| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | The fact this thread hasn't been moved kind of sums up this forum i.e. A place where dis-info is allowed to be propagated. This post wouldn't even be passed for discussion on my forum as there is no evidence (I do provide a place where people can argue their case but when threads become circular I will lock them) .
I wonder what's going on here as in the past threads like this used to get locked pretty quick. So does all this disinformation have anything to do with Andrew Johnston and 4U2P? Is it time for Andrew to step down as a moderator?
Perhaps this sites needs a NO NPT and NO baked-bean policy?  |
| Patrick Brown wrote: | I think thermite is in a different league to the others you mention as Steven Jones has evidence. Evidence based discussion is what it should all be about. I have no problem with this site duplicating the idea I set up on my forum i.e. That items have to be vetted before discussion. There's nothing wrong with people speculating but the main forums should be made to stay on track. A simple warning that a thread may be locked if it becomes circular is also an idea I've incorporated.
Perhaps an article submission section would be a good idea as articles should be single entries although a link could be provided to a related discussion thread. |
And exactly where is Jones' evidence?? Where is it? Don't call Beam Weapons disinfo. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean others can't. All of the evidence points to Directed Energy Weaponry. If you think that topic should be "moderated" (aka censored), then consider joining the fascists at 911Blogger.com.
I find it very interesting that the same people who don't have the brains to understand DEW and TV-Fakery are the same ones pushing for censorship! Patrick, are you a disinfo agent? If not, then I advise you to stop trying to control what evidence people see or don't see. You have no business doing so.
Read here for some enlightening information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Evidence:
http://911evidencebase.16.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=39
Why don't the baked bean heads get some evidence? They can't because there is no baked bean weapon just a fantasy created for simple minded people and shills.
Which type of person are you CB Brooklyn? Oh you're a yank that can't accept that that there are people in your government capable oh sh*tting on there own kind! Wake up and smell New York!!
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | Evidence:
http://911evidencebase.16.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=39
Why don't the baked bean heads get some evidence? They can't because there is no baked bean weapon just a fantasy created for simple minded people and shills.
Which type of person are you CB Brooklyn? Oh you're a yank that can't accept that that there are people in your government capable oh sh*tting on there own kind! Wake up and smell New York!! |
You are completely brainwashed, and obviously not smart enough to look at actual evidence. You people are "fake truthers". You don't have the brains to understand physical laws, and you support censorship. If you actually care about getting the truth out, then you should shut it with censorship, and start ENCOURAGING debates. S Jones has done the exact opposite.
You are blindly trusting Jones like a gullible fool. The link you gave contains nothing but two disinfo papers put out by a government plant.
If you think Jones thermate nonsense can explain the anomalies at the WTC, then you either don't know what the evidence is, or you don't know how to understand it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whatever.
Why isn't this shill bullsh*t thread locked or move to CC eh eh?
It's this kind of sh*t that is pulling this site down.
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harassed
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello everyone,
I'm not saying that Directed Energy Weapons were or were not used on 911....but I know for a fact that they exist.
The US military are no doubt using them in Iraq.
The military have been developing this stuff for decades.
I beleive it has also been used in crowd control at demonstrations.
Raytheon makes this stuff and 'funnily' enough,they were one of the companies whose shares behaved so oddly on sept 10,2001.
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | Whatever.
Why isn't this shill bullsh*t thread locked or move to CC eh eh?
It's this kind of sh*t that is pulling this site down. |
Consider yourself a clown, like many 911Blogger clowns. One who's simple too stupid to understand anything. Yes, it's obvious you're stupid, since you do nothing but personally attack others instead of looking at evidence. A fake truther, aka truthling. Or, as I would prefer, a "useful idiot". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is the link you posted CB (this is a great blog)
The first paragraph reckons DRG and Bob Bowman are controlled - what are your thoughts on this?
Also could you expand on "hijackers still alive"? are you saying this has just been made up? I have not seen a single video of any of the alleged hijackers after 9/11
The Truth About the 9/11 Truth Movement, Steven Jones, and 911Blogger
Submitted by CB_Brooklyn on Tue, 2007-01-09 13:23.
