| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kap25 wrote: | | Let me be clear I´m not attacking jones at all. I just want to point out that if he is debunked a lot of energy within the movement could be lost. |
sorry kap25, i didnt mean it to sound directed at one person, i was talking about what has happened or is happening inregards of jones being attacked and discredited, i wasnt aiming it at you or in relation to anything you said above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
brian
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems plain to me the agenda is as I have posted before -
"what Martin Schotz, a psychiatrist who’s studied the JFK assassination, points out is the real objective of disinformation, which is not to persuade us of the “official account” but to create so much uncertainty that “everything is believable and nothing is knowable.”
Wood's petitions -
"I am aware, for example, that as of the year 2000, weapons having the capacity to destroy the WTC were deployed.
See: http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/graphics/wavefront2.pdf
Where in that link are we given any indication there is weaponry capable of causing what we saw on Sept 11? Nowhere, it is not only misleading, its a joke.
It appears all to clear that this nonsense was timed to coincide with the Jones et al petition which destroys the NIST report using only the data and workings of the NIST report.
The quicker Woods and co are sidelined by the movement in general the less harm they can achieve. That stands whether there is any grounds for exotic weaponry or not as it only serves to confuse and hinder the issue which is reaching the critical mass required for an independent investigation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | thats where ive been for a long time, trying to understand the evidence for the other theorys or see something convincing enough.
i am at a stage though that you have to realise that the movement was close to making ground interms of getting the story out to the public, then something changed everyone went of into differant groups with differant theorys and now its back to square one. i carnt help but feel something close to what chek said is true at this stage, and everyone has been diverted from the truth because the movement was close.
i carnt help thinking its because we had the truth and was making lots of ground, but ill keep an openmind and keep checking evidence, i may be wrong but at this time i carnt see it. |
I hope I didn't give you the impression I thought things were hopeless Marky, I'm sure you don't need me to tell you there's ups and there's downs in every one of life's endeavours and 911 is no different.
There is a groundswell in favour of exposing 911 Truth globally, and a third world war to avert on the strength of it.
You've been a very fair minded participant on this forum for ages and you're not telling me now's the time to lose heart, although we all do from time to time.
We may not have had the whole truth at any time, but as a movement, masses of evidence that would otherwise have faded away is being kept current and also updated as new info comes top light even after all this time.
Nothing's been lost - far from it. It's just natural cycles.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: DEW research |
|
|
Marky 54 - I want to find out more about directed energy weapons and what their effects are and I intend to look in to it when I have some free time (maybe a couple of days at the end of next month). I'll let you know of anything relevant I find.
In the meanwhile, Nico Haupt has assembled enough links here http://www.911researchers.com/node/403 to keep anyone busy for months.
Here are just a couple of snippets from the literature produced by the merchants of death themselves:
"The Airborne Laser, or ABL, is a powerful laser aboard a modified Boeing 747 that destroys ballistic missiles by heating them until they fail structurally..."
"...Directed energy weapons allow for lethal operations including direct damage or destruction of enemy equipment, facilities and personnel with negligible time lag between identification and impact time."
It would be a relief if use of DEWs was all just in Judy Wood's fevered imagination, but I'm afraid she's uncovered the truth, and the attacks on her are the penalty for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: DEW research |
|
|
| MadgeB wrote: | "The Airborne Laser, or ABL, is a powerful laser aboard a modified Boeing 747 that destroys ballistic missiles by heating them until they fail structurally..."
. |
From what I've gleaned so far, that appears to me a slightly - or maybe even greviously - misleading statement MadgeB.
Is it not the case that were the missile to be standing still, it would suffer no more than a small hole burned in the skin (given enough time)?
Missile skins are about as resilient as a Coke can, and not far removed from that structurally.
The effect would be magnified by a striking a pressurised liquid propellant cell, though many missiles typically dump those soon after launch and solid rocket motors take over.
But rather than causing structural failure due to transferred laser energy catastrophically weakening the structure, it typically relies on the turbulance of the hi-speed airflow to perpetrate the actual damage to destroy the target.
That it seems to me, is the current state if the art, with most ongoing research directed into improving target lag times and atmospheric condition compensation.
