Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:14 am Post subject: Prof. Judy Wood takes on US Air Force Research Labs
Below is what Judy has written to
Susan J. Thornton at Kirtland Air Force Base. Please circulate far and wide.
For those still insisting such
technology is a fantasy, go to the bottom and click the links included
(you'll see even without clicking one company that is a DEW research
beneficiary)
Ms. Susan J. Thornton
Air Force Research Laboratory
Directed Energy Directorate
Office of Public Affairs
3550 Aberdeen Avenue S.E.
Kirtland Air Force Base, NM 87117-5776
FedEx No. 8614 4577 3211
and Distribution List
Directed Energy Weapons destroy World Trade Center complex:
Ref.: Request for Correction per Section 515 Public Law 106-554
U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Chief Information Officer
I am not so naïve as to think that leveling the charge that directed energy
weapons (DEW) were a causal factor in the 9/11/01 (9/11) destruction of the
World Trade Center complex (WTC) will be received as "good news" by
U.S. governmental officials. This is not "good news" but it is
a necessary query and a supported claim.
I am a research scientist with skills, expertise, background and training
sufficient to enable me to formulate rational, evidence-based findings and
conclusions. I have amassed and caused to be filed with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) a Request for Correction (RFC),
as referenced and accessible as above, that summarizes salient portions of the
evidence substantiating the theory that DEW are a causal factor in the 9/11
destruction of the WTC.
I have also asserted that NIST's failure to properly explain that destruction
results from fraud and that the fraud is a result of NIST having contracted
with, among other parties, key manufacturers of DEW, key participants in
official psychological operations (psy ops) and marketing firms, specializing
in controlling public perception, as well as other parties having a clear and
direct conflict of interest that would militate against an accurate
description of what caused the destruction of the WTC on 9/11.
And the parties so engaged knew as much, or should have known.
Each of the persons to whom this letter is addressed can reasonably be
expected to either know the extent to which the effects mentioned in the
referenced RFC are consistent with DEW; or, know of persons who would know
that information. I am aware, for example, that as of the year 2000,
weapons having the capacity to destroy the WTC were deployed.
I am informed by my counsel,
Attorney Jerry V. Leaphart, that it is appropriate to assume that many of
those to whom this letter is addressed are persons whose positions within
government and/or as private contractors, would probably place some or all of
them within the purview of the rigors set forth in, among other places, 32 CFR
Part 154.
Accordingly, and to that end, I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Clay
Johnson III, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who, I am
told, is the overall supervisor and person in charge of the regulatory
apparatus associated with security clearances.
I am doing that, on advice of counsel, in order to help avoid any reticence
any of you might have in replying to the central query; to wit:
Are the effects set forth in the referenced RFC consistent with the
destructive effects that would result from the use of DEW?
Because this query arises in the context of a presently pending challenge
under the Data Quality Act, I assert that your replies cannot properly be used
against you in any way under 32 CFR Part 154, or any other aspect of the
requirements any of you may have as a result of your security clearances.
Written confirmation of the correctness of this observation from OMB Deputy
Director for Management, Clay Johnson III, is requested. To be
clear, I am requesting that Mr. Johnson confirm that there is nothing in any
of the security clearances applicable to any of the persons to whom this is
addressed that would preclude a forthcoming reply to the query posed above,
concerning the effects associated with the use of High Energy Lasers and/or
other directed energy weapons. On the other hand, if certain additional
protocols or procedures are required to obtain a reply to the query, then I
request Mr. Johnson indicate what procedures and protocols are to be followed
to obtain the answers I am seeking.
Respectfully,
Dr. Judy Wood
Cc:
Mr. Clay Johnson III
OMB Deputy Director for Management
The Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20503
f- 202-395-3888
"Successful
COIL tests at the Systems Integration Laboratory at Edwards Air Force Base,
Calif., produced the required levels of power and run-time necessary to
destroy a missile during its 'boost phase.' The laboratory was built
specifically to house the ABL testbed, a discarded Boeing 747-200 fuselage.