The 9/11 Truth Movement is being controlled by the 9/11 perps, and has been since day one. They control who becomes popular in the movement. (i.e. Steven "Los Alamos" Jones, Mike "Peak Oil" Ruppert, Robert "Star Wars" Bowman, David Ray "GOD" Griffin, etc.) The perps take advantage of dumbed-down Americans in the Truth Movement by making them think certain things are merely "theories" instead of scientific fact. They know that most of the Truth Movement (and most Americans) are incapable of applying simple physical laws to certain events. They control what theories become mainstream in the movement. (i.e. LIHOP, Able Danger, remote control airplanes, hijackers still alive, thermite, etc.) In addition, the 9/11 perps have been brainwashing the Truth Movement into believing that certain "theories" (whether they're true or not) are "harmful" to the Movement. These theories, or actually, "facts" (#2 & #3 below), are what the perps want to be kept hidden.
There are Three Core Truths the 9/11 perps don't want to become mainstream:
1. 9/11 was NOT orchestrated by the Bush administration. 9/11 was orchestrated by the Global Elite... the people behind the curtain. (i.e. the media and private bankers.) These people don't care in the least if Bush is impeached, since doing so would not affect their agenda. In fact, it would HELP them by distracting people from the real 9/11 criminals!
2. The South Tower "plane strike" shown on TV was a CGI, and not a real plane. Aluminum airplanes don't meld into steel/concrete buildings. Scientists and researchers have come forward to explain this, as it violates basic laws of physics. But not one scientist has refuted it. Why is that? The answer is simple: It would generate publicity. More scientists would look into it, and realize that it was a CGI. The 9/11 perps don't want this. So their "scientists" constantly refer to (mistaken or lying) eyewitnesses, and photos of (planted) wreckage, as "proof" of a real plane. They know this would be effective since the Truth Movement is not smart enough to understand that in a court of law, witnesses and photos mean absolutely nothing when contradicted by Laws of Physics.
3. The WTC was destroyed by some sort of Directed Energy Weapon All the evidence points to this. Only DEW can account for all the anomalies.
Steven Jones has extensive experience at the Los Alamos Laboratories with Directed Energy Weapons.
It has been shown that Jones is a government plant (just as he was with Cold Fusion) to distract people from the real issues with his thermate nonsense. His research has been proven faulty and deceitful, and has been linked to two suspicious murders: Eugene Mallove (Cold Fusion) and Michael Zebuhr (9/11). Each one of them was involved in exposing research that Jones was trying to hide.
911Blogger is purposely and systematically censoring TV-Fakery and Directed Energy Weapons. A number of months ago, 911Blogger changed the requirements for blog entries. Now blogs must be submitted and "approved" before showing up. Needless to say, most blogs related to TV-Fakery and Directed Energy Weapons, and those who promote it, never show up. Another disgraceful addition to 911Blogger is a new voting system where comments with a score of less than negative three are automatically hidden, requiring the reader to click on a show-comment tab. A hidden comment would give the observer the impression that the information is not worth reading. (It's not unreasonable to assume that at least one admin purposely lowers the scores.) Another form of censorship comes from several "regulars" who post on a regular basis. These people do everything possible to distract others from looking at evidence.
One of 911Blogger's admins (Alex Floum aka GeorgeWashington) is an associate of Steven Jones. He is one of the biggest promoters of LIHOP and impeaching Bush on that site.
911Blogger is a government front designed to distract people from the real evidence, and promote red herrings and misinformation. Was 911Blogger designed this way from day one? I don't know.
Are the four people mentioned in the first paragraph "in on it"? Possibly, but I don't really believe so. Steven Jones definitely is.
The 9/11 Perps are purposely leading the Truth Movement to a dead end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When an article claims that CGI planes and Beam weapons are FACT without so much as a hint of irony, you have to wonder who's doing the mind controlling.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you had 100% proof you wouldnt need to constantly worry about individuals being controlled, with the reasoning mostly being that they dont buy your speculation...