I doubt the teams involved in these known programs would even get invited to the staff xmas parties of the Tower destroying guys.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | watching the tower collapses and building 7 it is obvious explosions are taking place and it was all explained with jones theory from what i could tell. |
Jones' theory that thermate was used does NOT explain these explosions. Indeed, it can be argued that the use of high explosives would have made the use of thermate redundant!
| Quote: | | however others feel there is other evidence to suggest jones is wrong but i am struggling to see anything as convincing as explosives/thermite hypothesis. |
How about these photos of clean-up works at Ground Zero appearing to use thermite to cut up girders?
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/44_thermite1 _0033.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/45_thermite2 _2960.jpg
If confirmed, this makes irrelevant Jones' claim to have found such material in slag because it can then be easily dismissed as contamination.
| Quote: | | the attacks on jones seem over the top and almost a agenda for the other theorys, like attacking jones somehow seems more important than actually putting a convincing case across of the theory being supported to other truthers and the general public. |
Well, it IS more important if Jones' work amounts to establishing a red herring, viz. that the thermate he has detected is evidence that it was used to bring down the two towers. And it IS more important if there really is evidence that demonstrates something other than thermate or high explosives were being used to destroy them. Some influential people like former professor Jim Fetzer has become convinced that the weird damage to the WTC strongly suggests another factor was at work. Of course there is another agenda being pushed! And quite rightly too. That agenda is a more comprehensive explanation for the damage, which Jones thermate hypothesis does not even START to account for (e.g., amount of dust, lack of debris)
| Quote: | i am at a stage though that you have to realise that the movement was close to making ground in terms of getting the story out to the public, then something changed everyone went of into differant groups with differant theorys and now its back to square one. i carnt help but feel something close to what chek said is true at this stage, and everyone has been diverted from the truth because the movement was close.
|
You presume what the truth was. What really happened was that some factions concluded that the scenarios implicitly assumed by other factions were wrong. For example, the assumption that a plane crashed into the Pentagon is now invalidated by the PentaCon witnesses because the direction of the path of damage inside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the more oblique approach angle that these witnesses said the plane they saw had. Therefore their plane could not have caused the interior damage and must have flown over the Pentagon, not crashed into it. As they saw no other plane, this has raised the controversial question whether ANY plane in fact hit the Pentagon
| Quote: | | now we all fight accuse each other of being agents and are all being led down the wrong path from what i can tell. a big change from the united movement which had a convincing case. |
Again you beg the question what is the 'right' path. If Jones' work is either flawed or irrelevant (as Fetzer, Reynolds & Wood are now saying), how can Jones' direction be the right path? Would you prefer sticking to a path whether it is right or wrong? Or just because it is more easily acceptable to the general public than DEW?
| Quote: | | ill keep looking at any new evidence but do feel its already a case of the time is gone if any truth was going to come out at all, its going to be lot toughier now with so many differant theorys that are used as campagins against the movement to discredit us to the public. |
Yes, I agree. The NPTers have damaged the movement because they are being used by upholders of the official story to ridicule it. Hopefully the conference planned by Fetzer later this year to hammer out these issues will refute these people once and for all. There will be blood spilt on the carpet but better that than continuing division.
| Quote: | | the thing that makes me over suspious is the way all the other theorys are designed to attack jones, which dosnt need to be done if there is any truth in the other theorys, the evidence would speak for itself regardless of jones hypothesis, so why attack him? |
Because Jones falsely claims it adequately explains how the WTC was destroyed. He has not even started to try to explain the unusual damage to WTC 5 and WTC 6. In scientific debate, one always points out the inadequacies of a competing theory. There is nothing suspicious about this at all.
| Quote: | | i carnt help thinking its because we had the truth and was making lots of ground, but ill keep an openmind and keep checking evidence, i may be wrong but at this time i carnt see it. |
What truth? The truth about 9/11 was never set in stone early on but has been developing as investigators dug out more facts. What you really mean is that YOU thought YOU had all the truth but then found people's research began to discredit that version of it. Well, hard cheese! It may be disconcerting to YOU, but that is the nature of scientific investigation. We have to discover the scientific facts behind 9/11, not merely what some people find easier to believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: |
Jones' theory that thermate was used does NOT explain these explosions. Indeed, it can be argued that the use of high explosives would have made the use of thermate redundant! |
I am personally not concerned what sort of material was used in the demolition of the world trade centres. But as I understand even Jones's thermate theory does not argue that thermate was exclusivley used, but that it was a part of the process.