Almost simultaneously, the Beacon Illuminator Laser was shipped to The
Boeing Company's facility in Wichita, Kan., where the BILL will undergo
testing and integration onto the ABL YAL-1A flight aircraft. "
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject:
Andrew, once again you know where this belongs, the same goes for any stephen Jones posts. Still am flabbergasted that resources aren't brought together to show the failings in the NIST report as opposed to pushing one's pet theory on the exact mechanisms of the collapse?? _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
I see the plane huggers are out in force on this board as ususal. Oooh and it makes me wonder...
"The aluminium composite tube penetrated 60,000 tons of steel and concrete at the "impact" floors without decelerating, becasue it was going fast mob".
Still am flabbergasted that resources aren't brought together to show the failings in the NIST report
So what is stopping you?
andyb wrote:
as opposed to pushing one's pet theory on the exact mechanisms of the collapse??
Your pet theory is the thing being challenged that you obviously can't handle, what kind of truth movement doesn't want to discuss what could have destroyed the WTC?
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject:
TTWSU3,
What is stopping me is all the bickering and attacks levelled at Stephen Jones by the likes of Rick Siegal. I doubt they will be on talking terms as a result.
I don't have a pet theory, I see the NIST report as a farce . Simple. There is no need for us to say what happened, this is what a full scale investigation will do. Bickering amongst ourselves over pet theories will not help us achieve our aims. It is my opinion that Beam Weapons will be used as a straw man against the whole campaign by the media. I know you will say " well the media have done nothing for us" but unfortunately they will be one of the keys to winning this fight. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Oo - thought police here again, by the looks. No discussion of evidence, like. Pretty rapid response too - by the way AndyB, TSWU3 is banned and can't get on, so I am not sure why you are addressing a post him.
Andy - on a sort of semi-related subject, what do you think should happen to Gary McKinnon?
You can ridicule and poke fun all you like - certain people are prepared, because of a study of the evidence and a knowledge of science, to go the full 9 yeards here.
Also, rather than criticising someone else's legal initiatives and challenges, why don't you write to the addresses supplied and express your disagreement or whatever? There is absolutely nothing to stop you doing that. _________________ Andrew
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:23 pm Post subject:
Andrew,
where was the ridicule in my post? I simply asked for this to be moved to the correct section, I never said don't discuss it. As I also said, this includes Stephen Jones and not just DEW. And you don't seem to understand my point, why do we need to prove it was anything. Surely we should all club together and show the NIST report to be inadequate and beyond scientific possibility?? Beam weaponry does put people off or allows them to use it as a strawman dismiss us as 'conspiracy theorists. Yes, there is development in this area but we will never have proof of these bringing down buildings. If you really do think it was DEW then our best chance of exposing it is to get a full investigation, until then it will remain science fiction with the general public.
It's amazing how similar TTWSU3's and WKB's posting styles are??
Gary McKinon should not be extradited. His offence was on British soil and therefore he should be tried in this country and his extradition is illegal. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
In your opinion what turned 1,000,000 tons of steel and reinforced concrete to particle dust? Kerosene and the bug splat impact of a hollow tube?
Why do you think they invented Bunker Buster Missiles that penetrate a few meters into steel and reinforced concrete?
Did they just modify an old airplane or did they use DU warheads and shaped charges for this task?
So to demolish a skyscraper in future the eejits here would give it a whack near the top with a hollow alumium tube then start a fire with kerosene? In 60 minutes or so it will turn to dust and waft away on the morning breeze? I dont think so!
That puts the Demolition Industry out of business somewhat doesn't it?
And the continual use of terms like Space Beams and Beams from the Sky by some members shows ignorance and the inability to grasp simple concepts.
Im not saying it was a Energy Weapon but I've got an open mind. Aren't all weapons in fact "Energy Weapons"?
