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.
thughes 0 points ago +1 / -1

Personally I don't think it was a direct energy weapon, unless you consider a 4th generation nuke as an energy weapon.

I am very much in the camp of 4th generational directional nuclear weapons which have a much small radiation foot print.

I suspect a 4th generation directional bomb pointing up towards the core of the building is what we witnessed. The buildings collapsed and were vaporized from within, not from above.

I guess if you put a direct energy weapon inside the base of the building you could pull this off as well, but the amount of energy required would be insane. A directional small nuke would be a lot easier and have a similar effect.

axolotl_peyotl [S] -1 points ago +1 / -2

but the amount of energy required would be insane.

Have you looked into Hurricane Erin? It approaching New York on 9/11. It's been hypothesized energy was "drawn" from the storm system.

thughes 0 points ago +1 / -1

I’m aware of the hurricane, and its near miss of the city on that day. I don’t really believe in coincidences, but at the same time I’ve researched alternative theories to electricity and energy, including Tesla, and others. Even from a quantum mechanics standpoint drawing energy from a hurricane just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for this purpose.

Why draw energy from a hurricane which would require advanced massive equipment when you could just set off a dirty bomb essentially under ground under the towers and get the same result? The planes were clearly for the psychological impact, but the bombs were likely planted in advance and then detonated remotely or by suicide bombers.

We now know 20 years later that 4th generational nuclear weapons exist, and are capable of what we saw that day. It explains almost every anomaly perfectly from the melted steel, to the fires that burned for months afterwards, to the radiation injuries to the rescue dogs and first responders. I personally knew a 9/11 rescue dog who died of cancer and who had radiation sicknesses as a result of working 9/11. The remains of the towers were absolutely radioactive for weeks after the buildings collapsed.

The nuclear signature of a 4th gen nuke is very small compared to 2nd and 3rd gen nukes, and most of the radiation is gone shortly after the explosion. But there was still some detectable levels left.

The only way I could see the hurricane theory being a possibility is if you turned the towers themselves into conductors, which theoretically could be possible but it would require extensive modifications to the structures, and you would have seen lightning and atmospheric changes to the weather and nearby environment which simply didn’t happen. What we witnessed was the interior of the building get vaporized almost instantly.

Also, you can debunk the hurricane theory quickly if you consider building 7 fell several hours after the towers and collapsed into its own footprint in a free fall. Building 7 was clearly a controlled demolition, and if they already had explosives planted in building 7 then they just as easily and likely had explosives in the Twin Towers.

It would be so much easier to just put a small nuclear device in the basement of the buildings vs. modifying the entire structure of the building to try and turn it into a Tesla tower and take energy from a hurricane to create an internal implosion. Plus, if it was a Tesla like device that pulled energy from a hurricane the building would have exploded, not imploded.