Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject:
Koheleth wrote:
Do these ray beam weapons even exist? This question doesn't seem to bother anyone who brings up this damaging anti-theory.
Did the A-Bomb exist as an active instrument of the USA at the end of the second world war??
I think you'll find that if you do some research that 99.9% of earth's citizens thought no - such was the compartmentalised methods of the Manhattan Project.
Does a para-political group with a history going back to JFK era, with tentacles reaching into the military [space] industrial complex run the USA at present?
I think you'll find that 10 years back most people would have laughed at this notion and written it off as conspiracy talk yet now, amongst those that have checked even a small iota of what post-war history tells us recognise this as the case.
By declaring evidence as something only within consensus [or even worse your own ego-driven bubble] social/political/economic frameworks we may all be able to switch off, stand back and congratulate ourselves on our self-imposed 'rationality' but we end up playing the game of the control grids as much as we do when launching into so called abstract or fantasy based discussion.
You can't take the discussion of novel ideas [it's a forum for God's sake - none of you are swearing an oath in front of the house of commons] or anything outside your mantra of '9/11 Truth' then you do the job the control grid wants you to do.
Someone has still to explain how conventional demo's pulverize *everything* and how half/selectively burned cars litter the streets significant distances from ANY heat or fire source. Sort out issues such as these or allow an open-minded debate to continue.
"And yet it moves..."
However, a more pertinent question might be whether they have reached the stage where they can actually do much, or any damage. The technology is there, but its troublesome and unreliable, even 5 years after 9/11.
From my reading on the subject in various journals (which I can point you in the direction of, if interested), Beam weapons can only as yet direct sufficient energy at a very small point to burn a hole through an object. They're suitable for shooting down missiles, as the air-pressure on the hole would rip the missile to pieces, in a similar fashion to the way Columbia burned up on re-entry in 2003. However this is a completely different matter from the wide scale destruction seen on 9/11. On the balance of things as they are, it seems unlikely beam weapons were used on 9/11.
Please maintain the current strategy of watching 3 minutes, deciding a quick hit of Eastenders or the footy is due, and promising you'll watch it all at some other point. Based on the dismissals of most forum members on this issue and 9/11 bloggers attacks on Jim Fetzer for daring to examine a novel area - I assume this is happeneding fairly frequently.
I'm watching it now. I've stopped at 23:49 minutes and I am not learning anything about space weaponisation that I didn't already know. The discussion is about the use of laser weapons to control access to space and the redeployment of nuclear weapons.
Nowhere is anybody even suggesting that laser weapons, or beam weapons, might even be capable of taking out buildings.
So, beam weapon theorists are hypothesising about weapons being used five years ago which are not even being contemplated by anti-star wars academics now.
This video makes much more sense and will only steal 2:42 minutes from your life:
I'm watching it now. I've stopped at 23:49 minutes and I am not learning anything about space weaponisation that I didn't already know. The discussion is about the use of laser weapons to control access to space and the redeployment of nuclear weapons.
Nowhere is anybody even suggesting that laser weapons, or beam weapons, might even be capable of taking out buildings.
So, beam weapon theorists are hypothesising about weapons being used five years ago which are not even being contemplated by anti-star wars academics now.
This video makes much more sense and will only steal 2:42 minutes from your life:
I remember watching that vid a couple of years back and it just get's better with age. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Again, nothing directly to do with WTC evidence. But bearing in mind Bush said "we want to put weapons in space" and he said "19 hijackers crashed planes" he is likely lying about the former if he is lying about the latter. I am of the opinion that "we want to" is really "we have". But were those space weapons used on 9/11? How can we know? All we can do is discuss evidence and make deductions. "Causal Impotence" is also a philosophical consideration here. _________________ Andrew
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject:
flamesong wrote:
Nowhere is anybody even suggesting that laser weapons, or beam weapons, might even be capable of taking out buildings.
Well no-one's going to put this on a plate for you as with most things in this area. Where is the rule-book and accountants' sheets for intelligence services' black operations?? Militarisation of space is perhaps the biggest covert op of them all.
As with approaching most items - you read between lines and nuances and do your own work in shifting the context.
And you are out on the issue of whether buildings can be destroyed. We know that the SDI project was capable of taking out launch areas of ICBMs etc not just shoot down rockets hitting the stratosphere.