If initially we had been told that the terrorists had used a crude nuclear weapon to take down the towers, I and thousands of others might, and I stipulate might, have bought the yarn. But there again, I spotted the cartoon airplane on day 1.
some people have become over paranoid by accusing anyone who dosnt agree with/or see the evidence pointing to energy weapons and therefore ask questions. concerns and disagrement or opinon is just as valid as those claiming something to be true that is yet to be proven.
why am i allowed to question the offical version but not allowed to see problems or question things to do with energy weapons or anyother things that are suggested by certain people without them having a hissy fit or being unbelievably rude and sometimes unjustified? its really making me wonder which side has gone dictator on us when opinon from one side is valid but from the otherside means your an agent to even think energy weapons were not used.
to those who support energy weapons im telling what the problem is, and it is this, NOBODY CAN PROVE ENERGY WEAPONS CAN COURSE THE DESTRUCTION WE SEE ON 9/11! just because something exsists dosnt mean it was used.
energy weapons exsist that much has become apparent but untill it can somehow be shown they destroyed the towers there is going to be people who disagree. if there is sufficent eviidence to show this already then those/all trying to explain it are not doing so in a unstandable way.
energy weapon usage on 9/11 for me has only moved from impossible to possible in a long time and i am missing that step or it isnt there that leads one to conclude it was an energy weapon used.
the major problem that goes against the theory is examples of other buildings being destroyed by energy weapons therefore explaination in an unstandable way of what energy weapons can do and what evidence fits the destruction that can only be cause by a energy weapon is need.
if only somebody would take the time to debate the evidence point by point and take any questions as somebody wanting to understand rather than an agent both sides might get somewhere.
instead you get linked to stuff that makes no sense and when questioning it called an agent or questions left unanswered or avoided, therefore its no wonder not everyone agrees when nobody is willing to share or explain that evidence that makes it so.
so far ive seen nothing that tells me it was a energy weapon from what ive read, the missing link for me is proving energy weapons can cause that destruction, untill then ill always ask questions if im puzzled or disagree, if that makes us agents to shut us up so nobody will question your theory so be it.
qoute:Are the effects set forth in the referenced RFC consistent with the destructive effects that would result from the use of DEW?end qoute:
i though she already knew this? its the first you would need to know to beable to say energy weapons caused the destruction at the towers in the first place so surely she would know if the rfc is consistant with the destructive effect of DEW as she knew the destructive effects of DEW at the towers didnt she?, or have i misunderstood why she is asking this?
What is it about this pointless issue that makes even moderators forget about the existence of the "9/11 controversies" board??????????????????????? _________________
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject:
It's not even an article???? _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Sorry - I was referring to Thermate rather than you in that case
Quote:
It's amazing how similar TTWSU3's and WKB's posting styles are??
I hadn't checked. But you should really try to avoid making statements such as this without better evidence. TSWU3 used to post through an AOL IP address. WKB is a totally different IP address - not part of the AOL pool. I have spoken to TSWU3 quite a few times and he is engaged in other campaiging activities whilst looking in on the forum from time to time.
Quote:
Gary McKinon should not be extradited. His offence was on British soil and therefore he should be tried in this country and his extradition is illegal.
Of course - but what about the nature of his offences though? And why do you think the threatened sentences are so large?
Newspeak International wrote:
There's some excellent views expressed on this thread,from all sides,
can only be a good thing imo.
No not an article,nor a news item Andy how about in General
Hmm well - it seemed like news to me. It's "our 9/11 news" - when a scientist has concluded 9/11 was a black project which used technology developed by, among others, airforce contractors - that's news as I see it.
marky 54 wrote:
instead you get linked to stuff that makes no sense and when questioning it called an agent or questions left unanswered or avoided, therefore its no wonder not everyone agrees when nobody is willing to share or explain that evidence that makes it so.