Very interesting, thanks for those, I hadn't seen those before. I have no say I was never that concerned with Jone's claim that there was a thermate "finger print" on slag found at ground zero, as I had read on a debunking site that gypsum could leave a similar residue of chemicals, and have never heard any counter to that argument.
That said, I would note that the effect we see in these photos is identical to the effect we saw on the south tower in the seconds before its collapse.
| Quote: | | Well, it IS more important if Jones' work amounts to establishing a red herring, viz. that the thermate he has detected is evidence that it was used to bring down the two towers. And it IS more important if there really is evidence that demonstrates something other than thermate or high explosives were being used to destroy them. |
See I'm not convinced at all there is any evidence of anything else happening. Ignoring the irrelevance of whether thermate was used, even proving it was not does not equal support for any exotic weapon being used. Jones' research goes further than just the proposal of thermate; it makes a good cause for controlled demolition of some kind in general.
| Quote: | | Some influential people like former professor Jim Fetzer has become convinced that the weird damage to the WTC strongly suggests another factor was at work. Of course there is another agenda being pushed! And quite rightly too. That agenda is a more comprehensive explanation for the damage, which Jones thermate hypothesis does not even START to account for (e.g., amount of dust, lack of debris) |
Jim Fetzer is a proffessor of philosophy and a fire brand. Even before he started talking about beam weapons there was his mouth foaming, red faced, screeching manner that made me shirk at showing his lectures to anyone as a way of trying to convince them there were questions unanswered regarding 9/11.
The lack of debris argument is one that has not been made in my mind- there was LOTS of debris and I have never been shown anything to convince me the debris did not match the bulk of the building.
The amount of dust seems fairly natural considering the towers were being destroyed in waves all the way down- far more explosives being used than in a standard controlled demolition. A point Woods seems to miss entirley. The method of demolition we witness must (must is too strong a word- seems to perhaps is better) involve a continual sequence of explosions going down the towers, to give the impression that the tower is collapsing. A usual demoliton would use explosives economocially and simply knock out the supports and let gravity do the rest. This would make it so obvious the building was demolished rather than collapsed that even the media might have to mention it.
| Quote: | | Again you beg the question what is the 'right' path. If Jones' work is either flawed or irrelevant (as Fetzer, Reynolds & Wood are now saying), how can Jones' direction be the right path? Would you prefer sticking to a path whether it is right or wrong? Or just because it is more easily acceptable to the general public than DEW? |
The answers in the question here. You talk about the "right path" not the "right theory". The right path is to keep to the most simple undenible facts regarding 9/11 in order to convince as many people as possible to look into this themselves. Jone's DETAILED theory of thermite should be ignored with this path and a HUNDRED TIMES MORE beam weapon theories should not just be ignored but frowned upon. There is a difference between a path and a theory.
A theory is self indulgent, the motive behind forming a theory is to satisfy a personal need to want to know exactly what happened, it is also irrational since we cannot.
A path suggests a method this campaign should take. Simple. Rather than proposing little theories we focus on debunking the big one: the official conspiracy theory, that is what we all have in common, that is what unites us. It is also what will bring us the greatest success.
| Quote: | | Yes, I agree. The NPTers have damaged the movement because they are being used by upholders of the official story to ridicule it. Hopefully the conference planned by Fetzer later this year to hammer out these issues will refute these people once and for all. There will be blood spilt on the carpet but better that than continuing division. |
The exotic weapon theory is equal in its usefulness to our opponents.
| Quote: | | Because Jones falsely claims it adequately explains how the WTC was destroyed. He has not even started to try to explain the unusual damage to WTC 5 and WTC 6. In scientific debate, one always points out the inadequacies of a competing theory. There is nothing suspicious about this at all. |
Actually Jones wisely takes every opportunity to remind people this is just a theory he is putting on the table. And it's hardly a dangerous one. If it turns out it was not thermate but another substance used, it doesn't change the bare bones of what he is saying- that some foreign substance was attacking the structure of the WTC from within. This is borne out by mulitple pieces of empirical evidence: such as the squibs, pre collapse explosions, molten metal, and the speed of the collapse.
