Steve Jones ties to Los Alamos research on beam weapons?

[mason-free party]

got this info off www.libertyforum.org

what you should do is "look at the data". Don't believe Jenkins, don't believe Jones, and don't believe me.

Instead, look at the data.


Why are Jones and Jenkins, who both have ties to Los Alamos Laboratories (where directed-energy weapon research is conducted), trying to discredit Judy Wood's DEW evidence?


Dr. Jenkins NSA links are detailed here:

Here are the acknowledgments and URLs:

Annual Report: (who funded this project, who Greg Jenkins is working with, and their ties to Los Alamos)
http://www.csr.umd.edu/csrpage/publications/Annual%20Report/annualrepo rt.pdf
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne/reprints/ybco_prl.pdf
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne/reprints/au_prb.pdf

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9705129 and by funding from the NSA.

Edited by cb_brooklyn on 03/19/07 07:27 PM.

[mason-free party]

Re: Email To 16,000+ Newspaper Contacts w/ Info on 9/11 [ To: yummybear | Post 295354682, reply to 295351654 ] (Score: 1)


I agree that Dr Wood's public comments about Jones does not help her case, but after being fired from Clemson and her student being murdered (the one student who was doing 9/11 research with her to prove Jones' work faulty), we can't really blame her.

I'll make a few points:

Low seismic readings
Virtually complete pulverization of the towers and its contents
Round cylindrical holes in WTC 5
Bathtub not ruptured
Toasted cars in patterns only explainable by directed-energy


A hypothesis is only valid if it takes into account all of the data. Standard controlled demolition cannot account for the above. But DEW can.

[chek]

[Thermate]

[ian neal]

Hey guess what MFP? This is controversial. So guess which section it should have been posted in and will now be moved to

[Micpsi]

When did sarcasm ever constitute a scientific argument? I never thought I would seen the day when mindless fundamentalism incapable of offering rational arguments appeared amongst 9/11 truth seekers. When everyone thinks they know the truth, all dialogue ceases. What's this forum for, if that's the case?

[rodin]

[karlos]

lets NOT get sidetracked by beam weapons or any other distractions. 911 was a series of CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS by people who had access to the buildings and there infrastructure such as the owner Larry Silverstein, Marvin Bush's security company and sub contractors.

[chek]

[MadgeB]

[quote="chek"]I don't know if you've noticed Micpsi, but there IS no dialogue with the Beam contingent (just like with the NPT'ers). It's a take it or leave it thing with both of those inter-related groups.

I've tried to engage Andrew J a few times on 'beam evidence' and so have others, to no avail, yet they still go round claiming the damaged bathtub wasn't damaged and the flooded PATH tunnels weren't flooded, just as examples.
[/quote]

As a relatively newly-converted ‘no planer’ (and tentative ‘beamer’, in the absence of a better explanation), I think I know why there isn’t that much argument on the planes, and it’s because the evidence is ‘obvious’ once you’ve (a) looked at it, and (b) looked at it with a mind open to the possibility that TV-fakery could be a reality - and the main problem is with (b).

Many 9/11 truthers, like me initially, just can’t believe that the perps could get away with such an outrageous piece of psy-op as having a story about hijacked planes without actually having any hijacked planes. It seems impossible. There is a good article by John Gault on 911blogger pointing out that although we were told there were planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville, people looked at the evidence critically and said no, that’s not possible - the media lied about this; No-planers simply do the same, on the same basis, with the twin towers.

JG: “If you believe that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon, then you believe: 1) the government and media lied about what happened at the scene and 2) the government and media lied about the airplane. You believe this even though there were “witnesses” and “video” supporting the ‘official story’. However the evidence said otherwise, so you thought about it and concluded flight 77 did not hit the pentagon. You saw the crater in Shanksville and concluded "no plane". ……

Now fast forward to WTC2 immediately after the ‘hit’. There was a building with a burning hole where a huge explosion occurred just seconds earlier. There were no planes, no wings, and no engines. If you believed you saw a plane crash, then you believed what you saw on TV rather than what the visual evidence (of the scene) actually showed. But then, who wouldn’t. I did. That’s what makes TV fakery so hard to swallow. We saw it. We believed it. Unfortunately for our psyches it was faked.”