_________________
Positive...energy...activates...constant...elevation. (Gravediggaz) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | Whatever.
Why isn't this shill bullsh*t thread locked or move to CC eh eh?
It's this kind of sh*t that is pulling this site down. |
Consider yourself a clown, like many 911Blogger clowns. One who's simple too stupid to understand anything. Yes, it's obvious you're stupid, since you do nothing but personally attack others instead of looking at evidence. A fake truther, aka truthling. Or, as I would prefer, a "useful idiot". |
You do realise that people are laughing at you? This thread really should be in CC but because it's not I hold it as contentious and risible. In other words it's a toilet that the majority of the members here will piss in!
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | Whatever.
Why isn't this shill bullsh*t thread locked or move to CC eh eh?
It's this kind of sh*t that is pulling this site down. |
Consider yourself a clown, like many 911Blogger clowns. One who's simple too stupid to understand anything. Yes, it's obvious you're stupid, since you do nothing but personally attack others instead of looking at evidence. A fake truther, aka truthling. Or, as I would prefer, a "useful idiot". |
You do realise that people are laughing at you? This thread really should be in CC but because it's not I hold it as contentious and risible. In other words it's a toilet that the majority of the members here will piss in! |
The ones laughing at me are idiots, who don't know how to look at information. Therefore I really don't care. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | Whatever.
Why isn't this shill bullsh*t thread locked or move to CC eh eh?
It's this kind of sh*t that is pulling this site down. |
Consider yourself a clown, like many 911Blogger clowns. One who's simple too stupid to understand anything. Yes, it's obvious you're stupid, since you do nothing but personally attack others instead of looking at evidence. A fake truther, aka truthling. Or, as I would prefer, a "useful idiot". |
You do realise that people are laughing at you? This thread really should be in CC but because it's not I hold it as contentious and risible. In other words it's a toilet that the majority of the members here will piss in! |
The ones laughing at me are idiots, who don't know how to look at information. Therefore I really don't care. |
Your initial post demostrates clearly that beam weapons are in the developmental stage, so why don't you start by looking at the information, and in particular the construction of the twin towers, and tell us all how such a limited weapon could have caused the damage it did in the way that it did. Your theory must bear in mind the stages of collapse versus the photographic and aural evidence. It must also demostrate that such a waepon could have been used to destroy a building without killing those people who managed to escape at the last minute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: |
Your initial post demostrates clearly that beam weapons are in the developmental stage, so why don't you start by looking at the information, and in particular the construction of the twin towers, and tell us all how such a limited weapon could have caused the damage it did in the way that it did. Your theory must bear in mind the stages of collapse versus the photographic and aural evidence. It must also demostrate that such a waepon could have been used to destroy a building without killing those people who managed to escape at the last minute. |
The 2nd line in my initial post states "Keep in mind that the military is always 15-20 years ahead in technology from where they admit."
DEW are already being used in Iraq. Take a closer look through the articles!!
Your statement: "Your theory must bear in mind the stages of collapse versus the photographic and aural evidence." is deceiving. You infer contradictory evidence when there is none. Also, the towers did not collapse, they were blown up.
This sentence by you makes no sense: "It must also demostrate that such a waepon could have been used to destroy a building without killing those people who managed to escape at the last minute." Most of the people were vaporized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | James C wrote: |
Your initial post demostrates clearly that beam weapons are in the developmental stage, so why don't you start by looking at the information, and in particular the construction of the twin towers, and tell us all how such a limited weapon could have caused the damage it did in the way that it did. Your theory must bear in mind the stages of collapse versus the photographic and aural evidence. It must also demostrate that such a waepon could have been used to destroy a building without killing those people who managed to escape at the last minute. |
The 2nd line in my initial post states "Keep in mind that the military is always 15-20 years ahead in technology from where they admit."
DEW are already being used in Iraq. Take a closer look through the articles!!