Marky, your posts are very long and difficult to read. It seems the evidence presented makes no sense to you. If you had read through Judy's main paper she provides quite a few links to other evidence - such as that from Iraq - a separate 40 minute or so documentry where it looks like they have seen directed energy weapons were used in Iraq. Other links go to military projects
What Judy is looking for is signatures and characteristics. The issue is one of total energy required to carry out the destruction and the way it was delivered. Greg Jenkins has tried to pick people up on the difference between *work* and *power*. These have concise and distinct meanings in physics - do you know the difference (I do).
Just because it makes "no sense" to you does mean it is automatically rubbish. Now, it is up to each person, if they wish, to
a) discount the evidence Judy Wood presents
b) discount disavow Judy WOod's qualifications
c) discount her analysis.
Unless you study the science related to what she and others are saying for yourself and are able to grasp it, then you are going to have to take her word for it (or not). (so it boils down to an issue of trust in this instance)
All I can tell you is that Judy Wood's analysis, is in my opinion the one which explains THE MOST evidence of the 2 main hypotheses that are on the table (although there are variants). But, ultimately, you can only take my word for that. So however much you type about not discussing or providing evidence, what you really mean is "I don't accept it" or "I don't like it" or "I don't understand it". Fair enough. Evidence has been provided and it has been discussed (by some).
People really do need to realise the active programme of suppression and cover up of energy issues that has been in progress for the last 60 years and more.
I even have a recording broadcast by one guy who invented a process to make existing conventional Nuclear (fission) power about 40% more efficient - the industry prevented him from developing and testing this process more thoroughly.
I now get the distinct impression that the PTB are sh!tting themselves. Invest in immodium and toilet paper everyone!!
And for those that still think this thread isn't news or is too controversial, I would suggest that the issue will come back to "bite" you in the not too distant future. _________________ Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
I strongly dispute the notion that discussion of DEWs should be considered a side issue. It is as important as controlled demolition, maybe more so,
This is mainstream 911 stuff, folks. This letter is a major news item and deserves to posted everywhere. Thank heavens someone has the balls to tackle the heart of the US MIlitary establishment, one of the most powerful lobbies in the world.
I strongly dispute the notion that discussion of DEWs should be considered a side issue. It is as important as controlled demolition, maybe more so,
This is mainstream 911 stuff, folks. This letter is a major news item and deserves to posted everywhere. Thank heavens someone has the balls to tackle the heart of the US MIlitary establishment, one of the most powerful lobbies in the world.
Ah - another good suggestion. But let's remember Andrew, "Unity" and "Truth" are ALWAYS the same thing, yeah? _________________ Andrew
Sorry - I was referring to Thermate rather than you in that case
Quote:
It's amazing how similar TTWSU3's and WKB's posting styles are??
I hadn't checked. But you should really try to avoid making statements such as this without better evidence. TSWU3 used to post through an AOL IP address. WKB is a totally different IP address - not part of the pool. I have spoken to TSWU3 quite a few times and he is engaged in other campaiging activities whilst looking in on the forum from time to time.
Quote:
Gary McKinon should not be extradited. His offence was on British soil and therefore he should be tried in this country and his extradition is illegal.
Of course - but what about the nature of his offences though? And why do you think the threatened sentences are so large?
Newspeak International wrote:
There's some excellent views expressed on this thread,from all sides,
can only be a good thing imo.
No not an article,nor a news item Andy how about in General
Hmm well - it seemed like news to me. It's "our 9/11 news" - when a scientist has concluded 9/11 was a black project which used technology developed by, among others, airforce contractors - that's news as I see it.
marky 54 wrote:
instead you get linked to stuff that makes no sense and when questioning it called an agent or questions left unanswered or avoided, therefore its no wonder not everyone agrees when nobody is willing to share or explain that evidence that makes it so.
