioning" materials. If anchored to bedrock, the released energy directly impacts bedrock, "pinging" the earth directly without any dampening, allowing the signal to carry better to recording stations.

The Kingdome was not anchored in bedrock. If the Kingdome Richter value was a 2.3 reading transferred through soft material, a building with 30x the potential energy anchored directly in bedrock should have transferred a much higher signal to earthquake monitoring instruments.

Amazingly, the south tower reading of 2.1 was lower than the Kingdome’s 2.3 despite the tower having 30x the potential energy and being anchored in bedrock.

The difference in these Richter readings imply the Tower had only 60% of the potential energy of the Kingdome instead of the real range of 3,000%, an absurd implication.

axolotl_peyotl [S] 4 points ago +7 / -3

From Dust to Dust

The government maintains that the Twin Towers were each hit by aircraft and the subsequent fires weakened the steel in the upper stories, initiating a gravity-driven "pancake collapse," as illustrated here. The rubble pile should be at least 1/8 of the original building height.

There are many problems with this hypothesis. The most obvious problem with it is the near free-fall speed of the destruction of these buildings.

A second problem is the paucity of remaining material. Where are the concrete floors? Where is the office furniture? Where is the office machinery? Where are the filing cabinets? Where is the wall board? Where are the bookcases?

An illustration of what the actual destruction looked like. The rubble pile was no more than 2% of the original building height. Both towers went "poof."

It was widely reported that a substantial amount of WTC steel was sold as scrap, put on barges, and shipped to China to be melted down. But this picture shows how little steel was on the ground shortly after destruction of the WTC towers.

There is evidence that steel was transported to Fresh Kills Island to be stored. This steel may or may not have been subsequently shipped to China, but it couldn't have been a large amount.

Building turns to dust

Steel beams appear to disintegrate into steel dust

Steel columns disintegrate into steel dust with WTC7 and water tower in the foreground

Video clip of steel turning to steel dust

People run by as steel "wheatchex" turn to dust and the building turn to dust

The building appears to be dissolving into powder. We don't we see any solid parts of a falling building here.

An interesting detail is what appear to be "bullet holes," with dense perimeters, distributed throughout the dust cloud. These bullet holes seem to be at the origin of the rapidly-expanding dust cloud.

As WTC2 is destroyed, disintegrating steel "wheatchex" showered down on WTC3, the Marriott Hotel.

Steel wheatchex turn into a brown blob. ) Small circles identify a few bullet holes.

One of Bill Biggart's last pictures, perhaps his next to last picture

Bill Biggart's last picture. WTC3 was partly destroyed in bizarre fashion during the destruction of WTC2. Special thanks to Bill Biggart for this very valuable piece of the puzzle.

WTC3 was reduced to this 3-4 story high if narrow debris stack. A lower section of WTC1's west wall lays across the West Side Highway.

Most of WTC3 disappeared during the destruction of WTC1. The pedestrian walkway over the West Side Highway was connected to something that is no longer there. The remains of WTC2 can be seen near the center of the photo and the remains of WTC1 are partly visible in the lower right corner.

"Building vapor" wafts up from the WTC1 and WTC2 "piles" - Where is it coming from? It resembles steam off of a manure pile. It does not seem to originate from a single point, but rises over a wide zone, like a haze in a fairly uniform fashion.

Aluminum cladding and paper lay in the street, but where is the steel? And why isn't more of the paper on fire?

Why is it only paper that survived and not office furniture and equipment? Most of this paper must have been in steel filing cabinets and bookshelves.

The twin towers together had an estimated 30,000 computers for nearly 50,000 workers. So, 45,000 filing cabinets would not be an unreasonable estimate.

It is reported that 200 complete bodies were recovered out of the nearly 3,000 victims, which is about 1/15th. At the same ratio, we would expect 3,000 complete filing cabinets of the 45,000 should have survived intact. Yet only one shrunken filing cabinet was reportedly found

The destruction of WTC2 envelops lower Manhattan in a blizzard of ultra-fine dust

Dust covers an abandoned produce stand in lower Manhattan

Scooping up the building

GZ workers walk in thick dust atop the rubble pile, hardly higher than the lobby level

Ground-level view of the enormous quantity of dust wafting skyward - Conventional demolition dust does not do this.

In addition to the dramatic dustification of the WTC buildings, many windows appear they were blown out from the inside. But, perhaps they shattered without being blown in or out.

This image shows exercise equipment inside WFC2 where the windows are blown/shattered.

Traditional controlled demolition doesn't do this, this this and this.

Rubble "piles" 1, 2 and 3

On the afternoon of 9/11/01 the "rubble pile" left from WTC1 is essentially non-existent. WTC7 can be seen in the distance, revealing the photo was taken before 5:20 PM that day.

WTC6 from across Vesey street - WTC6 is an eight-story building and it dwarfs the rubble pile of WTC1.

You can see the remains of WTC1 on the other side of WTC6 (WTC6 is in the foreground). The amount of rust on beams adjacent to the hole in WTC6 is impressive.