Your statement: "Your theory must bear in mind the stages of collapse versus the photographic and aural evidence." is deceiving. You infer contradictory evidence when there is none. Also, the towers did not collapse, they were blown up.
This sentence by you makes no sense: "It must also demostrate that such a waepon could have been used to destroy a building without killing those people who managed to escape at the last minute." Most of the people were vaporized. |
So you base your whole theory on the assumption that the military is more advanced that it makes out. Well, that's possible, but where's your proof?
I think you should look at the fall of the towers very closely indeed. You will see that each tower collapsed down on itself, probably because the core columns were destroyed; first at ground level and then throughout the length of the building. I take it that you know how each tower was constructed because then you'll know that the facade was structural, just like the massive core, and yet played a different role to the core. What I don't see is the facade melting or blowing outwards or inwards into tiny pieces. What I see is the facade in both towers falling apart and away from each building from the top down as the upper parts of each tower fell (because the core had failed). The point I'm trying to make here is that the facade and core were different. The structural facade was made of hollow steel tubes only 14" thick where as the core was 138 x 88 ft (!!!) and constructed of between 50-70 vertical columns each being larger than the facade columns and tied with horizontal steel beams. One would not be stupid in thinking therefore that a beam weapon would easily have destroyed the relatively paper-thin facade and floors first long before it could have affected every core column. However, that is not what is seen when we view the video footage, is it? Also, for each tower to have collapsed downward, as opposed to having toppled over, the core columns would have had to have been destroyed at almost equal points horizontally (which is standard demolition practise). Could a beam weapon have done that? Such a beam would have had to have hit the facade of each building at 90 degrees along the entire length of each tower. Where was this weapon located again?
As for nearly everyone being vaporized then I suggest you do a Google search and discover just how many body parts were discovered. The bodies were in bits but not turned to gas. Then again, many people escaped. Ever heard of William Rodriguez or the crew of Ladder 6. I suggest you Google search those also.
So, for your theory to work, the military would have needed a weapon capable of destroying steel instantly, of which there is no proof such a piece of equipment exists. This weapon would have had to have been capable of slicing through anything simultaneously regardless of mass, material type and structure or else the facade and floors of each tower would have been destroyed before the core (which would not have been very good for the illusion). This beam would have had to have been directed at 90 degrees to each tower to have sliced the core at equal points horizontally and prevent toppling (full rotation would also have destroyed the illusion). This beam must also have been capable of destroying steel but not human beings as shown by the existence of hundreds of body parts and a handful of survivors.
I could go on asking questions and make a mockery of this sort of stuff further but you'll only ignore them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | So you base your whole theory on the assumption that the military is more advanced that it makes out. Well, that's possible, but where's your proof? |
The proof exists in looking at all the information and putting it in context, which you did not do.
| James C wrote: |
I think you should look at the fall of the towers very closely indeed. You will see that each tower collapsed down on itself, probably because the core columns were destroyed; first at ground level and then throughout the length of the building. |
I'd recommend you looking at pictures of the aftermath. Where's all the steel? Where's all the concrete? Certainly there's not enough there to account for two quarter-mile high towers. The towers did not collapse, they were blown up from the top down. If you believe they collapsed, kindly provide photos of steel and concrete for two 110 story towers. Also show photos of the thousands of desks, chairs, doors, filing cabinets, computers, xerox machines, water coolers, telephones, picture frames, office decorations, etc etc etc that existed in each tower.