Full article at http://www.911blogger.com/node/3864.

Gerard Holmgren laid it all out years ago - what people thought were ‘live’ images of planes hitting the towers were NOT live - the only ‘live’ display of the WTC2 hit did not show an impact, just a dark generic ‘plane’ (inserted) image go behind a tower, then a fireball; and all subsequent videos show impossible and/or contradictory events. The Naudet video of the WTC1 hit was set up, framed and edited so that whatever hit the tower could not be identified from those images. We were told it was a commercial Boeing so that’s what we parrot, mindlessly. The 'eyewitness' issue, and every other counter-argument, are dealt with in detail on Gerard Holmgren’s website and have been available for years. In short, there is simply no evidence that ‘big Boeings’ hit the towers, yet people still want to believe. It’s hard to argue with that.

As to the exotic weapons theory, it is simply not the case that ‘beamers’ say the bathtub was undamaged and the PATH tunnels didn’t flood. Judy Wood speaks on video about the flooding, arguing it was minimal, only from the firemen’s hoses - if the river had broken through the damage would have been massive. The point is that the amount of material that SHOULD have been there would have caused destruction of the bathtub if it all landed. But as we saw, most of it miraculously turned to dust instead. That’s what needs explaining, to those with curious minds. Steven Jones doesn’t want to go there, so until someone comes up with a better explanation, a test of the military’s new exotic weaponry (along with conventional demolition) seems to best fit the strange phenomena of that day.

And I don’t think “Don’t frighten the horses” is a valid argument for not looking at ALL the astonishing things that happened that day. We want the truth.

[jomper]

I'm personally convinced that there was at least one large jet engine on the streets of New York after the towers were struck, but only because a friend of mine was there, and says he was able to stand quite close to it. This is anecdotal of course and hardly something I'm presenting as any kind of evidence to persuade anyone else of anything, but it's enough for me that there was one, ie I believe him. I'm not saying I know it was an engine from any particular plane or kind of plane.

[karlos]

[WhoKilledBambi?]

[MadgeB]

[quote="stelios69] Ofcourse there were planes. Forget this no planes disinformation. Why do you this mossad went to all that trouble to get the planes, why do you think NORAD were engaged in all those drills, why do you think the TV cameras happened to be filming the world trade centre at that precise moment? The planes are an intergral part of the 911 deception. The only plane that does not exist is the pentagon which was a missile. [/quote]

Yeah, the 'no-planes' handle is misleading - it should be 'No Big Boeings'. The military have planes and some were very active in the area at the time, no doubt giving out false codes as to their identity. Also we know that 'blips' were inserted into the radar images to confuse everyone - ie pretend planes. So there were pretend flights 11, 175 etc. A helicopter camera was filming at the precise moment the explosion in WTC2 occurred and this was passed on to all channels for airing. So tell me, how exactly do you know the towers were hit by hijacked Boeings?

[chek]

Well thank you MadgeB for taking the time and making the effort to respond sensibly.

[ian neal]

[MadgeB]

Amen to that - but just one last thing to add, I'd say. Feltzer talking about the upcoming "What's controversial and what's not" conference in the USA in summer:

"My hope is that by "agreeing to disagree," and by subjecting each other's research to rigorous but collegial criticism, the attention-getting controversial aspects of 9/11 research may be turned into a benefit, rather than a distraction, in the larger process of seeking and exposing the truth about 9/11."

The controlled media will NOT discuss the possibility of TV fakery or directed energy weapons (but please can anyone point me to a link where OCT'ers in the mass media do, if I'm wrong) - but if they did take the issue up it would highlight the fact that the OCT is still being questioned (no such thing as bad publicity) and will lead more people to research for themselves, which can only be a good thing. So it's a win-win thing and we're safe to give these thories the consideration they deserve.

[Andrew Johnson]

[chek]