WTC Collapse Caused By Laser Beam?

A

Anonymous

Guest
WTC colapse caused by laer beam?

Hello all,
zapping thru the deeper reaches of the web, I came across this theory
Quote:Was the collapse of the World Trade Center caused by a laser beam weapon? A physicist who worked on the original “deep infrared” beam weapon has reason to believe so.

Amazingly, more than five months after the greatest terror attack on America in history, the cause of the towers’ structural failure has yet to be investigated and re mains unexplained, according to America’s leading fire engineering experts.
More...

:confused:
Also on todays menu:Conspiracy
The menu is here
Enjoy
sakina--from the outer limits of the web
 
The structural failure of the WTC is no real mystery. Fires caused damage to the grid-work supporting the floors. When these began to sag and collapse, the combined effect caused massive structural failure to the main framework of the tower.

A laser weapon big enough to do such damage is unlikely to exist. And if it did, it would be very large and need a big power source. This would also make a bit obvious ;) I'd also argue that an infra-red laser would lack the necessary destructive power.
 
It's an interesting article. I think Mr Icke will be incorperating the lasre theory in his account of 9/11. Lasers is also the suggested theory for the bringing down on flight 587.
 
Lasers have been blamed for a lot, esp infrared, but I havent seen one working yet!
sakina--in the internet cafe
 
Does anyone remember Ronan Point in London. The whole, corner side, of a block of flats, collapsed like a playing card house. That wasn't a laser beam. That was a faulty gas boiler and the fact that the concrete ceiling/floor units were sometimes, only sitting on an eighth of an inch of concrete and a folded up cigarette packet.

There was a pretty informative, `Horizon' documentary programme about the collapse of the WTC, a few months ago.
 
I think that the collapse of the WTC towers is pretty well understood using a conventional engineering analysis.

A sufficiently big IR laser could cause a significant amount of damage, though to do it on a scale consistent with the WTC destruction would require a *huge* beast. This would be very difficult to hide. In addition, I suspect that for a static installation there would be sigificant thermal blooming effects that would degrade the beam intensity that the target (note that the US ABL, and proposed SBL, would be operated from moving platforms were this effect would not be as important. In addition the power levels available to them would be tiny in comparison to those required to do the damage to the WTC). In addition, a laser would require a line-of sight to the target (unless you bounce it off a mirror which then adds additional problems in terms of complexity,) making it difficult to conceal the building sized laser complex that would be required.

As I said, you're better off with the conventional view on this one. ;)
 
I enjoyed the two documentaries on the WTC collapses. One suggested that each building fell down in a different way: one from the core first and the other from the outside first, each having been damaged in a different way by the two planes.

Given a choice between a laser beam and a jumbo jet to knock a skyscraper down I think I'd go for the plane.
 
Do these people who go on about laser beams being responsible not realise how much heat an exploding jumbo jet can generated.
 
Fortis is right about the size of the laser. During chemical laser test for the aborted SDI programme, the equipment was so heavy that they could not airlift it, and these were lasers designed to take out smallish missles, not skyscrapers.
 
Crafty Barnado said:
Do these people who go on about laser beams being responsible not realise how much heat an exploding jumbo jet can generated.
Click to expand...

Exactly - both planes were still heavily fuelled when they were flown into the towers: that's tons of Kerosene ignited in a matter of seconds.

As for a laser, something that powerful would require a small power station to supply it: plus it would require line of sight to the WTC - someone would have noticed a new building springing up, as even if you could get such a laser aboard a ship, you'd still have the power problem.

On balance, it was the planes.
 
Its a sad reflection on some in the conspiracy circle that when presented with live evidence watched by millions of people across the globe they immeadityly start looking for other possiblites.
Wielding my trusty Occam's Razor, I watched two planes crash into the WTC and then I see the two towers collapse. Is it really that much of a leap of faith to think that these events shared some common cause and effect?
A plane crashes into a building and the building falls down, therefore the plane caused the building to fall down.
Jesus wept, some people, eh:rolleyes:
 
exactly

I am also under the illusion that airplane fuel is the most flammable substance on earth.
 
anyone see the documentary on the collapse on Horion (uk) where the designer said they had allowed for a plane crashing into the towers, but not a plane with lots of fuel in?
 
Yep. It harked back to the time a plane hit the Empire State building, IIRC.
 
Another interesting point

was the fact that only one tower was insured, but my father, who works in risk analysis, said that that wasn't suprising as it would take an inaccountable series of odds for such a situation to arise.
Unfortunately that day they all panned out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top