| James C wrote: |
I take it that you know how each tower was constructed because then you'll know that the facade was structural, just like the massive core, and yet played a different role to the core. What I don't see is the facade melting or blowing outwards or inwards into tiny pieces. What I see is the facade in both towers falling apart and away from each building from the top down as the upper parts of each tower fell (because the core had failed). The point I'm trying to make here is that the facade and core were different. The structural facade was made of hollow steel tubes only 14" thick where as the core was 138 x 88 ft (!!!) and constructed of between 50-70 vertical columns each being larger than the facade columns and tied with horizontal steel beams. One would not be stupid in thinking therefore that a beam weapon would easily have destroyed the relatively paper-thin facade and floors first long before it could have affected every core column. However, that is not what is seen when we view the video footage, is it? |
Your insistence that the facade would be destroyed if a DEW weapon was used shows your lack of knowledge of this technology. Perhaps I could educate you: Look through my initial post and find the article describing a weapon that can "stun" people. The DEW beam penetrates the outer 1/64 inch of skin and causes excruciating pain underneath. No damage is done to the skin. Now, take a plastic dish, place some food on it, and put in your microwave. Turn microwave on for a few minutes. Take dish out and notice the microwaves affected the food, but not the dish. These two examples should clear things up a bit.
| James C wrote: |
Also, for each tower to have collapsed downward, as opposed to having toppled over, the core columns would have had to have been destroyed at almost equal points horizontally (which is standard demolition practise). Could a beam weapon have done that? Such a beam would have had to have hit the facade of each building at 90 degrees along the entire length of each tower. Where was this weapon located again? |
Regardless if the towers collapsed straight down or toppled over, there should have been thousands of steel beams at Ground Zero. Where are those pictures located again?
The towers did not collapse, they were blown up.
| James C wrote: |
As for nearly everyone being vaporized then I suggest you do a Google search and discover just how many body parts were discovered. The bodies were in bits but not turned to gas. Then again, many people escaped. Ever heard of William Rodriguez or the crew of Ladder 6. I suggest you Google search those also. |
Yes, I heard of Mr Rodriquez, and had the pleasure of meeting him as well.
Finding "a few body parts" does not account for the ~2700 missing. The medical examiner believes the bodies to have been vaporized.
| James C wrote: |
So, for your theory to work, the military would have needed a weapon capable of destroying steel instantly, of which there is no proof such a piece of equipment exists. This weapon would have had to have been capable of slicing through anything simultaneously regardless of mass, material type and structure or else the facade and floors of each tower would have been destroyed before the core (which would not have been very good for the illusion). This beam would have had to have been directed at 90 degrees to each tower to have sliced the core at equal points horizontally and prevent toppling (full rotation would also have destroyed the illusion). This beam must also have been capable of destroying steel but not human beings as shown by the existence of hundreds of body parts and a handful of survivors. |
And for your theory to work, you'd need to explain the "disappearance" of steel, concrete, desks, chairs, doors, filing cabinets, computers, xerox machines, water coolers, telephones, picture frames, office decorations, etc etc etc that existed in each tower.
In addition you'd need to explain the other anomalies such as round holes in the roof of WTC 5, the missing chunks of WTC 3 and WTC 6, the low seismic signal, the intact bathtub, toasted cars, etc.
| James C wrote: |
I could go on asking questions and make a mockery of this sort of stuff further but you'll only ignore them. |
Sorry, but you're only making a mockery of your own ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alwun
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 282
Location: london
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:57 am Post subject: the invincible/vulnerable miracle(s) |
|
|
Now look here Mr. CB_Brooklyn - if that really is your name - you need to understand that the 'planes' of the day in question were no ordinary planes. They were in fact of the highly specialised 'invincible/vulnerable' type. Such planes have recently entered service in selected airlines(best check with your flight attendant before take off these days) and were seen to operate to the full extent of their miraculous capabilities on the day of 9/11. So awesome is their preternatural, chameleon-like properties that they have quickly become the object of quasi-religious devotion among large sections of the wider public. These devotees - including many scientists, engineers and other academic worthies - portray many of the qualities to be found in the followers of much longer established religious orthodoxies. Belief in the face of blindingly obvious deficiencies being one such quality. By the way, they can actually be somewhat pugnacious, and are to be approached with care - if at all.
Anyway let me explain the basic tenets of this ultra-modern creed. These planes enter buildings of concrete and steel with no difficulty at all, thus displaying the miraculous 'invincible' component for all the world to 'see'. Once safely inside, they pull up in short order, preparatory to the next stage of the double miracle. This takes the earthly form of presently appearing to explode in a blinding flash, in the manner of a burning bush, which I suppose is the nearest analogy available in religious-speak, as it were.