Anyway - none of this is about right or wrong because anyone that can claim this issue one way or another is a fraud. It's about letting debate take place and not calling for the start-up of a new forum for the more 'rational' amongst us which has been the suggestion.
****
On another note - just finished listening to a few callers in on Webby's RBN radio show.
It's interesting how this has panned out now people like Dan Abrahamson of http://FalseFlagNews.com have taken up the issue. It''s now being touted that if you look into alternative ideas you are automatically slamming Steve Jones's CD theory. This is simply stupid and the likes of Dan Abrahamson [who i know reads this forum] should know better. Fetzer's just become an easy target because of his enthusiasm for exploring all possibilities.
Excuse me, utopiated! You posted a link to a video which I assumed was supposed to be evidence for the 'beam weapon' hypothesis. I started to watch it and my comments were based on what I saw and heard in that video.
You to then take my comments and quote them quite out of context and then state:
utopiated wrote:
As with approaching most items - you read between lines and nuances and do your own work in shifting the context.
Does your own hypocricy not burn holes in your soul?
Besides, 'taking out' ICBM's does not necessarily mean reducing them to a pool of molten metal - more likely they are going to use high energy pulses to fry the circuitry.
Does your own hypocricy not burn holes in your soul?
Besides, 'taking out' ICBM's does not necessarily mean reducing them to a pool of molten metal - more likely they are going to use high energy pulses to fry the circuitry.
Correct - but something did the damage. Do you care to say what caused the damage mentioned in Professor of Mechanical Engineering Judy Wood's article/paper? Is is she to be regarded as "incompetent" because her view disagrees with yours? Perhaps the issue can be resolved by looking at the evidence rather than diverting the discussion onto one of hypocrisy in people or lack thereof.
People say "we need scientists and engineers to back up the story of CD of the WTC" for example. Yet when Judy Wood who has also talked about Controlled Demolition and whose student, Michael Zebuhr was murdered near the time they were carrying out experiments to analyse Steve Jones' research, comes along and publishes her analyses and the majority of people sweep the evidence aside because the conclusion she draws are "ridiculous" or "it damages the movement". How can the conclusions "damage the movement" if they are correct?
Any detectable hypocrisy in this observation? _________________ Andrew
Andrew, can I politely point out that a link to a video was posted. I commented on that video which did not mention any building destroying capabilities and brought that to the poster's attention.
He then accused me of shifting the context! The video he asked us to watch was the context and I commented on it! How hypocritical is that!? Even you quoted me out of context.
Now, I'm afraid I am hardly going to be drawn into a discussion with either of you if the ground rule is 'watch this but the content is inadmissible'.
Please don't expect people to debate hypothetical scenarios when the only linear script acceptable to you is reliant on ignoring aspects of the evidence you present.
Andrew, can I politely point out that a link to a video was posted. I commented on that video which did not mention any building destroying capabilities and brought that to the poster's attention.
He then accused me of shifting the context! The video he asked us to watch was the context and I commented on it! How hypocritical is that!? Even you quoted me out of context.
Now, I'm afraid I am hardly going to be drawn into a discussion with either of you if the ground rule is 'watch this but the content is inadmissible'.
Please don't expect people to debate hypothetical scenarios when the only linear script acceptable to you is reliant on ignoring aspects of the evidence you present.
Now, I'm afraid I am hardly going to be drawn into a discussion with either of you if the ground rule is 'watch this but the content is inadmissible'.
You don't have to be drawn into any discussion with either of us - and don't know what made you think you should be - you are a "volunteer" like the rest of us.
I wanted people to discuss evidence - your previous post focuses on no points of evidence of the WTC destruction - it merely criticises comments made by an earlier poster. So, not much has changed, overall, on this thread... _________________ Andrew
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject:
flamesong wrote:
Excuse me, utopiated!
Yes?!
Quote:
You to then take my comments and quote them quite out of context and then state:
utopiated wrote:
As with approaching most items - you read between lines and nuances and do your own work in shifting the context.
Does your own hypocricy not burn holes in your soul?
Hmmm. Classic.
You [this time referring to the one named FlameSong] have taken me to mean "YOU" as in you yourself. I try to write not using individuals as the focus even if their reply is in quote marks on a forum. Instead by "you" we sometimes mean 'you and me and everything' [cue song by seminal UK band The Shamen] and not you as an individual. if you re-read the post in that context you'll see this.
It's sometimes best not to put personalities at the centre of discussions because then we can lose a bit of objectivity.