| Quote: | | What truth? The truth about 9/11 was never set in stone early on but has been developing as investigators dug out more facts. What you really mean is that YOU thought YOU had all the truth but then found people's research began to discredit that version of it. Well, hard cheese! It may be disconcerting to YOU, but that is the nature of scientific investigation. We have to discover the scientific facts behind 9/11, not merely what some people find easier to believe. |
The only facts we should be interested in really are those which comprehensivly refute the official conspiracy theory, and they are numerous in their number.
By setting up new theories of our own, especially ones with even a little toe in speculation, we hand our opponents all the tools needed to discredit us.
You may have a theory you have woven together out of five facts using speculation. Your oponent will not discuss the five facts, he will draw exclsuive attention to any element of what you are saying which cannot be proven and repeat a demand for you to explain it over and over again. You have then lost, because all effort to bring discussion back to the verefiable facts is lost. I've been there, I've done that.
But if you ask someone else a question "How do you explain [insert evidence incompatible with official theory here]", then let them try to explain it, then question that explanation with sources and take it from there you will soon have them in the palm of your hand, since it is so much easier to cast doubt on something that to comprehensivly prove something- focus on THEIR THEORY and cast away with all the doubt and evidence you can muster.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To Micpsi & Madge B,
Judy wood has uncovered nothing at all.
The reason people like ME attack the position shw makes is for the following reasons:
1: Its blatantly absurd
2: It has NO evidence
3: Its designed conveniently to "appear" whenever somthing good looks like happening in the movement.
The very poor efforts you all make in discrditing jones only demonstrates that you havnt EVEN READ his paper!
For example, THE REASON you would use thermite AS WELL as high explosives is to weaken all the major columns (not cut them fully) before the charges but.....wait for it.......SILENTLY!!
You see how that works?
Why am I even talking to you all; I have NO idea to be honest.
The fact you bring up these points shows you havent even searched for the 998 previous conversations about this when all the points you bring up were addressed.
The fact you didnt indicates you`re not a bit interested in finding out facts but only in inserting your "judy wood for president" ideas.
Hmmm wonder why when in all interviews she appears, fragile; absent minded, slow witted and DEVOID of real factual information.
I suppose you think a lazer can blow up a building do you?
Is THAT what you`re trying to say?
This is pathetic, it really is.
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | To Micpsi & Madge B,
Judy wood has uncovered nothing at all.
|
In your opinion.
| Quote: |
I suppose you think a lazer can blow up a building do you?
Is THAT what you`re trying to say?
This is pathetic, it really is. |
Steady. It's laser. It's an acronymn.
Thing is SnowyG - not one person on this very erudite forum has explained to us just how thermate flies through the air and scorches cars 1 mile from ground zero.
The WTC towers were additionally either mini-low-yield nuked or DEW'd. Not a lot else makes sense.. you can tantrum all you want.
On that note if anyone wants a recent hour of audio from the Rense show with Ed Ward who has found some stunning data on low yield, coke-can size nukes - I'll host it and give out the link.
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| utopiated wrote: | | Thing is SnowyG - not one person on this very erudite forum has explained to us just how thermate flies through the air and scorches cars 1 mile from ground zero. |
Actually a theory has been floated that nano-thermate particles (and they could have used tons of it - remember Scott Forbes dumper trucks?)could have been distributed in those pyroclastic-like dustflows that coursed through Manhattan.
| utopiated wrote: | The WTC towers were additionally either mini-low-yield nuked or DEW'd. Not a lot else makes sense.. you can tantrum all you want.
On that note if anyone wants a recent hour of audio from the Rense show with Ed Ward who has found some stunning data on low yield, coke-can size nukes - I'll host it and give out the link. |
I'm a secret fan of the additional use of clean fission-free mini-nuke theory in that it 'explains' the dust clouds and residual heat better than most others.
The biggest drawback being that currently, they are strictly theoretical.