WTC7 - An excellent job, for sure! No parts spattered on adjacent buildings.

WTC7 left a bigger pile than either WTC1 or WTC2. Note how small the people are relative to the "pile."

WTC7 was not completely pulverized. Note the wall-board that remained on the surface.

Clearly WTC7 was not taken down by conventional controlled demolition. However, the destruction of WTC7 appears to have been different than WTC1 and WTC2.

WTC2 "fell" first and the top tipped first, before it "fell." Why? It appears that this was done to minimize damage.

If WTC1 is destroyed first, it would be good to stay away from WTC2 (purple zones right and down) to avoid complicating the situation for the subsequent job. However, if WTC1 tips north, it risks damaging the Verizon building and WTC7. If WTC1 tips west, it risks damaging WFC2 and WFC3.

If WTC2 is destroyed first, it would be good to stay away from WTC1 (purple zones left and up) to avoid complicating the situation for the subsequent job. However, if WTC2 tips south, it risks damaging the Bankers Trust building. But if WTC2 tips east (to the right), it only risks damaging WTC4.

Because of its close proximity to WTC2, it can be assumed that WTC4 will be destroyed anyway. Similarly, because of its close proximity to WTC1, it can be assumed that WTC6 will be destroyed anyway. So, to minimize damage, the optimal choice would be to destroy WTC2 first, while tipping the top portion to the east, and the remaining portion of the building may be more manageable.

axolotl_peyotl [S] 0 points ago +4 / -4


Every building that was destroyed had a prefix of WTC. There was surprisingly little collateral damage to nearby buildings that were not targeted.

The WTC buildings that were not totally destroyed had multiple circular holes visible at Ground Zero, especially in buildings WTC5 and WTC6.

Notice how straight the vertical holes were that cut down through WTC6

This photo highlights the depth of the hole in WTC6 - While there is abundance of aluminum cladding on the roofs of buildings 5 and 6, there is little or none in the holes.

The vertical holes in WTC6 (U.S. Customs Building) have the shape of cylindrical core samples in soil. What could have done this? Whatever it was produced vertically straight holes while doing little apparent horizontal damage to the balance of the interior of WTC6. In addition, the parking garage below WTC6 remained essentially undamaged.

Banker's Trust, a 40-story building, had pulverized dust and some WTC aluminum cladding on its roof -- plus some damage mostly confined to its lower floors - This same pattern prevails in other damaged buildings adjacent to the WTC complex.

This is surprisingly little damage following destruction of 110-story buildings directly across the street. Why is there no serious damage to the adjacent buildings above the 20th floors of those buildings? Such damage is less than 20% of the height of a Twin Tower.

Disintegration and pulverization into talcum-powder-sized dust above the 20th floors might explain this.

WTC5 on the left, the U.S. Postal Service building, and the two buildings to the right (north) of the postal building, have only modest dust and a few pieces of aluminum cladding on their roofs. A jet engine piece was found at the corner of Murray and Church Streets as indicated.

WFC2 had only pulverized dust and WTC aluminum cladding on its roofs - WFC2 suffered only window damage only to its lower floors, despite the destruction of a 1/4-mile high building across the street.

In this image, some debris has been cleared, but the pulverized dust is still emerging - If most of the steel from the upper floors of WTC1 and WTC2 was pulverized, then how much steel was really shipped as scrap to China? Does anyone have these figures or the receipts?

A view over the dome of WFC2 shows the damage to WTC6 in the center of the photo - To the left is the collapsed WTC7. Its debris stack is at least five stories high. To the right of WTC6 is the remaining north wall of WTC1 which leans toward WTC6.

Where did the wall go? Where did the top 100 floors of the north wall go? They did not fall on WTC6 or WTC7 because there are no steel wheatchex there. Some of the core of WTC1 remains, but where is the rest of the core? The amount of steel on the ground barely covers the ground.

This shows the vertical cut-outs in the center of WTC6 - To the left of WTC6 are the remains of WTC1. Note the fairly consistent diameter of the holes, which are essentially empty.

No collapsed floors are visible at the bottom of the hole and the heart of the building is gone. A bomb cannot do this. The debris inside the building is minimal and it all is at ground level, no deeper.

The base of the north wall of WTC1 is to the left of WTC6, and you can see the remains of a cluster of core columns in the center of the WTC1 footprint. The debris from WTC1 is almost non-existent, dwarfed by the remains of the 8-story WTC6.

Inside the 8-story WTC6 hole - The vertical cut-outs do indeed appear to go completely to the ground floor, with relatively little debris remaining. The evidence suggests that all 8 floors somehow were pulverized or "disappeared."

This image shows the roof of WTC5, with considerable aluminum and some steel wheatchex on the left (south) and top (west).

What could cause these holes? WTC5 is not adjacent to a Twin Tower, as WTC4 and WTC6 were. Thus WTC5 was less likely to suffer damage from the destruction of a Twin Tower than WTC4 and WTC6 were.

