New CCTV Footage Shows The Moment The Champlain Towers Collapsed In Surfside, Florida- There Is Speculation That McAfee's Files Were In That Building
(www.usasupreme.com)
McAfee connection is rumor
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (180)
sorted by:
I doubt this has anything to do with McAfee. Collapsing a building would not be a very good way to ensure the destruction of data. A flash hard drive or thumb drive could easily survive. You will need to find it to verify it had been destroyed. You would be drawing world wide attention to your crime. Buildings in the USA don't often just collapse, much less luxury apartment buildings.
What interests me about the video is how the middle collapses and leaves the end piece. The end piece wobbles a bit then stabilizes. Then it just turns into jelly. It reminded me of WTC 7. It seems improbable that a tall thin structure like that would fall neatly into its own foundation without falling over.
I'm thinking about Directed Energy Weapons from space. Tuned to melt steel. The first pass hit the center of the building. Then it was used to take out one of the side pieces. Perhaps the other side was too close to another building to safely use it without taking some of the neighbor building also. Because there would be no way to explain that.
It is very likely not a DEW from space, if you have a satellite in space, the lowest orbit ones are 160km from Earth. Even if you focused that frequency, which would affect steel, which would likely be it's resonant frequency which is under 1Mhz would have a large wave length. The larger that wave length is the larger the focused array has to be. A 1Mhz frequency alone is 300m, they don't have satellites that big.
Also, for a building to be targeted with just it's steel remotely like that you'd need to take in effect the entire building and it's materials, as other materials would inhibit the resonance of just the steel. Higher density > lower frequency, higher stiffness > higher frequency.
Also with frequency there is a steep drop off of power over distance. Although low in frequency it can travel far, the power behind that frequency would not be very strong, you'd need a monumentally large power source, and dish in order to focus a directed energy weapon to take out a building like that, high tech or not it's bound by physics. You don't need a strong signal to receive with a receiver, but in order to have a transferrence of energy, well, even if the signal drops 10dB that's 10x less power. How much power do you need to obliterate a building? no idea, I assume it's a lot. I say obliterate because in that video if that's low frequency energy weapon then that's straight up a weapon of mass destruction, they'd do more with that if they had that.
DEWs are cool in theory but mostly science fiction if you're thinking satellites. I can see some applications that they have an effect but not strong enough to destroy a building that focused from 160km away, with a frequency with a wavelength of 300m. The parabolic reflector must be larger than the wavelength, so 300m+ dish in space might a bit of a problem being discrete.
Likely if this was an energy weapon of sorts, if you choose to believe so, it's much closer than you'd think. also you'd have to take into account that when we do see steel start to lose it's integrity it isn't nearly instantaneous like what we see here. If it was then holy hell, mega death satellite in space kinda means ultimate power to anyone on the surface.
Not trying to be a downer, but although it's not directed related to my field, I'm an electrical engineer who works in the cellular field, I mostly did a ton of google fu to reiterate the concepts that I am not very versed in, but it's easy to say it's a bit more science fiction than reality. DEWs exist, but their power, strength, range, scope, are all more limited than you'd imagine.
TLDR; I nerded out on some science stuff, likelihood of DEWs from space are almost 0 to be the culprit, frequency isn't magical it makes a lot of sense, just gotta wrap your brain around some universal concepts and apply it to a new medium.
I'm a physicist with a masters. I confess that I haven't analyzed DEWs.
But I don't think you need to be when you look at images like this.
https://files.catbox.moe/j5s0k5.jpg
or this
https://files.catbox.moe/qugema.jpg
or this
https://files.catbox.moe/9ciybd.jpg
I don't buy it that there are forest fires.
Yea I didn't really analyze DEWs all too much besides what I believe to be the theory behind them, which is a beam from space.
I'm just asserting It's likely not a satellite. Energy weapons exist, and in fact are really fun to theorize, but to get something to work from space to hone in on a signal to take out a building is just very unlikely.
That being said, I would say that starting a fire is definitely feasible, Higher frequencies can be honed into a tighter beam, making the energy and focal point very direct. Would that take out a building with what seems to be raw force? No. Do I think they could burn it? Oh for sure, but there are many counter measures to that so it's probably why it isn't super practical to always use.
Now I do think the idea of a fire causing some of those can be done, maybe not likely but that doesn't always mean it didn't. Also, hate to say it, but pictures aren't enough evidence to conclude alone that "it must have been the DEWs!"
I was pretty skeptical of the whole fire scenario when that stuff was going down, definitely foul play imo. Just doesn't have to be DEWs.
I'm in no way a resident expert with them though, but I feel as though there would be some very specific signs to investigate. Like, if it was a beam how does it operate? How does it burn exactly? Is it the focal point of frequency? What kind? Is it even EMF? or is it something else? If it's EMF then the specific frequencies would affect some materials but not others possibly. Idk, I just kinda doubt it, if you had a fire starting laser what would you do with it?
But in no way did it take out a building, it just seems too far fetched, the fires I give it a plausible since i haven't looked more into myself. Not trying to be all skeptical Sam, but I'm just trying to direct things in a more productive way, ya know? I don't think it's harmful to reshape other possibilities. Personally, I just think it was something like thermite or something to simultaneously burn thru the supports. Also to choose to make the building collapse vs just burning it where you know what your target is seems like a very valid way to not guarantee destruction of what your target was. Fire would likely be a better way.
First picture reminds me of tornado scenes where one home can be more-or-less unaffected while next-door neighbor’s home has been completely demolished. It doesn’t make as much sense with fires.
Not following the second picture there. SUV with what? Burn mark of some sort? Transporting fire starter of some sort? Then last pic is not the SUV. Not sure the implication here. Can you elucidate?
That third picture is bizarre.
What's worse is they covered up what I believe to be over 8k deaths.
Can’t get any of your links to work