It seems you have to subscribe to Rense for the downloads, so I'd be interested in that link if you can post it.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Actually a theory has been floated that nano-thermate particles (and they could have used tons of it - remember Scott Forbes dumper trucks?)could have been distributed in those pyroclastic-like dustflows that coursed through Manhattan. |
You reckon hot mini particles stay hot enough to melt engine blocks after going up into the air and drifting down as in the pyro flows??
Hmmm... dunno how thermate works but i wouldn't gopher that one myself.
| utopiated wrote: | The WTC towers were additionally either mini-low-yield nuked or DEW'd. Not a lot else makes sense.. you can tantrum all you want.
On that note if anyone wants a recent hour of audio from the Rense show with Ed Ward who has found some stunning data on low yield, coke-can size nukes - I'll host it and give out the link. |
| chek wrote: | I'm a secret fan of the additional use of clean fission-free mini-nuke theory in that it 'explains' the dust clouds and residual heat better than most others.
The biggest drawback being that currently, they are strictly theoretical.
It seems you have to subscribe to Rense for the downloads, so I'd be interested in that link if you can post it. |
Ahhh - but you're wrong on the theoretical. As we ALL could be on the DEW idea. Ed Ward has located patents from the 1960s and then one from the 70s that tiny nukes of ZERO RADIOLOGICAL yield were around and in use.
And get this - the 1970s one [i think] was a patent for use of mini nukes in building demo. Now they are hardly gonna get that sort of thing going if the device is giving off lethal gamma rays or whatever.
Yes you need to subscribe - I listen online so I'll have to go get it and FTP it.
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject: Mini-nukes |
|
|
It would be great if the link to that interview could be posted here.
So what you do think about Judy Wood's argument that a mini-nuke would have caused more damage to the bathtub? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:14 pm Post subject: Re: Mini-nukes |
|
|
| MadgeB wrote: | It would be great if the link to that interview could be posted here.
So what you do think about Judy Wood's argument that a mini-nuke would have caused more damage to the bathtub? |
Just upping it now.
I've seen her and Morgan's stuff on that and the point is the bathtub *was* damaging. I recall seeing news a few days after with water spurting out and these workers trying to fix the structure.
The thing is with these mini nukes - you can now aim then to a tiny amount.
My bets are that the Oaklahoma bombing was also done with these devices... when you look at the building it's also blasted to dust - but the structure [main] was left.
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mini nukes the size of coke-cans in the 70s would have rendered the entire space-race and the entire arsenals of both superpowers as useless 40 years ago.
Like to see it explained to me how a weapon based on radioactive material detonated in nulear fission makes NO radiation.....
I`ve never heard such rubbish.
As for you Utopiated, I`m not throwing any "tantrums" I`m just disgusted how many people fall for this stuff.
If you want to suck it all up like milkshake thats YOUR call. Good luck to you.
C.
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | Mini nukes the size of coke-cans in the 70s would have rendered the entire space-race and the entire arsenals of both superpowers as useless 40 years ago.
Like to see it explained to me how a weapon based on radioactive material detonated in nulear fission makes NO radiation.....
. |
The space race was a scam... like most of the cold war. Hi tech tech is much like having insider trading know-how - you keep it for yourself and your cronies for as long as you can.
This has been my patiently made point for the last year or more on this forum - tech is 40 years AHEAD of what we know about.
Why not "check the heavydence" - 1 hour of audio here soon. By 1958 - the whole idea of what we could do with a nuke had shifted....
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| utopiated wrote: | | tech is 40 years AHEAD of what we know about. |
Although just saying it's so don't make it so.
| utopiated wrote: | | Why not "check the heavydence" - 1 hour of audio here soon. By 1958 - the whole idea of what we could do with a nuke had shifted.... |
Thanks for the d/l and may I also add, a creditably speedy upload.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is a lot of truth in the idea that technology is kept behind closed yours for years but I am certain that it is not 40 or even close to it.
It is said that a version of the processor which was central to the Apollo system was used in the first Macs - if that is to be believed then we are talking 15 years.
It has also been said that IBM were always many years ahead of the consumer market but I am fairly certain that any historical truth behind that came crashing into the buffers when until recently processors could not clock any faster because they were simply overheating. There was a two year hiatus when very little progress was made in processor speed.
