![Powerful lasers [568x1009 - 535KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/g9CDr0.png){kind=link}
I was going to close with this statement but I chose to move it to the opening because it is important to say it first. Here goes:
No one has to believe me on the information below. Just the same, you can believe these pictures if you are so inclined. The reality is that there is much to be skeptical about in the world today. Question everything and investigate it for yourselves. But whatever you do, don't just take anything at all presented on the internet by anyone as unquestionable truth. I have decided that I do not believe these images are lasers or DEWs because I have done my own research and work on the subject. You choose for yourself what you want to be your truth. That said...
No. That's not how lasers work. High power lasers ablate material, i.e. the material evaporates. Lasers also have divergence of the beam of large distances which would result in the beam widening at the target. Intense visible light lasers don't look like smoke trails. They would be bright and exhibit Rayleigh scattering which results in a very distinct visual phenomenon. Invisible light lasers would not be seen at all.
I don't know what these pictures are depicting or if they are even unadulterated images, but they certainly do not show any evidence of them being laser beams. Scale is also important here. How big are these "beams" in diameter? The laser aperture would need to be at least the same diameter of the beam and the first picture appears to show a massive beam volume relative to the surrounding features. None of these images seem to be of reasonable proportion for a laser.
Finally, organic materials produce a very bright white light output at the point of ablation, where the beam Gaussian distribution has the highest energy density. My CO2 laser makes some nearly blinding light when it ablates wood or plastic materials because the energy of the beam is heating the material to incredible temperatures at the Gaussian main line. I see only one image that might show such a phenomenon, but it resembles an explosion or fireball more than a ablation flash. Only the lower power outside distribution of the Gaussian beam would have a more appropriate energy density to set things on fire rather than vaporize the material, but again I see no evidence of this compared to my real life workings with lasers. Lasers are not magic.
I choose to believe that jews get their shabbos goyim leftards to set these fires because it's easier, cheaper and more subversive than using energy weapons. Additionally, if the jews had such capabilities, I think they'd be using them far more often and on higher value targets. But that's just my opinion.
Exactly why it's posted in this sub.
TIL and
I have no idea what those pictures show, who took them, or whether they're even real. I am glad I read your response, though.
Great post
Could it be a focused microwave/radation beam used to heat the surrounding atmopshere into a plasma?
Could it be a focused microwave/radation beam used to heat the surrounding atmopshere into a plasma?
Microwave energy is very far outside of the visible spectrum. A microwave beam would not be visible at all and it would not ionize the air at atmospheric pressure. Prior to the development of the laser, exact same principles were applied to produce a device called a MASER which stands for Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. It is a coherent beam of single wavelength microwave radiation. It is essentially a very long wavelength laser.
Microwave energy, even at very high power levels, would not be able to do ample localized heating as a "traveling wave". Your microwave oven produces localized heating because the interior box of the over is a resonant chamber tuned to the microwave wavelength (about 2450 megahertz). The resonant chamber causes the traveling wave output from the oven's magnetron tube to reflect at the proper length in order to have the wave crests and troughs align in such a way that hey create constructive resonance rather than destructive resonance. Two wave crests meeting in phase will double the amplitude of the wave in that location whereas a wave crest meeting a wave trough will cancel each other out. Though the energy at the meeting points of two crests will double, the points where two troughs meets becomes zero energy so the whole system remains with the same amount of energy it started with. No additional energy is being created in a standing wave scenario, but the effect is to distribute the initial energy to various points in 3D space to provide sufficient energy to make water molecules vibrate violently and produce heat. This wouldn't be practical in a traveling wave scenario because the energy would remain constant at the same input power level and you would need massive amounts of energy to do the same thing a resonant standing wave would do. There is no resonant chamber effect in these pictures, so no, I don't think it could be a microwave energy beam at work here.
If you could produce a microwave energy beam of high enough power to set things on fire from great distances without a standing wave resonant chamber, the entire ham radio community would know about it. Such a microwave signal would absolutely disrupt communications in the ~10 to 15 centimeter radio communications band and everyone would know it. You can't hide a signal like that from the many thousands of ears listening worldwide. No matter how tight that beam is, microwaves would still be bouncing around and scattering like crazy and would be detected. It's never been recorded that such a thing has been picked up like that so again I don't think it's possible that microwave energy did this. And by the way, microwaves don't actually heat from the inside out, in case you were wondering.
And that right there is why I usually stay out of these discussions. I'm too stupid for this stuff lol
I wonder how many of the kind folks who upvoted your long comment understand what "Gaussian distribution" and "Rayleigh scattering" is, so that they could intelligently and confidently give you a thumbs up.
I would wager not even one.
The terms did ring a bell at least. Haha
You get one point.
I wonder how many of the kind folks who upvoted your long comment understand what "Gaussian distribution" and "Rayleigh scattering" is, so that they could intelligently and confidently give you a thumbs up.
I would wager not even one.
I would have to agree with you on that wager.
> Invisible light lasers would not be seen at all.
Like the ones that took down the twin towers?
Like the ones that took down the twin towers?
No, because that is merely a conspiracy that energy weapons could or did so with the towers. It is far more likely that it was more typical controlled demolition. DEWs are weapons of mass distraction. It makes people believe in something that is away from the truth and also shows them to be easily manipulated into sounding like nutters that can be summarily written off. Physics doesn't work the way (((movies))) and talmudvision like tor portray.
But as I said above, believe what you want but please do your own real research and work to back up what you choose to believe in and share with others. The jews win if we just spread their stories and fantastical tales without determining if there is any truth in them.
I've no idea what those video stills / images are that AOU posted.
But I do know from research that it was likely a DEW that took down the towers.
Controlled demo is the controlled op, the powers that be leave those guys alone (but Dr. Judy Wood can't even keep her wiki page).
I havnt specifically done research on if a laser destroyed the twin towers, but that conspiracy doesnt check out in my opinion based on my understanding of physics and explosives. so, you know, take that for what you will, kind of an opinion piece.
Understood! You are entitled to you own ridiculous opinion.
I am kidding ex-feminist (seems like that name would have been taken long ago).
I began to consider energy weapons destroying the towers through Dr. Judy Wood and the book "Where Did the Towers Go?"
(post is archived)