This utter annihilation - the 'vulnerable' component - is simply a rather vulgar, although forceful enough, display of the those mysterious religious powers which have been required in fact throughout the ages to hold the multitudes in thrall, and thus really ought not to be subject to the overly rigorous, logical criticisms such as have been levied at the faithful believers here, and I fear, elsewhere. As I'm sure you by now agree.
Eh? What?
Well anyway, I hope this somewhat compressed exposition will help to clear things up for you. I mean, really, one must be careful not to cause offence. I have actually had to endure being shouted at in large red capitals at one stage, which is why I no longer dare to mention my actual, even shameful hesitation to joyfully embrace the miracle of the 'invincible/vulnerable' 'planes'. I must for now remain a closet heretic, moving house every night.
cheers Al.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: Re: the invincible/vulnerable miracle(s) |
|
|
| alwun wrote: | Now look here Mr. CB_Brooklyn - if that really is your name - you need to understand that the 'planes' of the day in question were no ordinary planes. They were in fact of the highly specialised 'invincible/vulnerable' type. Such planes have recently entered service in selected airlines(best check with your flight attendant before take off these days) and were seen to operate to the full extent of their miraculous capabilities on the day of 9/11. So awesome is their preternatural, chameleon-like properties that they have quickly become the object of quasi-religious devotion among large sections of the wider public. These devotees - including many scientists, engineers and other academic worthies - portray many of the qualities to be found in the followers of much longer established religious orthodoxies. Belief in the face of blindingly obvious deficiencies being one such quality. By the way, they can actually be somewhat pugnacious, and are to be approached with care - if at all.
Anyway let me explain the basic tenets of this ultra-modern creed. These planes enter buildings of concrete and steel with no difficulty at all, thus displaying the miraculous 'invincible' component for all the world to 'see'. Once safely inside, they pull up in short order, preparatory to the next stage of the double miracle. This takes the earthly form of presently appearing to explode in a blinding flash, in the manner of a burning bush, which I suppose is the nearest analogy available in religious-speak, as it were.
This utter annihilation - the 'vulnerable' component - is simply a rather vulgar, although forceful enough, display of the those mysterious religious powers which have been required in fact throughout the ages to hold the multitudes in thrall, and thus really ought not to be subject to the overly rigorous, logical criticisms such as have been levied at the faithful believers here, and I fear, elsewhere. As I'm sure you by now agree.
Eh? What?
Well anyway, I hope this somewhat compressed exposition will help to clear things up for you. I mean, really, one must be careful not to cause offence. I have actually had to endure being shouted at in large red capitals at one stage, which is why I no longer dare to mention my actual, even shameful hesitation to joyfully embrace the miracle of the 'invincible/vulnerable' 'planes'. I must for now remain a closet heretic, moving house every night.
cheers Al.. |
I believe that Snowy Grouch and John White are supporters of your invincible /vulnerable planes theory Al - I take it you agree with me that they do not. It would be interesting to have a vote on this specific issue.
Good post mate ----keep up the good work in bringing common sense to this site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Your insistence that the facade would be destroyed if a DEW weapon was used shows your lack of knowledge of this technology. Perhaps I could educate you: Look through my initial post and find the article describing a weapon that can "stun" people. The DEW beam penetrates the outer 1/64 inch of skin and causes excruciating pain underneath. No damage is done to the skin. Now, take a plastic dish, place some food on it, and put in your microwave. Turn microwave on for a few minutes. Take dish out and notice the microwaves affected the food, but not the dish. These two examples should clear things up |
Your entire answer is a joke. I particularly like the quote above.
And no beams and columns seen at ground zero? I'm sorry, the pictures of all that twisted metal piled a few storeys high must be false.
