Uploaded by MainstreamSmasher on 15 May 2011
Dass die offizielle Geschichte des 11. September ein Sack voll Lügen ist, gilt in der alternativen Gemeinde als erwiesen. Doch was geschah nun wirklich? Eine neue Serie von Enthüllungen eines ehemaligen Mitarbeiters der russischen Geheimdienste schockiert selbst jene, die gedacht hatten, längst hinter den Schleier zu blicken.
Diese Dokumentation fasst den Artikel von Dimitri Khalezov in Wort, Bild und Video zusammen, so wie er im Nexus Magazin Heft Nr. 31 zu lesen war.
Antwort auf die Zerfledderung der Dimitri Khalezov These, die von User TRS(TheRealStories) in letzter Zeit verbreitet wird, unter dem Titel "9/11: „Die dritte Wahrheit" -- Wenn wilde Theorien über wirklichen Beweisen stehen". Video folgt:
http://www.file-upload.net/download-3706397/911--Die-dritte-Wahrheit ----Wenn-wilde-Theorien--ber-wirklichen-Beweisen-stehen---DEBUNK ED.doc.html
Oder mein Blog:
911 9/11 lie entschlüsselt entlarvt cass sunstein pentagon angriff 3. weltkrieg anschlag verschwörungsseiten alex jones fall of the republic nose in out verschwörungstheorie offizielle fairy tail lightning newton gong andreas von bülow maischberger peter scholl latour skull and bones baracke obamma think tank pnac project for new american century medien tv konsumenten verarschen verblöden obama war iran 2010 2012
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Google Translated: Uploaded by MainstreamSmasher on June 18, 2011
Trailer for a documentary movie. Robert Stone at the Congress for limiting knowledge 2011, in Saarbrucken, on 11.06.2011, with his presentation "9 / 11 Nuked Into Reality." In this lecture, Robert Stone makes the latest findings on the case of 9 / 11 be included, up to the 4th Truth rich. He asks at the end of the lecture, the YouTube community to refute his analysis put forward in the hope of being able to bring 9 / 11 Truth Movement in harmony. Coming soon to mainstream Smasher.
Uploaded by MainstreamSmasher on 18 Jun 2011
Trailer zum gleichnamigen Dokumentarfilm. Robert Stein auf dem Kongress für Grenzwissen 2011, in Saarbrücken, am 11.06.2011, mit seinem Vortrag "9/11 Nuked Into Reality".
In diesem Vortrag läßt Robert Stein die neusten Erkenntnisse zum Fall 9/11 einfließen, die bis zur 4. Wahrheit reichen. Er bittet am Ende des Vortrages die YouTube Gemeinde, seine vorgetragenen Analysen zu widerlegen, in der Hoffnung, die 9/11 Wahrheitsbewegung in Einklang bringen zu können.
Demnächst hier, auf Mainstream Smasher.
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Uploaded by SmurfTurf666 on 15 Jan 2011
Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition 1 to 26
a groundbreaking interview of an ex officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence
exposing the truth of the 9/11 events
This Video series has been censored all through the web.
Why I believe nuclear demolition fits all the evidence we know about.
They didn't call it "ground zero" for nothing! Before 911, ground zero only meant the area below or above a nuclear detonation, after 911, they changed some of the dictionaries to say it was also the place where terrorists attacked the trade centers. It's all mind control.
Dimitri Khalezov has been an expert in nuclear demolition for many years and has an incredible amount of proof that the buildings were taken down by underground micro nuclear demolition charges! I've posted some links to other material such as the melted cars that could have only been done by EMP type effects caused by a nuclear bomb since there was no jet fuel burning at ground level AND some of these cars were missing engine blocks! They were totally melted! How do you melt an engine block when no fire was burning at ground level - many of these cars were 7 blocks away! They were never explained in any way. Also it was never explained why Tritium levels were 55 times more than normal at ground zero. And of course we have ALL the strange cancers from first responders and many of them have died. They were forced to wear "air quality" badges which Dimitri says were really just radiation detectors in disguise so they could monitor everybody's exposure and pull people out of the hot zones for a while when their badges reported higher radiation. Easy to lie to everybody and tell them the badge is to monitor air quality. That is pure garbage if you think about it. There is not going to be that much difference in "air quality around such a relatively small area anyway.