Marky, your posts are very long and difficult to read. It seems the evidence presented makes no sense to you. If you had read through Judy's main paper she provides quite a few links to other evidence - such as that from Iraq - a separate 40 minute or so documentry where it looks like they have seen directed energy weapons were used in Iraq. Other links go to military projects
What Judy is looking for is signatures and characteristics. The issue is one of total energy required to carry out the destruction and the way it was delivered. Greg Jenkins has tried to pick people up on the difference between *work* and *power*. These have concise and distinct meanings in physics - do you know the difference (I do).
Just because it makes "no sense" to you does mean it is automatically rubbish. Now, it is up to each person, if they wish, to
a) discount the evidence Judy Wood presents
b) discount disavow Judy WOod's qualifications
c) discount her analysis.
Unless you study the science related to what she and others are saying for yourself and are able to grasp it, then you are going to have to take her word for it (or not). (so it boils down to an issue of trust in this instance)
All I can tell you is that Judy Wood's analysis, is in my opinion the one which explains THE MOST evidence of the 2 main hypotheses that are on the table (although there are variants). But, ultimately, you can only take my word for that. So however much you type about not discussing or providing evidence, what you really mean is "I don't accept it" or "I don't like it" or "I don't understand it". Fair enough. Evidence has been provided and it has been discussed (by some).
People really do need to realise the active programme of suppression and cover up of energy issues that has been in progress for the last 60 years and more.
I even have a recording broadcast by one guy who invented a process to make existing conventional Nuclear (fission) power about 40% more efficient - the industry prevented him from developing and testing this process more thoroughly.
I now get the distinct impression that the PTB are sh!tting themselves. Invest in immodium and toilet paper everyone!!
And for those that still think this thread isn't news or is too controversial, I would suggest that the issue will come back to "bite" you in the not too distant future.
you presume i have not read anything on this and presume i am incapable of looking at things scientifically, i didnt say it is rubbish i said it is possible but not proof, can it be proved they were used on 9/11 and can cause that destrution on such a large scale? this is what im missing and why i cannot come to a conclusion it was energy weapons at the moment.
however reading a document about energy weapons in iraq dosnt prove this, and as i said i have seen nothing that does at this time. they also used machine guns in iraq should i assume they used that on the towers to?
what i meant by things that do not make sense is how some conclusions were made.
im hardly going to come to a conclusion by working backards ie: it was energy weapons!!!! being the first step. so lets hope something comes to light. and please stop being paranoid everyone is picking on judy wood, she seems to be the head researcher of the theory im questioning to try and understand how everyone is so certain when its not been proven as far as i can tell so am wondering what im missing or just trying to understand, judy woods name is bound to be mentioned and she is bound to be questioned, just like any other researcher.
just to add the only time i said bad things was on the interview and come on what did you expect me to say going by that? after finding out she was tired(apparently) i put that to the back of my mind and started to look at it seriously again and ask some questions i wasnt understanding about her research/methods/conclusions.
therefore i did the opposite to this:
a) discount the evidence Judy Wood presents
b) discount disavow Judy WOod's qualifications
c) discount her analysis.
and ended up with this:
a) try to understand the evidence judy wood presents
b) puzzled by some of her methods due to her qualifications(which i asked questions about but got nowhere)
c) take into account her analysis UNLESS it can be proved in which case it is certain.
that is where im at and what i actually think.
if im finding problems seeing this what makes you think the general public will be any differant? will they be subjected to sarcasim etc if they question the theory? what makes people on this forum think that those asking questions about energy weapons are not the general public?
you presume i have not read anything on this and presume i am incapable of looking at things scientifically, i didnt say it is rubbish i said it is possible but not proof, can it be proved they were used on 9/11 and can cause that destrution on such a large scale? this is what im missing and why i cannot come to a conclusion it was energy weapons at the moment.
But what would constitute proof to you? That's the question. All we have is evidence. Do you seriously expect with things as they are the the Military Industrial Complex will simply admit what they did on 9/11?