So what you are saying is that a beam weapon knows which materials to affect and which materials to ignore. To have destroyed the twin towers, the core columns would need to have been destroyed. But hang on, these columns were made of steel and so was the facade. Mmmmmm, puzzling!!! The beam weapon must therefore have acted upon something else; the concrete floors, the desks and paper, the people (no not the people since some survived) or maybe just the air inside. Could these really have exploded with enough force to have destroyed all structural supports including the structural facade? I think not!
Please bear this in mind, (I work in the construction industry if you want to argue this point further). Steel buildings are made of sectional pieces of steel, i.e. lengths of steel bolted and welded together on site. In other words, such buildings are like a giant Mechano model (except that scale wise the bolts are tiny compared with the bolts in a Mechano set). Now if you cause structural failure in a steel building, especially one the size of the Twin Towers, then as it falls, the massive forces will break the joints, the bolts and welds, thereby returning it back to its component parts. Strangely, that is what I see when I look at the photos of ground zero, except that it isn't strange, its standard demolition procedure at work; bring down the building, break up the parts. No imaginary beam weapon required.
BTW, if you look at the records from that day, you'll see that the bathtub was damaged and had to be significantly repaired to prevent flooding. Many of the tunnels were flooded when the bathtub failed. Go on, check this out for yourself instead of making yet more stuff up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alwun
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 282
Location: london
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: would you believe it? |
|
|
TW3,
That notion of planes being simultaneously invincible and magical, in the sense that they can enter buildings, with no visible deceleration, and leaving in the moment no trace behind in the wall just there, and the next moment to entirely succumb to vulnerability so utter annihilation-like. See? - no wreckage and unusually - no even a black box (Did you say bo***cks? Well I must've heard you thinking it.) is proposed by Gerard Holmgren, I'm almost positive.
phycisist commented memorably on this facet of events by confessing to 'being intuitively surprised' by the bare-faced phenomenonolous, apparitionistical vision of the plane style of entry presented live on TV. Now, I have found myself noticing the odd full-blown, hard-core believer alluding recently to their own, as yet modest and a little clandestine, sensations of just that same 'intuitive surprise'. They might confess, for example that yes, the video is a 'little odd'
This is an important step, I believe, and I find this heartening.
all the best
cheers Al...
Last edited by alwun on Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I sit here looking at my computer screen, I marvel at how technology enables me to reach out to the world and bring imagery into my room via a flat panel measuring a mere 14" x 14", the dimensions of my 19" LCD monitor. I then wonder at how the sectional, hollow steel exoskeleton of each WTC tower was also a mere 14" deep. Simply amazing.
No wonder that sectional, hollow frame put up such little resistance to a jumbo jet travelling between 400-600mph and weighing more than 100 tons! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Your insistence that the facade would be destroyed if a DEW weapon was used shows your lack of knowledge of this technology. Perhaps I could educate you: Look through my initial post and find the article describing a weapon that can "stun" people. The DEW beam penetrates the outer 1/64 inch of skin and causes excruciating pain underneath. No damage is done to the skin. Now, take a plastic dish, place some food on it, and put in your microwave. Turn microwave on for a few minutes. Take dish out and notice the microwaves affected the food, but not the dish. These two examples should clear things up |
Your entire answer is a joke. I particularly like the quote above.
And no beams and columns seen at ground zero? I'm sorry, the pictures of all that twisted metal piled a few storeys high must be false.
So what you are saying is that a beam weapon knows which materials to affect and which materials to ignore. To have destroyed the twin towers, the core columns would need to have been destroyed. But hang on, these columns were made of steel and so was the facade. Mmmmmm, puzzling!!! The beam weapon must therefore have acted upon something else; the concrete floors, the desks and paper, the people (no not the people since some survived) or maybe just the air inside. Could these really have exploded with enough force to have destroyed all structural supports including the structural facade? I think not!