The remains of WTC4, a 9-story building, are at the lower left and the remains of WTC5, a 9-story building, are on the right - The main part of building 4, a 9-story building, virtually disappeared, leaving the north wing standing.

The main part of WTC4 disappeared with virtually no debris left on the ground. The "new" left-hand (south) side of the remaining wing of WTC4 is remarkably vertical and linear, appearing to have been cut straight down through the building from above. What could have made such a straight cut through WTC4, slicing off a large portion of the building?

Here is the north wing of WTC4, as viewed from Church Streed, looking west, appears surgically removed from the main body of WTC4, which has essentially disappeared - If WTC2 fell on it and squashed the main building, where is the part of WTC2 that did this?

Ground Zero workers near a stepladder in hole 2 in Liberty Street, identified here - The remaining wall of WTC2 is in the background.

In the image with the workers there is some strange "toasted" steel. There is a long red beam that rises from the lower-right corner that looks wavy like a serpent. Before the steel disintegrates, does it crinkle, become wavy, or shrivel?

Near the tip of the "serpent" there is a vertical piece of material that has a gold-copper appearance. Below the ladder, there are two similar gold pieces that are highly reflective. The WTC2 shows a strange pattern where the lower portion of a steel column is missing, but not its upper portion.

Was gravity acting up at that point? In the background, behind the ladder, you can see a section of intact sidewalk with almost no debris on it. This is at the base of the 110-story South Tower, yet the sidewalk was not crushed by falling debris.

GZ workers descend into the subbasements below WTC2 - While there is extensive damage, there is little building debris at the bottom of the hole. There is no sign of molten metal. A worker in the distance walks along a massive core column.

This hole adjacent to WTC2 is through sidewalk and pavement exhibits a number of anomalous effects - One example is the missing lower portion of that beam on the right end.

The three outer columns in the center of the picture have a strange flanged appearance as if they had unfolded, and they look cooked. It looks as if a steel wheatchex dove into the hole. The fact that you can only see the tip of the wheatchex shows how far down the hole goes.

The WTC2 columns are "pitch fork handles" at the lobby level, spaced on 10-foot centers. A six-foot person could lay between the columns with his feet against one column and reach out and almost touch the adjacent column. Large cars and trucks can fit between these columns.

Therefore the column unwrapping effect is huge. In addition, there are "serpent-like" steel beam remnants hanging over the hole and they look as though they stopped short of complete disintegration.

The metal in the lower right corner of the picture, with a camouflage appearance, looks deformed and dissolved as if attacked by acid. There is a large amount of material distributed throughout that looks as if it were run through a paper shredder. In the lower levels, concrete rebar is exposed apparently because the concrete attached to it was pulverized.

This photo was taken inside the mall on one week later - Does this look like a 1/4-mile tall tower crash-landed or pancake-collapsed into the basement? The mall is the first floor below all this steel, yet the mall was not crushed.

axolotl_peyotl [S] 1 point ago +4 / -3


It has been widely reported that molten metal burned at Ground Zero (GZ) for up to 99 days despite continuous water poured on them and numerous rain storms.

Supposedly, this is a smoking gun for controlled demolition. But, are these stories true?

The official government image of thermal hot spots at Ground Zero five days after the event

12 days after the event

Assuming the data are valid, the image from September 23 shows no large hot spots anywhere, casting doubt on the stories of long-lived molten metal.

There are other reasons to doubt the stories of "pools of molten metal."

First, the stories of molten metal come from interested parties like the head of Tully Construction and Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Second, there are no photos of molten metal that we believe are reliable.

Third, there are no photos of the solidified molten metal after it cooled either in place or being carried out. There's no evidence of molten metal before, during, or after.

Fourth, the molten metal may be a cover story to hide the grim truth. Vehicle dust kicked up on a dirt road does not take six months to settle out. Dust from traditional controlled demolition settles out quickly, even after being jack-hammered and pushed around.

But the dust at the WTC was so ultra-fine that hosing it down would have been a wise thing to do. It is quite possible that GZ workers were not hosing down molten metal but were hosing down ultra-fine dust and the fumes of molecular dissociation.


The use of DEWs on 9/11 does not mean some demolition variant was employed that day. However, controlled demolition is woefully inadequate to explain the nature of the towers' destruction.

Getting it started

Decoy squibs?

Cold Fusion & Thermite

Steven Jones sabotaged the 911 truth, as he did with Cold Fusion. Steven Jones is an opportunist who was tipped off by "DoE informants" to help coverup the reality of free energy. The film "Heavy Watergate" has more information about the Jones sabotaging Pons and Fleischman and their cold fusion breakthrough.

Original image - The fellow with the shovel, wearing a blue shirt, appears to be standing down in this hole.

This is the doctored image Steven Jones captions "Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble."

Original image

Steven Jones' doctored image where he claims the bright-white spots are evidence of thermite. The psyop is to train the viewer to see "thermite" when they see this photo.

Where is the proof of concept for the thermite hypothesis? Where is the proof that thermite or thermate has ever been used to bring down major buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)?