Therefore under our legal system, we have to present evidence that "they did it". We have to *prove* it, yes. But one person's standard of proof is differnet to another, so you are into philosophical territory.
All we can truthfully say at the moment is that Wood's hypothesis explains THE MOST evidence.
Quote:
however reading a document about energy weapons in iraq dosnt prove this, and as i said i have seen nothing that does at this time. they also used machine guns in iraq should i assume they used that on the towers to?
The reason Iraq was mentioned was because of the video'd physical evidence of the use of DEW which is similar, for example to the toasted cars - with specific characteristics. Machine guns would not explain the damage at the WTC!!
Quote:
what i meant by things that do not make sense is how some conclusions were made.
Such as?
Quote:
im hardly going to come to a conclusion by working backards ie: it was energy weapons!!!! being the first step. so lets hope something comes to light. and please stop being paranoid everyone is picking on judy wood, she seems to be the head researcher of the theory im questioning to try and understand how everyone is so certain when its not been proven as far as i can tell so am wondering what im missing or just trying to understand, judy woods name is bound to be mentioned and she is bound to be questioned, just like any other researcher.
All we are saying is her hypothesis explains the most evidence - some people would call that "proof".
Quote:
that is where im at and what i actually think.
if im finding problems seeing this what makes you think the general public will be any differant? will they be subjected to sarcasim etc if they question the theory? what makes people on this forum think that those asking questions about energy weapons are not the general public?
Can you please be more concise - a simple "I don't understand how she reached some of her conclusions" would suffice - this seems to be that you are saying - otherwise we just end up going round in circles.
In any case, you know where i live, I have been to visit you and you can ring me up anytime - that might help?
I am FULLY aware of what the public think - but that doesn't stop Judy Wood's research being the best explanation of the evidence.
General Public don't believe someone is deliberately spraying something into the atmosphere - does that make it bad to try and expose the issue? We KNOW stuff is being sprayed and more and more people are waking up. There are MANY similar examples such as the General Public not knowing of cures for cancer etc and being stuck toxic treatments for it![/i] _________________ Andrew
I think Judy Wood's approach can be best seen in this exchange.
JW: First you figure out what happened, then you figure out how it happened, then maybe why it
happened, then who done it. But you 've got to start and do it in that order. You've got to figure
out what happened..
GJ: OK...
JW: What happened doesn't depend on what you know about, and here's the example I
gave [at] the talk I gave in Seattle. You know , the slingshot, the BB gun, and ... oh, pick
something else... firecracker. That's all you know about. So you can only pick from those if
you're going to describe what happened to the Twin Towers. Does that make sense?
GJ: No.
JW: If you don't know about it, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
GJ: Well, ...
JW: If I can figure out what happened first, then how it happened is down the road.
Greg Jenkins is trying to make the evidence fit the known data on explosives. Judy Wood is trying to fill in the gaps in our knowledge by looking at the evidence and working backwards from that. If you like , she is saying - we have a script here that makes no sense, so we have to leave some blank pages in that script which we can fill in when they are made available to us. Jenkins and Jones want to say - we can manage without that knowledge. It doesn't matter that the script makes no sense.
i wasnt aware the oklahoma bombing was suspected as energy weapons also. however if this document is true it explains better why they think energy weapons were used here and give some signature of what a energy weapon can do and some of the signs to look for.
that to me makes more sense where cars and firetrucks are concerned at least. that document took the time to explain all the signs and characteristics and what happened and why they think it was beams, that is very close to what i was after.
even though it was a differant event i can compare it with 9/11 and on first glance helped me to understand/make a link to the cars engines catching fire, which i can associate with 9/11.
are there any documents along these lines with 9/11? something that puts together all the reason why they were used on 9/11? something that connects the weapon to 9/11?