I remember reading how the same processors were being used in newer, faster machines but were merely connected differently. I pored over diagrams and photos of how to re-clock my computer to run at twice the speed but never had the bottle to do it.
So, what were the chip manufacturers doing at this time?
As for mini-nukes, I met Piotr Bein Ph.D. - http://www.stopnato.org.uk - at the World Uranium Weapons Conference in Hamburg in October 2003, though it was then called the Depleted Uranium Conference:
http://www.traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium_hamburg03.html
He introduced me to the idea that mini-nukes had been used on 9/11. I confess that I had difficulty in accepting his opinion, albeit as an expert. I remain open minded about it and have it mentally filed as inconclusive conjecture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | There is a lot of truth in the idea that technology is kept behind closed yours for years but I am certain that it is not 40 or even close to it.
It is said that a version of the processor which was central to the Apollo system was used in the first Macs - if that is to be believed then we are talking 15 years.
|
Last post then sleep. Got UVPC windows being fitted at 8am... 
I see the point you're making but you're taking it as a blanket statement. We're talking tech that by it's nature is part of what the MIC call USAPs or Unacknowledged Special Access Projects - not the general commercial tech like CPU clock speeds.
These are of course new weaponry, new energy devices and UFO black tech etc etc.
See it as a transparent layer beneath the usual R&D from the top secret whirrled.
The thing is the 40 year thing is evident here in this very example - everyone is saying 'coke can, low radiation nukes do not exist' but they were developed fot demolition 40 years ago. Flying saucers don't exist in the hands of the MIC according to most ppl either but I'll give you numerous examples of them from the 1950s.
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/911_family_members_file_petion _with_nist.htm
| Quote: | | It should be noted that the work on the petition commenced many months before the NIST petitions prepared by James Fetzer, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and Ed Haas, which promote directed energy weapon theories and, in the case of Mr. Haas' petition, actually tries to stop NIST from examining whether or not explosives brought down WTC 7. You can be the judge of which petition is the strongest. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
And the clone attack continues. Just what contribution to 9/11 Truth is served by attacking the people who do the hard work and the research? Why do you tolerate this kind of mindless character assassination on your forum?
Prof Judy Wood is actually doing something to advance the cause. The troll brigade is only trying to take the wind out of her sails. For shame! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fred wrote: | And the clone attack continues. Just what contribution to 9/11 Truth is served by attacking the people who do the hard work and the research? Why do you tolerate this kind of mindless character assassination on your forum?
Prof Judy Wood is actually doing something to advance the cause. The troll brigade is only trying to take the wind out of her sails. For shame! |
If you kept up with things (or even knew what they meant) you'd know that Judy Wood - like Steve Jones - is no longer a professor.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Why do you tolerate this kind of mindless character assassination on your forum?
|
Not a bad question Fred.
We just apply our values and principles and are nice to you, I guess
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annie
9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 830
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please, can we all remember the basics: the WTC could not have collapsed in the manner asserted in the OCT. Additional energy must have been involved for three massive structures to have collapsed at freefall speed.
As for where that energy came from, yes, let's continue the research and keep our minds open to any possible explanation. That's a role of a truth movement. And it's from that research that the smoking gun may finally appear.
But it's more likely that we shall only get definitive answers once a new, fully independent enquiry is held into 911. But unless we have a clear majority pushing for this and demanding answers, the PTB will continue to ignore us.
So rather than focusing our energies arguing amongst ourselves, should we not be promoting the basics as widely and effectively as possible? Whether planes, thermate, pods, holograms, beams etc etc ad nauseam were or were not used on the day is not at the moment a life or death issue.
What is life or death is the very real threat of further false flag terrorist atrocities leading to further wars in which hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings will be maimed, tortured and killed.
Regards
Annie
_________________
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Annie wrote: | Please, can we all remember the basics: the WTC could not have collapsed in the manner asserted in the OCT. Additional energy must have been involved for three massive structures to have collapsed at freefall speed.
As for where that energy came from, yes, let's continue the research and keep our minds open to any possible explanation. That's a role of a truth movement. And it's from that research that the smoking gun may finally appear.