Please bear this in mind, (I work in the construction industry if you want to argue this point further). Steel buildings are made of sectional pieces of steel, i.e. lengths of steel bolted and welded together on site. In other words, such buildings are like a giant Mechano model (except that scale wise the bolts are tiny compared with the bolts in a Mechano set). Now if you cause structural failure in a steel building, especially one the size of the Twin Towers, then as it falls, the massive forces will break the joints, the bolts and welds, thereby returning it back to its component parts. Strangely, that is what I see when I look at the photos of ground zero, except that it isn't strange, its standard demolition procedure at work; bring down the building, break up the parts. No imaginary beam weapon required.
BTW, if you look at the records from that day, you'll see that the bathtub was damaged and had to be significantly repaired to prevent flooding. Many of the tunnels were flooded when the bathtub failed. Go on, check this out for yourself instead of making yet more stuff up. |
The real joke is that you seem to be afflicted by "limited thinking". If you can't take the quote from me that you referenced above, and put two and two together, then you're obviously never going to understand it. Unfortunately, that's no joke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | James C wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Your insistence that the facade would be destroyed if a DEW weapon was used shows your lack of knowledge of this technology. Perhaps I could educate you: Look through my initial post and find the article describing a weapon that can "stun" people. The DEW beam penetrates the outer 1/64 inch of skin and causes excruciating pain underneath. No damage is done to the skin. Now, take a plastic dish, place some food on it, and put in your microwave. Turn microwave on for a few minutes. Take dish out and notice the microwaves affected the food, but not the dish. These two examples should clear things up |
Your entire answer is a joke. I particularly like the quote above.
And no beams and columns seen at ground zero? I'm sorry, the pictures of all that twisted metal piled a few storeys high must be false.
So what you are saying is that a beam weapon knows which materials to affect and which materials to ignore. To have destroyed the twin towers, the core columns would need to have been destroyed. But hang on, these columns were made of steel and so was the facade. Mmmmmm, puzzling!!! The beam weapon must therefore have acted upon something else; the concrete floors, the desks and paper, the people (no not the people since some survived) or maybe just the air inside. Could these really have exploded with enough force to have destroyed all structural supports including the structural facade? I think not!
Please bear this in mind, (I work in the construction industry if you want to argue this point further). Steel buildings are made of sectional pieces of steel, i.e. lengths of steel bolted and welded together on site. In other words, such buildings are like a giant Mechano model (except that scale wise the bolts are tiny compared with the bolts in a Mechano set). Now if you cause structural failure in a steel building, especially one the size of the Twin Towers, then as it falls, the massive forces will break the joints, the bolts and welds, thereby returning it back to its component parts. Strangely, that is what I see when I look at the photos of ground zero, except that it isn't strange, its standard demolition procedure at work; bring down the building, break up the parts. No imaginary beam weapon required.
BTW, if you look at the records from that day, you'll see that the bathtub was damaged and had to be significantly repaired to prevent flooding. Many of the tunnels were flooded when the bathtub failed. Go on, check this out for yourself instead of making yet more stuff up. |
The real joke is that you seem to be afflicted by "limited thinking". If you can't take the quote from me that you referenced above, and put two and two together, then you're obviously never going to understand it. Unfortunately, that's no joke. |
I see that you haven't bothered to offer any credible explainations to the points I have raised; points which have come from open and logical thinking. No wonder your theory is bound by a complete lack of proof, it's pure fiction.
Then again, I didn't expect an answer since all no-planers and beam weaponers continue to dodge the difficult questions. I shouldn't expect anything else, you all worship Andrew Johnson who's tag line is "Ask the difficult questions folks!" and yet he always runs away when confronted with such questions. I suggest you go back to reading Enid Blyton or have you moved onto J.K.Rowling now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What do you call a shill with a banana in each ear?
.
.
.
.
.
Nothing you just let him carry on looking a pratt!
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's more evidence of Directed Energy Weapons
History Channel Documentary on Electro Magnetic Pulses (EMP).
(Describes similarities between weapons and microwave ovens.)
The History Channel – The Invisible Machine
Unravels the mystery of the Bell Island "boom" and in doing so takes a chilling look at the US military's experimentation with electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons - "e-bombs"
stream - real player
download - real player |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