im not even after what i think is proof like said above im after what everyone else thinks is proof to see if i can make the connection that so far i have not seen, the oklahoma link helps, maybe there is an example to compare to after all.
so it seems electrics are effected by the weapon or the weapon somehow provides power to electrical circuits and and travels through cables and overloads, causing a burnout/fire = car engine effected/petrol tank uneffected, am i getting that part?
it also reminds me of a experiance me and my brother had once when sat up one night on fifa years ago at least 6-7 years. it was late night and we started to hear a humming noise, dull at first which then got louder then faded off to nothing, it sounded like something flying past but it was nothing like an engine sound just humming, as this happened all the electricity was sucked out of the house to nothing then came back on once it had past.
anyway back on the subject of electrical interferance on 9/11, was there any reports in the area of electrical interferance on 9/11? im sure people could'nt use mobile phones etc in the area of the towers and power was shut down am i wrong or is there any reports of these things?
it could of been for a reason. it helps as its another link if anybody knows.
i was just thinking about the phone call from kevin cosgrove inside the towers, i know it was hit by a plane and all that, but thinking about it there is a hell of a lot of interferance, anyone one know if anything innocent can do that when xcalling form a normal office phone?
it is clear at times then others is really bad for interferance.
Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 3 Location: Sheffield, UK
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:51 am Post subject:
This post may be in the wrong place - apologies if so, and mods please move.
Has anyone checked the share prices of companies with an interest in DEW just prior to and immediately after 9/11? If that had indeed been a succesful "live test", one might expect to see it reflected in the share price.
Prof Jones has, from what I have been seeing, become the scientific voice of the movement. We all know his name. We are aware of his thoery. What then if/when it is debunked in the full glare of the media? Do you not think that there could then be a loss of momentum in the movement?
Dr Woods work cannot be discounted and ought to be widely discussed, an awareness that Prof Jones´theory is open to question, is important as so many have taken it to heart, as evidenced by the huge discussions that take place his thermite theory all over these sites. _________________ Oh nonsense, it wasn´t a dream..
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject:
Kap25 wrote:
Prof Jones has, from what I have been seeing, become the scientific voice of the movement. We all know his name. We are aware of his thoery. What then if/when it is debunked in the full glare of the media? Do you not think that there could then be a loss of momentum in the movement?
Dr Woods work cannot be discounted and ought to be widely discussed, an awareness that Prof Jones´theory is open to question, is important as so many have taken it to heart, as evidenced by the huge discussions that take place his thermite theory all over these sites.
The key issue with Jones' research is the molten iron - that really does have the PTB sh*tting themselves, because there is no mechanism to explain that phenomenom outside of foul play.
The witnessed 'molten steel' at GZ has always been rubbished - or at least that's what's been attempted, but iron spheroids whose formation depends on being molten, have also been found in the dust. Molten iron is proven fact, but how is it explained within the strictures of the OCT?
It can't be - which appears to be why, right on cue, the attacks on Jones credibility (the usual one-trick discrediting method) have happened.
There is a lot of fanciful speculation about beam weapons, but on present evidence that is all it is - fanciful talk.
Yes microwave emitters are harmful to people and other organic material;
yes airborne lasers can (given sufficient time on target) puncture the aluminium casings of missiles enabling the hypersonic airflow to tear them apart. But we're talking orders of magnitude of difference in what is being proposed by the beamers.
What is in no way established is that they have the power necessary to weaken, let alone destroy or dustify steel. Wild claims that military secrecy proves these things exist but we don't know about them are just that - wild claims. But that's apparently enough for some people to extropolate and jump to conclusions as if that makes it fact.
DEW is a far from convincing case on present evidence, and the related attacks on Jones have sinister undertones to say the least.
To put Jones' work in the same 'controversial' category as Wood's speculation is a travesty. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
thats where ive been for a long time, trying to understand the evidence for the other theorys or see something convincing enough.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. _________________ Oh nonsense, it wasn´t a dream..
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