Dimitri even said that in the 70's he was told that the Americans had authorized the twin towers to be taken down at the end of their lifetimes with small nuclear demolition charges! I did some research and it was true! It was determined that only a nuclear demolition charge could safely bring down both Towers and Building 7 because of their construction. Here's some good information on nuclear demolition
Dimitri A. Khalezov ist ein früherer sowjetischer Staatsbürger und ehemaliger Offizier der sogenannten „Militäreinheit 46179", auch bekannt als „Sonderkontrolldienst" des 12. Hauptdirektorats des sowjetischen Verteidigungsministeriums. Der Sonderkontrolldienst, auch als atomarer Geheimdienst (später „nuklearer" Geheimdienst) der Sowjetunion bekannt, war eine geheime Militäreinheit, die zuständig war für das Aufspüren atomarer, von Sowjetfeinden durchgeführter Sprengungen (darunter auch unterirdische Atomtests); auch die Einhaltung der verschiedenen internationalen Abkommen zu Atomwaffentests und Kernexplosionen zu friedlichen Zwecken unterlag ihrer Kontrolle.
Nach dem 11. September untersuchte Khalezov die Geschehnisse akribisch und wies nach, dass die Zwillingstürme des World Trade Center wie auch das Gebäude 7 durch drei unterirdische thermonukleare Explosionen zum Einsturz gebracht worden waren -- was der Einsturzstelle den Namen „ground zero" verlieh. Darüber hinaus bezeugt er, dass er schon während seiner Zeit als Soldat beim sowjetischen Sonderkontrolldienst in den 1980er Jahren vom „Notfallsystem zur atomaren Zerstörung" wusste, das in die Zwillingstürme integriert worden war.
People laughed and scoffed when Eratosthenes (276 BCE to 194 BCE) first made it public that the earth was round, even when he proved it by mathematical calculations.
SDI post Reagan exists; one example
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-DEW-HEL-Analysis.html
It's all there and Dr Wood has submitted this evidence as a paper in her Qui Tam case.
I don't really get what's so difficult about understanding that this technology exists and that it was used on 9/11.
Why haven't AE911 submitted a case in a court of law yet? _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
I still don't buy it, the towers collapsed from top down. a nuke would surely take out the bottom and allow the remainder of the building to topple? _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
I still don't buy it, the towers collapsed from top down. a nuke would surely take out the bottom and allow the remainder of the building to topple?
I'm not talking about 'Nuckes', but DEW's Disco. Just because we can't see it actually being used, doesn't mean it wasn't used. However, there were reports of a white aircraft with the similar features of the YAL-1A ABL prototype (image above) circling the Manhattan airspace that very morning of 9/11.
http://www.rense.com/general64/white.htm.
I would not try to convince anyone that doesn't want to believe it and I know there are other issues in this whole truth business, but we can't find out who was really responsible for 9/11 until we examine the technology actually used to cause the destruction of the towers. It really isn't rocket science to explore all possibilites as surreal as they may be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w-ql8msl0U _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
but we can't find out who was really responsible for 9/11 until we examine the technology actually used to cause the destruction of the towers.
Yes you can, not all perhaps but those most complicite in the crime could be tried.
You mention this YAL-1A ABL prototype, well if there is evidence? For what you say, it's not owned and operated by "The butcher, the baker, The candlestick-maker" on the street; so they could be tried later.
but we can't find out who was really responsible for 9/11 until we examine the technology actually used to cause the destruction of the towers.
Yes you can, not all perhaps but those most complicite in the crime could be tried.
You mention this YAL-1A ABL prototype, well if there is evidence? For what you say, it's not owned and operated by "The butcher, the baker, The candlestick-maker" on the street; so they could be tried later.
No it's owned by these people:
DEW Sponsors and Department of Defense Contractors
From the Directed Energy Professional Society website -- links to corporate and other entities and indviduals involved in DEW research, development and manufacture: http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/extLinks.html
http://wstiac.alionscience.com/
One of these entities, Applied Research Associates (http://www.ara.com/) was contracted to clean up Ground Zero as well as to consult on the reports completed by the NIST.
Others:
http://www.ibm.com/us/
Laser Beam Propagation through Random Media, Second Edition
by Larry C. Andrews, Ronald L. Phillips (1998)(2005)
HIGH ENERGY LASER (HEL) LETHALITY DATA COLLECTION STANDARDS
Lethality Technical Area Working Group (February 2007) _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
Well that's a start from those most complicite in the crime, that could be tried.
Nothing new in DEW weapons, but on those sites you posted, is there any evidence of the dustyfing of steel capabilities? I can’t see why they would hide it really as they are no more damaging than nuclear weapons that they say have been made in quantities to destroy the world over.
.
