Well, yes, what you are saying is technically true, but you can bring down a full sized bridge with a few marching troops. As Tesla said, "Think resonance." A direct assault may not have enough energy, but it you can get a resonance going, well........
But not every bridge. That's the thing. The Tacoma Narrows bridge had a design flaw which took it down in the right circumstances. There's a whole TV series called "Engineering Disasters" with similar examples. On the other hand there is a whole world full of bridges that didn't come down in the same circumstances as Tacoma Narrows. The point of engineering is to make something that stands up within limits, and likewise the point of weapons is to overcome the limits. Yes, resonance can be used. Probably is, somewhere. It has its limits too. The resonance from an earthquake is planned for in building, but a big enough quake is billions of tons of land mass resonating, more than relatively puny structures. Can HAARP match this, is the question.
That's how you prevent bridges from collapsing when people walk in lock-step across them - you build in 'discrepancies' into the structure to redirect the forces that build up away from the weak spots and into the ground supports.
To think that could be effective on something as large scale and randomly constructed as a tectonic plate beggars belief.
What a great comment. The resonance was an accident, you are right. Are we to assume that some segment of scientists somehow mastered this, without publiscising any research aor telling anyone?
Well, tricks like breaking glasses with a note of the right pitch are an old story, and that's a resonance effect. Surely many experiments have been done. But you touch on the other intractable argument "the government/cabal are keeping these secrets so no one knows!" Except of course some whistleblower/insider/psychic with a blog/radio program/YT channel. How are you going to convince those who believe lack of evidence is proof?
Yes. I agree. I think that is where this theory is going. Wasn't there a bridge in London that was revealed to have problems due to all the people walking? It had to be reinforced. But, we need to have an EXPLANATION for all this before we start talking like it's a casual fact. I see people saying this all over the place, and it's just so unexamined that it's really a problem, if you ask me.
Agreed, and your point is strong. I do not disagree at all. Tesla discovered resonance about 100 years ago, probably by now, the military has perfected its use/abuse.
I think the bridge you're referring to is the millennium bridge, and yes it was resonance that required its reinforcement.
I do think that reinforces the argument, but, we need to explain a lot of other things, like, how the beam is powered, focused, how it's not detectable in the ionosphere, not detectable in the target country, and how it produces earthquakes many kilometers down in the Earth. This is just all too much to assume to allow it to just pass like it's a known fact or something.
Yes, your outer level point is correct and strong. We must be careful when making a statement or point of discussion. We should be able to defend our arguments with facts not fiction. MY favorite saying is "Facts are our Friends."
Whilst we're at it, we should probably be looking at ground focused energy devices if there's any legs on the resonance theory.
I can imagine a build up of a directed energy wave reflecting off different layers of the mantle etc. eventually leading to a shift in the plates, causing earthquakes.
However, to think that such an effect could be targeted accurately is science-fantasy land. We can't even adequately predict the weather ffs.
It would be like breaking glass. You might be able to brute force it with pure volume, but it would be easier to find the right frequency to cause it to vibrate.
Well, yes, what you are saying is technically true, but you can bring down a full sized bridge with a few marching troops. As Tesla said, "Think resonance." A direct assault may not have enough energy, but it you can get a resonance going, well........
But not every bridge. That's the thing. The Tacoma Narrows bridge had a design flaw which took it down in the right circumstances. There's a whole TV series called "Engineering Disasters" with similar examples. On the other hand there is a whole world full of bridges that didn't come down in the same circumstances as Tacoma Narrows. The point of engineering is to make something that stands up within limits, and likewise the point of weapons is to overcome the limits. Yes, resonance can be used. Probably is, somewhere. It has its limits too. The resonance from an earthquake is planned for in building, but a big enough quake is billions of tons of land mass resonating, more than relatively puny structures. Can HAARP match this, is the question.
Resonance requires uniformity of construction.
That's how you prevent bridges from collapsing when people walk in lock-step across them - you build in 'discrepancies' into the structure to redirect the forces that build up away from the weak spots and into the ground supports.
To think that could be effective on something as large scale and randomly constructed as a tectonic plate beggars belief.
Good point. Natural constructs always are fractal and/or have a little irregularity. Humans build "perfect" things which behave differently.
What a great comment. The resonance was an accident, you are right. Are we to assume that some segment of scientists somehow mastered this, without publiscising any research aor telling anyone?
Well, tricks like breaking glasses with a note of the right pitch are an old story, and that's a resonance effect. Surely many experiments have been done. But you touch on the other intractable argument "the government/cabal are keeping these secrets so no one knows!" Except of course some whistleblower/insider/psychic with a blog/radio program/YT channel. How are you going to convince those who believe lack of evidence is proof?
This resonance talk reminds me of 11-11-2018. This was the day the Earth "rang like a bell". Some say it happened every 17 minutes.
Obviously this is only what we've been told, but if true, what could cause such an event?
Yes. I agree. I think that is where this theory is going. Wasn't there a bridge in London that was revealed to have problems due to all the people walking? It had to be reinforced. But, we need to have an EXPLANATION for all this before we start talking like it's a casual fact. I see people saying this all over the place, and it's just so unexamined that it's really a problem, if you ask me.
Agreed, and your point is strong. I do not disagree at all. Tesla discovered resonance about 100 years ago, probably by now, the military has perfected its use/abuse.
I think the bridge you're referring to is the millennium bridge, and yes it was resonance that required its reinforcement.
I do think that reinforces the argument, but, we need to explain a lot of other things, like, how the beam is powered, focused, how it's not detectable in the ionosphere, not detectable in the target country, and how it produces earthquakes many kilometers down in the Earth. This is just all too much to assume to allow it to just pass like it's a known fact or something.
Yes, your outer level point is correct and strong. We must be careful when making a statement or point of discussion. We should be able to defend our arguments with facts not fiction. MY favorite saying is "Facts are our Friends."
Whilst we're at it, we should probably be looking at ground focused energy devices if there's any legs on the resonance theory.
I can imagine a build up of a directed energy wave reflecting off different layers of the mantle etc. eventually leading to a shift in the plates, causing earthquakes.
However, to think that such an effect could be targeted accurately is science-fantasy land. We can't even adequately predict the weather ffs.
It would be like breaking glass. You might be able to brute force it with pure volume, but it would be easier to find the right frequency to cause it to vibrate.