Judy Wood comes from the "dream up the most complicated and unrealistic method for achieving the effects observed" school. She sounded like a fruitcake in the mp3 I heard of her. Anyway, focussing on the how, or even the who, is pointless, we should just be focussing on demanding a REAL investigation. _________________ Make love, not money.
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:46 pm Post subject:
IronSnot wrote:
Flamesong, my advice is just ignore it. It's not worth the effort to engage anybody in beam weapons discussions.
University standards were obviously too low back in the early 80s.
But you are here I.S. - you'd think that if an area of research was totally without any degree of worth none of us would be near it and neither would people like yourself who keep stating the fact that it's a pointless pursuit! _________________ http://exopolitics.org.uk http://chemtrailsUK.net http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
--
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 595 Location: Australia
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject:
utopiated wrote:
and neither would people like yourself who keep stating the fact that it's a pointless pursuit!
Not worth reading anything into that. I'm not attracted to it at all, and despite having Judy Wood's rubbish linked for me in various places, I havn't been even slightly tempted to click the link.
Maybe she uses beam weapons for rogue teeth? Remember (coz it gets forgotton here) this is her speciality. She's a tooth engineer.
It's a severe waste of time to spend so much of this scarce commodity on idiocy like this. I think the conspirators must get a huge bellyache from all the nonsense theories like this around the traps.
It's very strange. I have found that the mere mention of the ruddy things brings truthers out in spots, metaphorically, I hasten to add.
It got to the point on one forum where someone said to me. ''tell that to the War Crimes tribunal''.
Eventually I had to admit defeat . I realised that I was very much in the minority, and that valuable energy was being wasted on pointless in-fighting. So I will not write any more on what are properly called Directed Energy Weapons.
If , as I suspect, the story has 'legs', it will not be long before someone more qualified than myself endorses the theory and comes up with plausible evidence for their use at the WTC. I think the chances of that happening are a lot greater than my getting an apology from those who called me a salaried government agent. As if...
It's very strange. I have found that the mere mention of the ruddy things brings truthers out in spots, metaphorically, I hasten to add.
It got to the point on one forum where someone said to me. ''tell that to the War Crimes tribunal''.
Eventually I had to admit defeat .
<Snipped>
Andrew you make some good points. I also found the blowback to this theory totally over the top. Part of me thinks this is due to:
- 9/11 'truthers' have become addicted to controlled demolition and don't like being moved from their comfort zone... this despite no-one claiming CD didn't also occur.
OR on another level
- the theory is will be found to be accurate in the future and this is some kind of non-local, hyperdimensional backwash of collective shock n awe from that point.
I just recently heard of the "Energy beam" theory by James Fetzer interviewing Judy Wood. I think Judy Wood has lots of nice photos on her site that show the buildings exploding and the nearby destruction. But her Energy beam theory cancels out other ideas, like blasts that were heard and felt in the basement. Her theory can't except the molten metal that has been witnessed by many of the search and rescue workers that talked about their boots melting. The main thesis to her theory is that the bathtub was intentionally protected while the buildings that needed much expensive repair in the WTC complex were destroyed. She says the energy beam allows the perpetrators to keep the bathtub in tact while the energy beam is directed downward.
It seems very confusing to me and I wonder why she says she hasn't seen any molten metal, when some pictures have been available and testimonies as well. Surely, she must realize that NASA recorded those 1300+ F temperatures 5 days after the collapse.
Preserving the bathtub can be preserved by , according to one caller, using explosives as well. Because as we can see the mass of the building is exploded and pulverized in air before it hits the ground, thus preserving the bathtub.
I like Judy Wood and her efforts, as we need all research to continue, but I question her comparing the seizmic data of only one other event to the trade centers. She uses the 2.3 level earthquake seismic recording from the Seattle kingdome to compare to the trade centers. I understand that using controlled demolition caused a 2.3 level seismic reading at the Kingdome and the Kingdome is about one 30th the height and much less mass than the trade centers. So, I can see how one might conjecture that it couldn't be controlled demolion in the conventional sense. But this was not the conventional sense. It exploded outward from top down and therefore I can understand why there wasn't a higher seismic reading. Much of it went into the air! So all that former mass won't be crashing the ground.
If some evidence or logical argument can be advanced with this, I say great, and let's listen. But otherwise, I'd rather spend my time on areas with more evidence.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