Well that's a start from those most complicite in the crime, that could be tried.
Nothing new in DEW weapons, but on those sites you posted, is there any evidence of the dustyfing of steel capabilities? I can’t see why they would hide it really as they are no more damaging than nuclear weapons that they say have been made in quantities to destroy the world over.
Andrew, you know I'm sure we have had this discussion before and I posted the link with all the evidence from Dr J Wood's website, so if you've any questions check out all the evidence given.
On the other hand you may be trying to just debunk DEW's like the official 9/11 Truth movement is. For your reference and others who are either not interested in the real truth or are deliberately or either sub-consciously denying the evidence here is a nice list of the top 25 Disinfo rules, Courtesy of Dr J Wood et al.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation Top
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
[add: Use the derogatory terms 'space beams' and 'rabid no-planers', then associate these with the terms 'wild accusations' and 'ad hominem attacks'. (JW, 2007)]
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
[add example: 'But space beams don't explain the presence of sulfur', (JW, 2007)]
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
[add: Use names like 'rabid no-planers', 'space beams', 'space beamers'. (JW, 2007)]
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
[add example: "I haven't seen any evidence of pulverization on Judy Wood's web site." (JW, 2007)]
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
[add example: 'Thermite is available on ebay and it is untracable, so I guess we'll never know who did it." (JW, 2007)]
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
[add example: 'Exactly how much energy would be required to pulverize the WTC Towers?' The authors of the DEW paper are asked this on a regular basis as if there is a question as to whether or not the WTC was destroyed. But, those with other theories who ask this question feel no need to answer the same question themselves. (JW, 2007)]
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
[add: Show a photo of a toasted car on FDR Drive and then emphasize how well "thermite fits the data". (JW, 2007)]
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
[add: We are frequently reminded to pine for the evidence we don't have (the missing steel) instead of looking at the evidence we do have (photos). (JW, 2007)]
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
[add example: Thermite cannot explain the cylindrical holes in WTC6 and the toasted cars, so that data must be ignored. (JW, 2007)]
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
[add example: 'We have new data (from mysterious and secret samples and test methods) that show strong evidence of possible ___'. (JW, 2007)]
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
[add example: 'If not able to take over 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth,' then start a new group, 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice' and establish a new "truth." (But, isn't truth its own defense?)]
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
[add example: Why would a group of folks want to destroy the organization, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and drag it out for many months with multiple emails a day proposing endless negotiations with no intention of following through on any of them? (JW, 2007)]
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
[add example: Murder the student of a prominent 9/11 researcher. (JW, 2007)]
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now distinct traits: _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
Andrew, you know I'm sure we have had this discussion before and I posted the link with all the evidence from Dr J Wood's website, so if you've any questions check out all the evidence given.
I have checked that evidence and I can find none for "evidence of the dustyfing of steel capabilities?" that stands up to scrutiny. Have you any more? Fair question.
Which is why I asked the question as many have before. Which is why Tony? Moved it here "Controversies" most likely.
As for the
"Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation"
I have seen many people who promote "the dustyfing of steel capabilities?" who use similar tactics. And some of those 25 are very poor points to begin with.
Quote:
On the other hand you may be trying to just debunk DEW's like the official 9/11 Truth movement is. For your reference and others who are either not interested in the real truth or are deliberately or either sub-consciously denying the evidence here is a nice list of the top 25 Disinfo rules, Courtesy of Dr J Wood et al.
Not at all, we all know about lasers, microwaves, radar etc. Its just I can find none for "the dustyfing of steel capabilities?"
Andrew, you know I'm sure we have had this discussion before and I posted the link with all the evidence from Dr J Wood's website, so if you've any questions check out all the evidence given.
I have checked that evidence and I can find none for "evidence of the dustyfing of steel capabilities?" that stands up to scrutiny. Have you any more? Fair question.
Which is why I asked the question as many have before. Which is why Tony? Moved it here "Controversies" most likely.
As for the
"Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation"
I have seen many people who promote "the dustyfing of steel capabilities?" who use similar tactics. And some of those 25 are very poor points to begin with.
Quote:
On the other hand you may be trying to just debunk DEW's like the official 9/11 Truth movement is. For your reference and others who are either not interested in the real truth or are deliberately or either sub-consciously denying the evidence here is a nice list of the top 25 Disinfo rules, Courtesy of Dr J Wood et al.
Not at all, we all know about lasers, microwaves, radar etc. Its just I can find none for "the dustyfing of steel capabilities?"