But it's more likely that we shall only get definitive answers once a new, fully independent enquiry is held into 911. But unless we have a clear majority pushing for this and demanding answers, the PTB will continue to ignore us.
So rather than focusing our energies arguing amongst ourselves, should we not be promoting the basics as widely and effectively as possible? Whether planes, thermate, pods, holograms, beams etc etc ad nauseam were or were not used on the day is not at the moment a life or death issue.
What is life or death is the very real threat of further false flag terrorist atrocities leading to further wars in which hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings will be maimed, tortured and killed.
Regards
Annie |
Wow. An xMI5 agent talking sense!!!! 
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | To Micpsi & Madge B,
Judy wood has uncovered nothing at all.
The reason people like ME attack the position shw makes is for the following reasons:
1: Its blatantly absurd
2: It has NO evidence
3: Its designed conveniently to "appear" whenever somthing good looks like happening in the movement.
The very poor efforts you all make in discrditing jones only demonstrates that you havnt EVEN READ his paper!
For example, THE REASON you would use thermite AS WELL as high explosives is to weaken all the major columns (not cut them fully) before the charges but.....wait for it.......SILENTLY!!
You see how that works?
Why am I even talking to you all; I have NO idea to be honest.
The fact you bring up these points shows you havent even searched for the 998 previous conversations about this when all the points you bring up were addressed.
The fact you didnt indicates you`re not a bit interested in finding out facts but only in inserting your "judy wood for president" ideas.
Hmmm wonder why when in all interviews she appears, fragile; absent minded, slow witted and DEVOID of real factual information.
I suppose you think a lazer can blow up a building do you?
Is THAT what you`re trying to say?
This is pathetic, it really is. |
Snowy. Here's what I have figured
It is possible to make a mini (micro, nano???) nuke in theory and almost certainly in practice. All it takes is to be able to supply enough temperature x pressure to force tritium and hydrogen into close enough contact for fusion).
Long before we never went to the moon this was done by a fission ignition. Now there are many ways to achieve this - the most esoteric I have heard of being quantum tunneling. I wouldimaging a well-designed shape charge could hit the spot - remember once fusion is triggered it is self-propelled.
OK
What about all the neutrons? Well these can be captured by a tamper (ie case) which converts their energy into electromagnetics. Hence my microwave bomb theory. I still have dounts that the e-bomb is as conventional as wikipedia makes out BTW.
The thermite chain is an interesting one, and my concern is that it may be a set-up in that there may be an achilles heel to the thermite demolition proposal (which on the face of it has some nice supporting pictires and cast) but
Jones is numero uno here and i am 99% sure he is dodgy. He is into weird * and trashed Pons & Fleischman in a very underhand way. Interesting that the thermite card is played by a fusion scientist.
Wood seems mad, but didn't she first propose the freefall evidence (compellng - and true - I have checked it)
Zebuhr was murdered because he knew too much. What did he know?
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You make some valid points Rodin,
Anything within the bounds of space and time is POSSIBLE...
I (currently) place my chips in Mr Jones`s corner of the table for the following reasons:
1: His argument is coherent, plasuable and simple
2: His paper is backed up by excellent evidence for thermite, the vast majority of it from sources totally independant of Jones. For example, thermite will produce large volumes of moulten iron. This is backed up by several firefighter & emergency worker reports as well a film evidence.
3: It is a point of note to me that virtually all those who disagree with his hypothesis claim that thermite cannot explain the explosions. Perfectly true...it CANNOT.
However if they actually READ his paper you see he says quite clearly that if thermite was used it would have been in CONJUNCTION with high explosives with the thermite designed to weaken the main supports.
I`ll change my mind about anything given a sufficently good argument backed up with excellent evidence.
(Grainy video clips cut from google-video dont count as excellent evidence)
Until someone else comes up with the above; my opinion stands.
Academics are just as cut-throat as anyone in the world. Most universities in the western world also rely heavily on private finance. Hence a very large margin of lecturers will have been funded by or involved in work for the MIComplex at some point.
Hence talk of Jones`s past bothers me not. My materials professor has an anti-tank rocket launcher in his lab that he and his department helped design new composites for. Does that make him an untrustworthy stooge too?
Its reality these days.
C.
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