If Boeing's ABL (Airborne Laser) can destroy an inflight nuclear missile it can surely destroy steel and turn it to dust! Here is a page with plenty of information to start with
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam7.html#testing
It is not purely the dustification which is the evidence, but the toasting of cars
Here's one example of the ongoing work of this technology by the High-Power Laser Research Center of Excellence so blatantly proud of its work in this area.
http://lasercoe.chtm.unm.edu/ .
Other eyebrow raising facts about the various personalities within the official truth movement and of those who worked in the Bush-Cheney administration gives information about their links to DEW companies.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=112107
You've got plenty to go on and the 25 debunking rules are as close to what debunkers do as you'll get, but it doesn't surprise me that you've debunked that too Andrew. _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
If Boeing's ABL (Airborne Laser) can destroy an inflight nuclear missile it can surely destroy steel and turn it to dust! Here is a page with plenty of information to start with
I do think you need; to conclude.* "13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.".9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
[add example: "*I haven't seen any evidence of pulverization on Judy Wood's web site." (JW, 2007)] But I don't think you need to turn steel to dust to explode a missile.
Last edited by Andrew. on Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
If Boeing's ABL (Airborne Laser) can destroy an inflight nuclear missile it can surely destroy steel and turn it to dust! Here is a page with plenty of information to start with
I do think you need; to conclude.* "13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.".9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
[add example: "*I haven't seen any evidence of pulverization on Judy Wood's web site." (JW, 2007)] But I don't think you need to turn steel to dust to destroy a missile.
In the time that it's taken you to examine the all her evidence and note the that Dr Wood filed an actual case in a court of law(unlike those who scoff the existence of DEW's and make fancy videos and have a fancy website, but can't get a case filed, for some unknown reason) you still haven't grasped (which I suspect is deliberate, whoever you work for) the information given. The fact that people are so vehemently against the possible use of DEW's and the research that Dr Wood has presented (yes it's research in a paper, filed in a court of law) says so much for the truth of it. Remember, people were angry and scoffed when the earth was first declared round.
The more you and others contest this Andrew the more truthful it all becomes. I thought you were interested in the truth, but it seems not as you have discounted all the other evidence given in the links. _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
The fact that people are so vehemently against the possible use of DEW's
Quote:
Not at all, we all know about lasers, microwaves, radar etc. Its just I can find none for "the dustyfing of steel capabilities?"
Marigold
Quote:
yes it's research in a paper, filed in a court of law
Marigold
Quote:
but we can't find out who was really responsible for 9/11 until we examine the technology actually used to cause the destruction of the towers.
Quote:
Yes you can, not all perhaps but those most complicite in the crime could be tried.
You mention this YAL-1A ABL prototype, well if there is evidence? For what you say, it's not owned and operated by "The butcher, the baker, The candlestick-maker" on the street; so they could be tried later.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
Marigold
Quote:
(which I suspect is deliberate, whoever you work for)
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
The work presented by Dr Wood speaks for itself, but because you don't like the nature of it (or you are working to a remit for some one/group) you manipulate my words accordingly to make DEW evidence look like rubbish.
I'm glad you have decided to admit you were wrong to doubt DEW's so let's move towards making the owners of this technology answerable to the questions presented in the Qui Tam. _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
I'm glad you have decided to admit you were wrong to doubt DEW's so let's move towards making the owners of this technology answerable to the questions presented in the Qui Tam.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
Quote:
Yes you can, not all perhaps but those most complicite in the crime could be tried.
You mention this YAL-1A ABL prototype, well if there is evidence? For what you say, it's not owned and operated by "The butcher, the baker, The candlestick-maker" on the street; so they could be tried later.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
Don't know about you but Bone Fragments says Conventional Explosives to me _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Don't know about you but Bone Fragments says Conventional Explosives to me
Bone Fragments Disco? - apparently anyway. Since 9/11 there has been a major psy-op to distract people away from knowledge of free energy that was shown (by hard scientific evidence) to have been weaponised as DEW's on 9/11.
Do people think that those who planned 9/11 hadn't thought of how to keep the herd of conspiracy theorists under control and lead it in a different direction. These people are clever, but they've had lots of experience.
If indeed the report of bone fragments is correct (genuine), perhaps it was a bone fragment from WTC 7 or from someone not working in the towers that day. Was there any mention of the size of these bone fragments that were found at all? How reliable is the report and where does its original source come from? Do they have an agenda and what is their history in the reporting of other evidence? Have they filed it as proof of explosives in a court case? If not, why not? Again what's the delay? _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
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 cannot 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
.
distinct traits: