masonfree party: No Planes Theory [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

View Full Version : masonfree party: No Planes Theory

Pages : [1] 2 3

masonfree party

15-11-2007, 06:30 PM

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline (DEWS) Add Favourite

Click here for related discussions
P0lanski - 15 Nov'07 - 17:09 edit

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

By CB_Brooklyn

Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

There are three basic versions of the 9/11 events. Although differences and/or overlapping may occur, the following three versions generally describe what most people believe:

1. OGCT. This is known as the “Official Government Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspired with 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims to hijack airplanes, outwit the USA’s entire multi-trillion dollar defense system, and cause the Twin Towers to collapse. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the truth of 9/11.

2. APCT. I call this the “Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that, more or less, there were hijackings on 9/11, but the planes might have been taken under remote control to ensure they crashed as planned. Airplanes most likely crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville, but planes definitely did crash into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed from conventional explosives and thermite, and molten metal was found in the rubble. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the “wacko conspiracy theory” that the “truth movement” believes.

3. REAL. This, simply, is the REAL version, backed by actual evidence, Laws of Physics, and common sense: There were no hijackings, no plane crashes, the corporate media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane impacting the South Tower, and the WTC complex (not just the Towers and WTC 7) was destroyed with Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). The government and media steer clear of these.

Refer to the Lenin-credited quote above.

Is it possible the “truth movement” has been run by the 9/11 perpetrators since day one?

Is it possible that certain individuals have been planted to steer the “truth movement” away from the perpetrators? Is it possible these plants have affiliations with directed energy weapons (DEW)?

Is it even possible that some of these plants are “in on it” while others got suckered in? You be the judge.

***Former Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

Mineta was Vice President of Lockheed Martin, a sponsor of DEPS.
Norman Mineta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DEPS Sponsors

Mineta ensured minimal interference with the DEW by grounding as many commercial airliners as possible during the timeframe of the towers’ destruction.

Mineta steered the “truth movement” toward hijackings and plane crashes by spreading the “Cheney stand down order” hoax.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archiv...2003-05-23.htm
Norman Minetta tells 9/11 Commission that Dick Cheney knew the exact flight path of Flight 93 (and did nothing)

***Former BYU physics professor, Steven Jones, has done research at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...c/jones_cv.htm

Jones steered the “truth movement” toward thermite/conventional explosives/molten metal theories. Jones’ molten metal evidence has been shown to be fabricated.
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...d=91&Itemid=60

Jones ridicules the directed energy weapon and TV-Fakery theories with statements such as ”These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.”
December 6

***Physicist Greg Jenkins’ has connections to the NSA and DEW:

"This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9705129 and by funding from the NSA."
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne...s/ybco_prl.pdf

Jenkins’ papers were listed in an annual report which also listed at least one manufacturer of directed energy weapons (Rockwell).
http://www.csr.umd.edu/csrpage/publi...nualreport.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...t-overview.htm

Jenkins steered the “truth movement” away from directed energy weapons by conducting an ambush interview of Dr Judy Wood. (However, a read of the transcript reveals Dr Wood won the debate hands down.)
http://drjudywood.com/articles/trans...ranscript.html

***Official at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Van Romero, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

Romero participated in events at DEPS before and after 9/11.
DE M&S Conference
DEPS Education Workshop 2000

Romero steered the “truth movement” toward standard controlled demolition by stating "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points"
9-11 Research: Van Romero

Romero is a controlled demolitions expert. Scroll down a little and note the photo. Does Romero actually think this was caused by a “relatively small amount of explosives”?

***Former Director of the Star Wars program, Robert Bowman, is about as close to directed energy weapons as one can get.

Bowman steered the “truth movement” toward hijackings, and NORAD standing down.
YouTube - 9/11 Truth: Dr. Robert Bowman Says 9/11 Was Treason

masonfree party

15-11-2007, 10:09 PM

Well, to me and perhaps some other newcomers to the forum, this kind of information is invaluable.

appreciate that mate...i don't live that far away from you,nor does andrew johnson of Derby...he has tons of campaign materials if you need any at http://www.checktheevidence.com

dave52

15-11-2007, 11:25 PM

I think you are insane if you believe that no planes and hijackers were present on 9/11.

I don't want to get involved in an argument, and maybe this guy is trying to cause trouble, maybe not. But I ought to remind you that you are on David Icke's website. That pretty much opens up any and every theory to discussion.

I don't believe there were any highjackers on 9/11, and I'm not sure that I want to completely dismiss NPT or DEW. People shouldn't cherry pick theories, people should be free to express their views and allow others to find their way.

If this guy needs to go to Killtown's web site because of his views on NPT, then maybe you need to go to the Loose Change forum for exactly the same reason. You'd love it, people get banned immediately when they mention NPT.

teslafire

16-11-2007, 12:15 AM

if people were having a debate about water fluoridation

one side saying its a mind killer

and the other saying that 'you're insane'

would you reference the same skit?

masonfree party

16-11-2007, 01:49 AM

mynameis...i'd rather be called insane than believe the fairy story of 18 raghead hijackers flying 4 planes into 4 separate targets..2 planes have already been proven did not hit their targets..i.e pentagon and pensylvania so if they didn't exist most likely the other 2 didn't...besides the Naudet brothers film is an obvious fake with the flash...noticed them 2 french tossers have not been heard of again...probably enjoyed a nice retirement with their nice fat US PAY cheque

ssyx

16-11-2007, 03:50 AM

I don't want to get involved in an argument, and maybe this guy is trying to cause trouble, maybe not. But I ought to remind you that you are on David Icke's website. That pretty much opens up any and every theory to discussion.

I don't believe there were any highjackers on 9/11, and I'm not sure that I want to completely dismiss NPT or DEW. People shouldn't cherry pick theories, people should be free to express their views and allow others to find their way.

If this guy needs to go to Killtown's web site because of his views on NPT, then maybe you need to go to the Loose Change forum for exactly the same reason. You'd love it, people get banned immediately when they mention NPT.

Well said Dave.

If no-one wants to discuss masonfree party's post then it will be reflected.
If you dont like what he has to say then let this thread fade away.

You people who are slating him as being divisive, are being divisive as far as i can see.
He is just offering an opinion about an event that there is still a lot of mystery around.

As long as mason stays within the forum guidelines what is the problem?

john white

16-11-2007, 04:08 AM

You have been spamming threads with the same BS for nothing that has to do with your research into the events. September Clues is No Plane Theory, I think you are insane if you believe that no planes and hijackers were present on 9/11. I hope you eventually get banned. If this site does not ban you, then I will associate this site with No plane theories and the rest as part of the disinformation campaign on the internet. I have been involved in the research of the nwo since 1989 and William Cooper's death (to make things clear), so I know more about this kind of campaign than you might think. 9/11 is just one wrinkle in time of a whole picture of things circulating. Be a good parrot and go parrot on killtown's forum or elsewhere that accept your BS, as many others have pointed out.

Heaven knows I am no friend to No Planes Theory: I've certainly presented enough counter evidence to shows its nature for anyone practising discernment

However, I must state that there is no problem with people posting pro-NPT threads here

If you choose to have a problem with that mynameis, then I am sorry but you will have to be disatisfied, becuase thats the way its going to be: we are not into "evidential purititanism" here and generally expect people to do their own thinking and make up their own minds

For the record though, to the best of my knowledge Icke has never said anything supportive whatsoever about the NPT at the WTC theory: always ready to be corrected on that if anyone has a quote

dave52

16-11-2007, 07:14 AM

However, I must state that there is no problem with people posting pro-NPT threads here

If you choose to have a problem with that mynameis, then I am sorry but you will have to be disatisfied, becuase thats the way its going to be: we are not into "evidential purititanism" here and generally expect people to do their own thinking and make up their own minds

Well said John. Now this is a wierd feeling, not only am I agreeing with John, but I'm agreeing with him in a NPT thread... feel... dizzy...

:D

For the record, the Naudets have turned up a couple of times since. They're an interesting twist to the story. There's quite a lot of interesting research out there that suggests that the entire Naudet Documentary was set up with foreknowledge. There are some unbelievably "lucky" shots and unlikely pans and focuses with regards to the events of that morning. And the second hit footage has cuts in it at the time of impact. Why?

mynameis

16-11-2007, 07:19 AM

Heaven knows I am no friend to No Planes Theory: I've certainly presented enough counter evidence to shows its nature for anyone practising discernment

However, I must state that there is no problem with people posting pro-NPT threads here

If you choose to have a problem with that mynameis, then I am sorry but you will have to be disatisfied, becuase thats the way its going to be: we are not into "evidential purititanism" here and generally expect people to do their own thinking and make up their own minds

For the record though, to the best of my knowledge Icke has never said anything supportive whatsoever about the NPT at the WTC theory: always ready to be corrected on that if anyone has a quote

You have a much cooler discernment than I. I am glad that discussion is tolerated here, but I must do nothing to prohibit the speech here unless it is somewhat past tolerable. If we deem NPT tolerable, that's something I can't ban, but I still won't comment or condemn again about this disinformation. I will however adhere to my previous comment about the toleration of disinformation being spread on this site. I do believe however that as you state very eloquently as it is put, that Mr. "Icke has not said anything supportive whatsoever about the NPT at the WTC theory: always ready to be corrected on that if '"somebody can supply a quote.'"

I'm glad that I could read your words and understanding to the contrary position.

christophera

16-11-2007, 09:10 AM

There were no hijackings, no plane crashes, the corporate media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane impacting the South Tower, and the WTC complex (not just the Towers and WTC 7) was destroyed with Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). The government and media steer clear of these.

Oh God, are we really going to go through all this shit... again?

It appears as there is an effort.

I'm ashamed of myself for posting this because I really don't feel like ridicule is the right way to deal with this. So I want to apologize to masonfree party now.

DEW will have been responsible for dropping the towers when you see a mammal flying by that looks like this one.

http://www.reefmadnessvilla.com/flying_pig2.jpg

But, ..... it is just so appropriate for answering the assertion that DEW or space based weapons took down the twins that I cannot help using it.

Okay, back to reason. IF, a DEW was responsible, then a logical explanation for how a DEW can cause these beams to have these smooth, square cut ends by the thousands lying around ground zero.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearedboxcolumns.gif

And then how was this row of interior box columns, the columns on 20 foot c to c that were a part of the inner framed wall of the outer steel framework supporting the floors to be cut that way level.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/box.cols.sheared.level.jpg

The media steer clear of them because the technology basically doesn't exist at a level of development that could do what you suggest. If it did exist, I'm quite certain the event would appear totally different. As well as the remnants at ground zero

I actually admire you for posting such stuff. I mean you have guts. I just wish you had real information and used evidence to back it up. When I see a post such as yours making wild assertions with no evidence whatsoever to base any of it on, it makes me kind of sad. Sad because the truth movement needs people that will stick with their beliefs but those beliefs need to be founded in facts. And, DEW is not.

Stop watching the bogus videos.

synergy777

16-11-2007, 10:03 PM

8 Undeniable Reasons Why 9/11 Could Only be an Inside Job.

1. Al Qaeda was Created by the CIA
2. Al Qaeda didn't cover up the facts of 9/11 in the 9/11 commission Report
3. Foreknowledge of the attacks beforehand (Put options)
4. War games that prevented an air defense agaisnt the attacks
5.The Funding for the attacks came from the CIA through the Pakistani ISI
6. Molten Metal from thermate explosives under WTC1,2and7
7. Bushs and Bin ladens are both in business together in the CArlyle Group
8. Outside threats didn't have the means to make 9/11 happen

1. Al Qaeda was Created by the CIA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_k2pi7yhHHs

2. Al Qaeda didn't cover up the facts of 9/11 in the 9/11 commission Report
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH-qQbxRTds&feature=related

3. Foreknowledge of the attacks beforehand (Put options)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1kxE6lftTWU

4. War games that prevented an air defense agaisnt the attacks
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LfJsFu8ZcU8

5.The Funding for the attacks came from the CIA through the Pakistani ISI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nqkRCpOMUvI

6. Molten Metal from thermate explosives under WTC1,2and7
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A

7. Bushs and Bin ladens are both in business together in the CArlyle Group
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3qTkxse8gFY

8. Outside threats didn't have the means to make 9/11 happen
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sxf4EU0xI3s

teslafire

17-11-2007, 06:59 PM

synergy777

17-11-2007, 07:20 PM

got any links bro.

teslafire

17-11-2007, 07:31 PM

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id24.html

mr_pixie

17-11-2007, 08:15 PM

Griffin is for Global government and Global warming

http://www.rightsourceonline.com/welch/comment2.cfm?rank_cho=1228

snoopsnuffleopagus

17-11-2007, 08:27 PM

Cordial Felicitations Masonfreeparty:

My position, arrived at after reading 'Tragedy & Hope', & 'The Naked Capitalist', circa 1972, is: The Perceived Powers That Be are: IN YOUR FACE MOFO!

They HAVE informed us of their intentions & goals.

We Say: 'Hey! You shit on the floor!!!

The Perceived Powers That Be say: "So?"

So: whaddayagonnadoaboudit?

Bupkis!

What you could do, you wont.

What you could not do, you wont.

The 'Wheel Turns'

RIDE THE WHEEL

Kind Regards: Snoopanuffleopagus

snoopsnuffleopagus

17-11-2007, 08:36 PM

syn i don't think anyone here is unaware of that stuff...

but you should do some deeper digging into david ray griffin

“My major project at present is, in fact, to develop a theology for a new world order . . .”

David Ray Griffin - 9/11 Truth Researcher

Cordial Felicitations Teslafire:

From Mr.Griffins arrival, I considered his Theology: Apostate

I felt his intentions were honest and his work 'seemed' accurate.

I even enjoyed his last book, the compilation.

What is your opinion of his work that he has presented?

'Seems' as though: 'True Colors' emerge.

To create a new Theology is beyond the Authority of the Book of Yahweh, which he professes is the basis of his faith.

By the Standards & Doctrines of the Book of Yahweh, he unlawfully desires a Position he is not qualified or authorised to perform.

The Hubris of Man.

Thank You & Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

mr_pixie

17-11-2007, 08:46 PM

masonfree party

17-11-2007, 10:02 PM

synergy777...get real mate...the molten metal you saw was digital fakery just like the cartoon planes melting into steel...come on over mate ,you'll be forgiven of your ignorance

edelweiss pirate

17-11-2007, 10:20 PM

mr_pixie

17-11-2007, 10:34 PM

You're all going crazy...

Follow the Shayler yellow brick road to la la land....

So how do you think they usually demolish buildings?

Please get a grip. There's no difference between 9-11 and a usual controlled demotion job using placed explosives and thermite.

The Twin Towes where destroyed from the top down and fell with no resistance at all? in 10 seconds? a 110 storys in seconds? From Thermite! Thats not your usual controled demontion:confused: with both towers thats 220 storeys with next to no rumble! what the hell going on here people!!!

WaKe up! drjudywood.com

teslafire

18-11-2007, 05:42 AM

where's baron von lotsov when you need him ;)

edelweiss pirate

18-11-2007, 11:05 AM

Edelweiss...mr.pixie is right...for fucks sake wake up...thermite does not blow steel beams 300ft into the air and pulverise everything into dust...we are being steered away from DEWS by these gatekeepers in the 911 movement...and its about time Icke got off the friggin fence and spoke out about it or he will lose credibility in my eyes

I heard maybe there was a small nuke involved in the basement to destroy the foundations, that was brought up as being a slight possibility in the 9-11 Eye Witness video.

So how do they usually demolish skyscrapers and tower blocks? Mr X's secret space weapon?

Alright friend, convince me... I'm listening...

ak87

18-11-2007, 01:37 PM

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id24.html

Hey guys, i'm new to this idea that the 9/11 truth movement is being steered, but i like to keep an open mind to things like this, and this article posted by teslafire will really get you thinking.

At first, I couldn't understand why the NWO would want to hijack the 9/11 truth movement and how they would benefit from it, but this article provides a good reason.

These few paragraphs sum up the argument:

"Have you ever wondered why the 9-11 official story was so implausible and so sloppily put together? (you know, the simultaneous hijacking of four different planes by people armed with mere boxcutters, the suicide notes found in luggage that inadvertently didn't make it on the planes, Arabic flight manuals left in cars in the airport, and a million other things they did which seem like obvious plants, or things they didn't do or create which would have squelched many of the 9-11 skeptics early on.) It's as if they want us to see through the whole thing. Could the perpetrators, in fact, want a 911 Truth Movement to flourish? And if so, why?

Perhaps the perpetrators are deliberately setting up the U.S. to be the bad guy to the rest of the world, perhaps to give the rest of the world the notion that they'd have to consolidate to fight the sole superpower, getting us that much closer to a one world government that so many global elite long for. Perhaps the 'transparent 9-11 inside job/ mass murder deliberately painted on others for a non-ending war pretext' is just a part of that, part of the intentional plotting to have the U.S. be seen as the real rogue nation that others must get together to fight against.

Everywhere you look, it seems, the U.S. goes out of its way, against its interests, to put itself in the worst possible light. The U.S. could easily have, for example, planted weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to make itself look better, but it didn't. And the U.S. could perform identical horrible actions around the world without the seemingly intentionally abrasive and arrogant foreign policy pronouncements which alienate our allies' populations. And why has the U.S. media and even governmental officials taking a liking recently to reporting on war prisoner abuse when they've never paid such close attention to it so close in time to it before? It's hard to believe that the sloppiness of 9-11, and these other items, are just due to the incompetence of those in charge, and so I speculate."

The first thing that struck my mind as soon as i analysed the evidence against the official story is that 'this is too easy'. How could the people who run the world, who have created 2 world wars with no problem, have produced such a sloppy event with huge amounts of information to completely destroy the official story? Or could it just be a 'plan B' which will come into action if too many people begin to believe the true story of 9/11?

I'd love to hear everyone's views, thanks.

synergy777

18-11-2007, 07:08 PM

"Have you ever wondered why the 9-11 official story was so implausible and so sloppily put together? (you know, the simultaneous hijacking of four different planes by people armed with mere boxcutters, the suicide notes found in luggage that inadvertently didn't make it on the planes, Arabic flight manuals left in cars in the airport, and a million other things they did which seem like obvious plants, or things they didn't do or create which would have squelched many of the 9-11 skeptics early on.) It's as if they want us to see through the whole thing. Could the perpetrators, in fact, want a 911 Truth Movement to flourish? And if so, why?

Perhaps the perpetrators are deliberately setting up the U.S. to be the bad guy to the rest of the world, perhaps to give the rest of the world the notion that they'd have to consolidate to fight the sole superpower, getting us that much closer to a one world government that so many global elite long for. Perhaps the 'transparent 9-11 inside job/ mass murder deliberately painted on others for a non-ending war pretext' is just a part of that, part of the intentional plotting to have the U.S. be seen as the real rogue nation that others must get together to fight against.

spot on.

cruise4

18-11-2007, 08:53 PM

Surely it hasn't worked then as I'm seeing ALL governments equally culpable around the world. They all need to go. There's usually an exception to the rule but in this case I'm taking no chances.

More likely we are to be domestic opposition for internal clampdown focus.

christophera

19-11-2007, 05:32 AM

I heard maybe there was a small nuke involved in the basement to destroy the foundations, that was brought up as being a slight possibility in the 9-11 Eye Witness video.

So how do they usually demolish skyscrapers and tower blocks? Mr X's secret space weapon?

Alright friend, convince me... I'm listening...

Nothing usual about that demo. Pulverizing everything from the top down prevented mass collateral, but it was pretty bad with dust distribution.

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition I (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6240504594075547308&q=twin+towers+deception+and+demolition&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition II (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5255701680091399090&q=twin+towers+deception+and+demolition&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

masonfree party

25-11-2007, 10:59 AM

http://www.checktheevidence.com

911 CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS AVAILABLE FROM HONEST RESEARCHER ...WHY NOT SET UP YOUR OWN LOCAL 911 GROUP?

soglad

28-11-2007, 11:07 PM

No planes?

Pull the other one...

edro9494

28-11-2007, 11:40 PM

his work really (Alice in Wonderland) pre-dated alot of Killtown's No Plane Theory.

narcolepticwatchman

29-11-2007, 12:03 AM

Damn right. His silence on the issue is deafening. I mean, fair enough, if the guy has looked at the evidence objectively and can turn round and argue a case against it I would still respect him more than i do at this precise moment in time. There has not been one single article regarding the no plane and TV fakery theories, which have serious weight, posted on his news page. He has not mentioned it once.

Dean Warwick knew the score and wasn't afraid to let the world know what he thought.

For such a tough talker on other issues as previously mentioned in this thread, every day Icke is silent on the subject makes me more suspicious of the man (not to mention the side issues ie his ever growing mainstream media attention along with Avery and Jones, 2 others who dodge or pour scorn on the NPT theories - I thought 'they' owned and CONTROLLED the mainstream media?!?!? along with the subject that shall not be named aloud on this forum.....his no doubt bulging bank account)

They do say that if you want to control the revolution then you orchestrate it yourself. If 'they' are not doing that then 'they' are foolish......we all know 'they' are far from foolish. That then begs the question.....exactly who are the infiltrators? Icke is far from out of the spotlight.....and this forum these days is giving me the creeps.

number 6

29-11-2007, 09:54 AM

can somebody please fill me in on the "No Planes Theory'....

number 6

29-11-2007, 11:36 AM

mr_pixie

29-11-2007, 12:22 PM

Don't worry... I looked up the NPT...

Give me a break! Seriously..... it's theories like this that ridicules and undermines the reserach that truth seekers are researching.

What about the thousands of people in NYC who witnessed the events?
Were they all gov't agents?

Crap! :mad:

It's not crap mate, it's real! Wake up!

Watch September Clues

And go to www.drjudywood.com to see why they put soil? all over the place.:mad: at Ground Zero

mr_pixie

29-11-2007, 12:30 PM

He doesn't hold back when it comes to human flesh eating reptiles yet he is very quiet on the no planes evidence...come on Icke,the truth will set you free

I think Dave's enough had of all this controversail stuff. The guys hagin on by a thread.:eek:

veritas2007

29-11-2007, 12:44 PM

Don't worry... I looked up the NPT...

Give me a break! Seriously..... it's theories like this that ridicules and undermines the reserach that truth seekers are researching.

What about the thousands of people in NYC who witnessed the events?
Were they all gov't agents?

Crap! :mad:

I'm no advocate of NPT but what has been presented to me so far cannot be debunked in any serious manner. Keep an open mind and judge for yourself but don't fall into the trap of looking up what NPT means and then making a snap decision.

Check out the various topics in this forum.

boots

29-11-2007, 12:49 PM

It's not crap mate, it's real! Wake up!

Watch September Clues

And go to www.drjudywood.com to see why they put soil? all over the place.:mad: at Ground Zero

It's is crap, It's not real! WAKE UP TO THE COLINTELO. :rolleyes: Watch September clues busted.

number 6

29-11-2007, 12:49 PM

It's not crap mate, it's real! Wake up!

Ok, explain to me the thousands of eye witnesses that saw planes hit the towers.

penfoldhearts

29-11-2007, 01:16 PM

Ok, explain to me the thousands of eye witnesses that saw planes hit the towers.
I can only explain the thousands of eye witnesses that saw a missile, a small commuter plane and/or a military plane.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/genghis6199/24F2C55D59FD476B8B53A1787C65C9F5/911-reality-part-1-3-.aspx
http://www.livevideo.com/video/genghis6199/4E6021D967DF4B4586097D10BC556675/911-reality-part-2-3.aspx
http://www.livevideo.com/video/genghis6199/29069CAC8C744A9990596C5A82165EB8/911-reality-part-3-3.aspx

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903

And then, there are those even more thousands of witnesses, who heard or saw an explosion, but didn't hear roaring engines of a plane at all before.

veritas2007

29-11-2007, 01:21 PM

Ok, explain to me the thousands of eye witnesses that saw planes hit the towers.

Explain to me where you get the notion that "thousands" of eye witnesses saw planes??

Have a look at this:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=60

number 6

29-11-2007, 02:10 PM

Okay, I'll give you guys the benefit of the doubt for now. I'll go through all the videos and links on the weekend and then get back to you.

I'm happy to accept that they weren't commercial airliners that hit the towers and there's no doubt in my mind that it was a missile or drone that hit the pentagon, but I seriously doubt that many tv stations simultaneously photoshopped a plane into live footage of the twin towers from different angles.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this theory discredits the hard work of 911 researchers. It's more ridiculous than the official gov't theory.

My opinion, at this time, is this is utter nonsense.

geronimo

29-11-2007, 03:02 PM

number 6

29-11-2007, 03:06 PM

The No Planes theory is simply rubbish, and it's designed to do one thing only - divide, distract, dissipate, and DISCREDIT the opposition

EXACTLY!!

greenleaf

29-11-2007, 04:36 PM

what has any of this got to do with Icke sitting on the fence?.. I've seen and heard him state many times his thoughts and theories into 9/11 and he states they are exactly that.. his version of events and asks you to look for the evidence yourself.
The important message that is given (by David & others) is the fact it was an inside job and requires an open investigation... and these theories that keep arising are just to stall that process and send it into ridicule.

If you feel strongly about this version of events write a book like many of the others have done (claiming it's for freedom of information whilst collecting their money on book sales). :D

dave52

29-11-2007, 04:39 PM

EXACTLY!!

I thought you said you were gonna watch the videos...

Everyone watch everything you can, from pods to drones to planes to missiles to npt to DEW to holograms. Take it all in and then make up your own mind. Then, be sympathetic to everyones view, even if you don't agree.

We can all get along and agree to disagree.

veritas2007

29-11-2007, 05:25 PM

I thought you said you were gonna watch the videos...

Everyone watch everything you can, from pods to drones to planes to missiles to npt to DEW to holograms. Take it all in and then make up your own mind. Then, be sympathetic to everyones view, even if you don't agree.

We can all get along and agree to disagree.

Never a truer word spoken. Well said Dave52.

number 6

29-11-2007, 06:44 PM

veritas2007

29-11-2007, 07:00 PM

If there were no planes, how come they found one of the jet engines on the street? The engine is the part of the plane with the highest density and literally punched a hole through the tower. What about the orange fireball and dark smoke that is characteristic of a jet fuel fire? I've read reports and seem images that part of the fuselage landed on the roof of a nearby building. How? These are a fraction of the questions going through my mind.

And what does "doing a Worzel Gummidge" mean?
You really could be a little less patronising and know-all, Sid.

Like I said, give me until monday to check out the footage and links. Any links and vids anyone can recommend are sincerely appreciated.

And I agree, we should agree to disagree and I don't mean to be rude or insult anyone but, at this moment, I'm on the other side of the fence.

If I'm wrong, I'll be man enough to admit it. Right now however, given the massive cover-up already in place, I don't see it going that far. Still, I'll let you know....

Well put Number6. They are excellent questions and I'll think you'll find information this weekend that may go some way to answer them. As I say, I'm no advocate of NPT but the theory put forward has yet to be dismissed by the attempts to debunk them (IMHO). Never rule out anything I say.

I think the Wurzel reference was a an attempt to label you a Straw Man. Some sort of conspiracy theorist jargon. The hardcore love to name call to highlight the differences between themselves - an exercise in futility if you ask me. Some of them are just plain paranoid yet none of them really grasp the fact that they actually play into their own hands. Quite unusual to witness. Some just jump on the bandwagon. Ignore it.

Anyway, its a good idea if you research the whole NPT theory and draw your own conclusions.

Good hunting!

masonfree party

29-11-2007, 07:18 PM

number 6

29-11-2007, 07:25 PM

the jet engine they found on the pavement was planted...if it had fallen from impact height then it would have left a small crater...not bloody cracks in the pavement....for gods sake do your research before you spout such crap

Have you seen the footage?
From what I remember there were cracks... I'm gonna dig it and watch it now. What about my other questions?

crowd control

29-11-2007, 11:23 PM

he said crater, not cracks,

hint-military chopper feeds c.g.i. to news stations ground crews who kept the towers locked on target for the viewers whilst wescam painted cover-up backgrounds and fake planes, whole thing overseen by e4b mission control

think of the hollywood special effects you see every day, you honestly think it is so difficult for them to do on the news ?

what surprised me about it all was how badly it was done, and still the slaves don't get it, anyone with any video editing know how is looking back on it as technology has moved on and laughing at how amature it is, from impossible frame rates, to copy and paste pixel shearing, to moving backgrounds, to different depths refreshing at different rates, to bending towers.

Honestly, some of you people must have sat up the back of the class playing with plasticine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4B
http://www.wescam.com/ we-scam

sidlittle

30-11-2007, 02:34 AM

Well put Number6. They are excellent questions and I'll think you'll find information this weekend that may go some way to answer them. As I say, I'm no advocate of NPT but the theory put forward has yet to be dismissed by the attempts to debunk them (IMHO). Never rule out anything I say.

I think the Wurzel reference was a an attempt to label you a Straw Man. Some sort of conspiracy theorist jargon. The hardcore love to name call to highlight the differences between themselves - an exercise in futility if you ask me. Some of them are just plain paranoid yet none of them really grasp the fact that they actually play into their own hands. Quite unusual to witness. Some just jump on the bandwagon. Ignore it.

Anyway, its a good idea if you research the whole NPT theory and draw your own conclusions.

Good hunting!

Yes, Worzel Gummidge is a well known 'straw man' in the UK :D
and I wasn't labeling Number 6 a 'straw man' but did suggest he was using a straw man argument as he was indeed misrepresenting my position. I would call it a common fallacy rather than conspiratorial jargon myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Seeing then, that it wasn't a 'name call', the rest of your paragraph I'd imagine doesn't refer to me.

Number 6 , I am hardly patronising or a 'know all' ! In fact it's the 'know all's' that got me looking into this subject matter. You know, those that have had it all 'worked out' for a long time now, "this is what happened" "and this is how they done it", " stay away from those outlandish conspiracy theories like NPT".

I don't know if you are like me but when lots of people are telling me not to look at something , I want to take a peek.

Enjoy 911 Taboo and everything else.

veritas2007

30-11-2007, 10:00 AM

Yes, Worzel Gummidge is a well known 'straw man' in the UK :D
and I wasn't labeling Number 6 a 'straw man' but did suggest he was using a straw man argument as he was indeed misrepresenting my position. I would call it a common fallacy rather than conspiratorial jargon myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Seeing then, that it wasn't a 'name call', the rest of your paragraph I'd imagine doesn't refer to me.

Indeed, it was more a generalisation. Thanks for the pointers on Straw Man. I'm reminded of the Check sez thread on NPT which turned into personal attacks and had to be edited to buggery. Until that point, it was an interesting debate but all the 'hardcore' lingo being thrown about killed it off :(

killtown

30-11-2007, 11:11 AM

What about the thousands of people in NYC who witnessed the events?
Were they all gov't agents?
Do you think no plane at the Pentagon is an absurd theory? If *not*, then what about the "hundreds" of people there who allegedly witnessed that event?

killtown

30-11-2007, 11:33 AM

1) If there were no planes, how come they found one of the jet engines on the street?

2) The engine is the part of the plane with the highest density and literally punched a hole through the tower.

3) What about the orange fireball and dark smoke that is characteristic of a jet fuel fire?

4) I've read reports and seem images that part of the fuselage landed on the roof of a nearby building. How?

5) Any links and vids anyone can recommend are sincerely appreciated.

6) And I agree, we should agree to disagree and I don't mean to be rude or insult anyone but, at this moment, I'm on the other side of the fence.
1) You mean this one that managed to land under a construction canopy and also land straight up from falling 80 stories high?

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/angehr/gz-engine.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc-gallery.html#Angehr

Ever hear of the term "planted"?

2) Where did it punch a hole through the exit face?

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-5fd/6-30_wtc2-north-face-exit.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc-gallery.html#1-5FDraft

3) A very good question. Could this explain that?

"But Braford, who lives on a quiet street in Princeton, also had another job in 1973 that gives him a connection with the World Trade Center.
That was the year the twin towers of the World Trade Center were completed and Braford was the construction superintendent for the electrical end of the project in the south tower. He said he supervised the installation of three generators on the 88th floor of the south tower.
Braford was familiar with many details of the building, telling how there were water tanks for keeping the generators cool and diesel fuel tanks there to run the generators." - Princeton Union-Eagle

http://www.unioneagle.com/2001/september/20connections.html

4) First, where did that piece of fuselage debris exit and is it just a coincidence it "landed" by some stairs*?

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/fema403-2/2-29_fuselage-175-wtc5-roof.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-5fd/6-30_wtc2-north-face-exit.jpg

(*For those who say: "So what did they do, haul that piece up some stairs and plant it on the roof?")

5) I've collected all known WTC crash videos:

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

6) Glad to hear and remember, if you're never rude or insult somebody, you never have to apologize for simply disagreeing.

narcolepticwatchman

30-11-2007, 06:57 PM

The No Planes theory is simply rubbish, and it's designed to do one thing only - divide, distract, dissipate, and DISCREDIT the opposition - just as the beam theory is intended to do, and any number of ludicrous pseudo-scientific mirages that don't hold water. Why are you supporting it? and as for David Icke's 'bulging bank account' this might be slightly drained, don't you think, by legal proceedings in view of the fact that a criminal stooge is claiming the right to all his earnings?

geronimo

Geronimo, what makes you so sure that something like what you call BEAM THEORY (I would call D.E.W.) is ludicrous and a pseudo scientific mirage?

Have you read anything about Nikola Tesla? Have you done any research on directed energy weaponry, infrasound etc? are you aware that the US government has been developing Teslas theories , patents and inventions since the turn of the century while the man died penniless because the US and Russian governments raped his work? Are you aware that he devised a system for FREE WIRELESS POWER in around 1908 which was kaiboshed by JP Morgan after he realised he couldn't make money from it? Are you aware that all of the tecnological gadgetry which we are being told is cutting edge TODAY was developed by Tesla, again, at the turn of the century? Are you aware that Tesla invented what he called a 'Death Ray' and planned to station more than half a dozen around the globe as the ultimate deterrent to war.....he stopped the development of this because he realised that the governments could not be trusted with this technology.....The US have equipped an entire 33 acre field in Alaska with the same technology AKA HAARP? Are you aware that Reagan 'publicly' ended the Star Wars weaponry (DEW and a direct follow on from Teslas research) programme in the 80's as the Cold War was drawing to a close? Are you aware that this may have all been pantomime and that that research would more than likely have continued covertly? Are you aware that military technology is AT LEAST 25 years ahead of what they tell us is cutting edge?

If you are aware of all of that and have done any research on the subject then your statement is astonishing.

ukor

30-11-2007, 08:24 PM

Nice to see Killtown back pushing his tired old fallacies that have been hawked endlessly round all the other 911 sites

1) You mean this one that managed to land under a construction canopy and also land straight up from falling 80 stories high?
Ever hear of the term "planted"?

Yes we have. Ever tried proving that's how it got there?

And ever tried proving that's how that engine component landed, and wasn't merely cleared away to one side to let emergency vehicles through? They look like some minor engine components still strewn on the street in front of it to me.

2) Where did it punch a hole through the exit face?

Ref 255/81 looks bent enough for an object about 36 inches wide (judging by the doorway width) to have punched out through to me.

3) A very good question. Could this explain that?

Only if they were massive tanks. Can you prove they held the amount of fuel needed to generate that fireball? An average filling station petrol delivery lorry tank holds about 2000 gallons. Maybe they expected a power outage lasting about ..oh I dunno ...two years?

4) First, where did that piece of fuselage debris exit and is it just a coincidence it "landed" by some stairs*??

Yes indeed - as if a building roof doesn't need regular access for which stairs are normally quite handy for access.

6) Glad to hear and remember, if you're never rude or insult somebody, you never have to apologize for simply disagreeing.

But apparently cheap innuendo and insulting your intelligence is fine in Killtown's book.

You never change Killtown.

ukor

30-11-2007, 08:26 PM

Geronimo, what makes you so sure that something like what you call BEAM THEORY (I would call D.E.W.) is ludicrous and a pseudo scientific mirage?

Have you read anything about Nikola Tesla? Have you done any research on directed energy weaponry, infrasound etc? are you aware that the US government has been developing Teslas theories , patents and inventions since the turn of the century while the man died penniless because the US and Russian governments raped his work? Are you aware that he devised a system for FREE WIRELESS POWER in around 1908 which was kaiboshed by JP Morgan after he realised he couldn't make money from it? Are you aware that all of the tecnological gadgetry which we are being told is cutting edge TODAY was developed by Tesla, again, at the turn of the century? Are you aware that Tesla invented what he called a 'Death Ray' and planned to station more than half a dozen around the globe as the ultimate deterrent to war.....he stopped the development of this because he realised that the governments could not be trusted with this technology.....The US have equipped an entire 33 acre field in Alaska with the same technology AKA HAARP? Are you aware that Reagan 'publicly' ended the Star Wars weaponry (DEW and a direct follow on from Teslas research) programme in the 80's as the Cold War was drawing to a close? Are you aware that this may have all been pantomime and that that research would more than likely have continued covertly? Are you aware that military technology is AT LEAST 25 years ahead of what they tell us is cutting edge?

If you are aware of all of that and have done any research on the subject then your statement is astonishing.

So apart from a hundred year old legend, is there any evidence for these Tesla wonder weapons? Apart from harmless and common antennae fields, I mean.

narcolepticwatchman

30-11-2007, 08:37 PM

So apart from a hundred year old legend, is there any evidence for these Tesla wonder weapons? Apart from harmless and common antennae fields, I mean.

lol. Common yes, but who told you they were harmless? Are you some sort of electromagnetic science expert or did you read the HAARP website?

It is not a 100 year old legend......his patents and his work are well documented. Or do you know better?

veritas2007

30-11-2007, 08:42 PM

So UKOR, does not being able to prove it's existence mean it doesn't exist?

i_am

30-11-2007, 08:51 PM

lol. Common yes, but who told you they were harmless? Are you some sort of electromagnetic science expert or did you read the HAARP website?

It is not a 100 year old legend......his patents and his work are well documented. Or do you know better?

The Complete Patents of Nikola Tesla
Edited by Jim Glenn

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm

ukor

30-11-2007, 08:55 PM

The Complete Patents of Nikola Tesla
Edited by Jim Glenn

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm

Thanks, but I'm well aware of who Tesla is and his contributions to physics.

It's the overeager attribution of wonder weapons I'm questioning, as that was raised by another poster.

adimon

30-11-2007, 09:11 PM

Icke doesn't concern himself with NPT because he is now exploring the nature of reality, and seems to be suggesting now that we make our own reality.

He maybe right. I'd still like to hear how 9/11 fits into his reality. His research is fairly limited to - "it was an inside job", "bush and the PNAC did it", and suppositions that are extrapolations of these simple statements. Unlike most of the hardcore 9/11 truthists, Icke seems content to rest the case and discontinue the research.

What does his latest book say? Anyone care to share?

narcolepticwatchman

30-11-2007, 09:12 PM

Ref 255/81 looks bent enough for an object about 36 inches wide (judging by the doorway width) to have punched out through to me.

the columns were on 36" centres and were 14" thick as i previously explained to John. This means that the gap was 36" - half a column width - half a column width.....or 36" -14"......the gap was 22"....less than 2 ft wide......yeah, you have got it sussed that engine is well less than 2 ft across in any direction innit :rolleyes:

i_am

30-11-2007, 09:23 PM

Thanks, but I'm well aware of who Tesla is and his contributions to physics.

It's the overeager attribution of wonder weapons I'm questioning, as that was raised by another poster.

Well I guess that is something we will never be able to prove

The day following his death, the F.B.I. under the auspices of the O.A.P., which is the Office of Alien Protection, broke into is apartment, broke into his safe, and stole or confiscated all his papers and affects. Now, the O.A.P. had no business being there. He had been a been a citizen of the United States since the previous century. So this was a ruse, they needed to get in there somehow.

Recently declassified documents, only hint of the great discoveries that may have been hidden in Tesla's safe.

He had developed a sophisticated "particle beam / death ray", and he had the know-how to successfully transmit an enormously powerful wave of electrical current, through the atmosphere, and halfway across the world.

Could it be, that through his personal papers, our government gained knowledge that should by rights, make Nikola Tesla the father of "Star Wars" technology.

What amazing discoveries did the F.B.I. find inside Tesla's safe at the Hotel New Yorker ? We may never Know ! Shortly after their retrieval, the files disappeared, and have not been seen, at least not publicly, since then !

narcolepticwatchman

30-11-2007, 09:26 PM

I'm not the one making claims out of thin air and innuendo, which any fool can do. I'm asking for some evidence of your claims.

Yes you are....you said antenna fields were harmless.....thats a thin air shot if ever I seen one! So by your own reasoning I am talking to a fool?

Evidence? As I said before, there is plenty of literature on the man, his theories and his inventions. You want something material and solid? You wanna see a weapon (btw i'm not talking about the lasers n stuff you can find loadsa vids on them)....better still, the one they used on the day right? You aint gonna get it....same way you aint gonna get ANY evidence regarding 9/11 which is SOLID.

I can remember seeing a video now removed by youtube which showed the effects of infrasound on metal.....it was quite amazing what it did to it....more than sheared....shook apart at the point where the sound was directed. Resonance is a very powerful and destructive force. If indeed that was the method of taking down the building, it would be genuis...as the name suggests, infrasound, is outwith our hearing range, so it would be unheard by the thousands watching in the street.

Dean Warwick had it sussed.

neil

30-11-2007, 09:59 PM

This is my first and only response to a thread like this anywhere. I think that rather than get distracted by the technicalities of image production we should consider the use to which the event has been put.

narcolepticwatchman

30-11-2007, 11:05 PM

Thanks, but I'm well aware of who Tesla is and his contributions to physics.

It's the overeager attribution of wonder weapons I'm questioning, as that was raised by another poster.

Some stuff on star wars weapons in Iraq.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-a255YReLY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0X5KcZeZ6Q&feature=related

as for HAARP.....what on earth do you think they are doing to the ionisphere with it? Have you seen Dr Nick Begichs work on it? Do you realise that the system is almost identical to the death ray Tesla developed?

lennart

01-12-2007, 12:24 AM

I watched 911taboo and it was very interesting! It makes it more difficult for the 911truth movement to speak out. However it really doesn,t underminds the other documentaries!

And if this is the case well then it also tells something about the Orwellian world. It makes the conspiracy even bigger.

Man, the rabbit hole sure goes deep.... it just never ends!

http://www.livevideo.com/video/genghis6199/1666F9D3661E461EA858D7300117BAEF/911taboo-trial-cut-part-1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/genghis6199/1666F9D3661E461EA858D7300117BAEF/911taboo-trial-cut-part-2.aspx

i_am

01-12-2007, 05:46 AM

This is a very touchy subject so if we can discuss it without having to resort to insults, it would be appreciated. Please read the forum guidelines and try not to breach any of them. I really don't care what has gone on before on other forums. This is the David Icke Forum and we do have set guidelines which we ask everyone to abide by.

Thank You :)

ukor

01-12-2007, 02:59 PM

So UKOR, does not being able to prove it's existence mean it doesn't exist?

No it doesn't necessarily mean that, but equally it means remaining sceptical about claims that exaggerate beyond its existence.

ukor

01-12-2007, 03:23 PM

the columns were on 36" centres and were 14" thick as i previously explained to John. This means that the gap was 36" - half a column width - half a column width.....or 36" -14"......the gap was 22"....less than 2 ft wide......yeah, you have got it sussed that engine is well less than 2 ft across in any direction innit :rolleyes:

I'm not sure about your data NW.

According to http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

The perimeter columns are 14 inches wide and spaced 40 inches apart, centre to centre.

So knocking out the central column in a group of three will create a gap of 80 inches, minus the 14 inches for the two outer column half widths, leaving a gap of 56 inches for the estimated 36 inch diameter engine core component to exit through.

ukor

01-12-2007, 03:38 PM

geronimo

01-12-2007, 03:59 PM

Yes you are....you said antenna fields were harmless.....thats a thin air shot if ever I seen one! So by your own reasoning I am talking to a fool?

Evidence? As I said before, there is plenty of literature on the man, his theories and his inventions. You want something material and solid? You wanna see a weapon (btw i'm not talking about the lasers n stuff you can find loadsa vids on them)....better still, the one they used on the day right? You aint gonna get it....same way you aint gonna get ANY evidence regarding 9/11 which is SOLID.

The evidence exposed by Loose Change Final Cut is massively incriminating, clearly indicates that 911 was an inside job, and at the very least should make people aware that a truly independent, international investigation should be initiated and supported right away, if we value what's left of our freedom.

I can remember seeing a video now removed by youtube which showed the effects of infrasound on metal.....it was quite amazing what it did to it....more than sheared....shook apart at the point where the sound was directed. Resonance is a very powerful and destructive force. If indeed that was the method of taking down the building, it would be genuis...as the name suggests, infrasound, is outwith our hearing range, so it would be unheard by the thousands watching in the street. [QUOTE]

The technology you are referring to is not mere fiction, and more advanced technology still is concealed from the public. That's not the point. The evidence that remote controlled planes hit the World Trade Center, which was simultaneously subject to controlled demolition as part of a false flag operation, is quite considerable - also that the US and the UK have been funding and training terrorists for years is indisputable - that alone should switch on flashing red warning lights for the general public.
Whether the WTC demolition charges were based on modified thermite (thermate) or mini-nukes is a good question, since either and possibly both may well have been used, according to the available evidence, which is considerable. To then state that infrasound - or particle beam - weapons were used in addition to this, one has to ask, why? it's totally over the top, in addition to being quite unecessary overkill. I reiterate, that the 'no-planes' theory, and the 'beam' theory are quite blatantly psychological operations (psyops) designed to distract, discredit, demean and divide the 911 truth movement. Do we really need any more of this rubbish? The evidence we already have is quite sufficient to demand a full, impartial, criminal investigation, international in scope, not merely a repeat performance of the obvious whitewashes run by paid stooges and crooks that we've been forced to endure so far.
I'm not saying that Loose Change couldn't have gone further, or that there aren't a thousand more unanswered questions - of course there are, and the rabbit hole goes much deeper, but why blame Loose Change for not covering everything? they've done a great job, as far as it goes, and we all know there's a great deal more which needs to come out... take up the investigation yourself and take it to the next stage, if you're not happy. If you can disprove what they've already exposed, then let's see a solid investigation, with documentary evidence to back it up, not just speculation.

geronimo

Dean Warwick had it sussed.

masonfree party

02-12-2007, 12:15 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://forums.gumtree.com/about133372-150.html

On Daily Kos, a few months ago there was an article about a company called "Advantage Consultants" that hires out bloggers, spammers, and trolls.

Rumsfeld Zeros in on the Internet

By Mike Whitney

Rumsfeld’s speech alerted his audience to the threats facing America in the new century.

He opined: “We meet today in the 6th year in what promises to be a long struggle against an enemy that in many ways is unlike any our country has ever faced. And, in this war, some of the most critical battles may not be in the mountains in Afghanistan or in the streets of Iraq, but in newsrooms—in places like New York, London, Cairo, and elsewhere.”

“New York”?

“Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today’s media age, but for the most part our country has not”.

Huh? Does Rummy mean those grainy, poorly-produced videos of Bin Laden and co.?

“Consider that the violent extremists have established ‘media relations committees’—and have proven to be highly-successful at manipulating opinion-elites. They plan to design their headline-grabbing attacks using every means of communications to intimidate and break the collective will of free people”.

What gibberish.

It’s foolish to mention “intimidating and breaking the collective will of free people” without entering Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo and Falluja into the discussion. Rumsfeld is just griping about the disgrace he’s heaped on America’s reputation by his refusal to conform to even minimal standards of decency. Instead, he insists that America’s declining stature in the world is the result of a hostile media and “skillful enemies”; in other words, anyone with a computer keyboard and a rudimentary sense of moral judgment.

(Our enemies) “know that communications transcend borders…and that a single news story , handled skillfully, can be as damaging to our cause and as helpful to theirs, as any other method of military attack”.

If the Pentagon is really so worried about “bad press coverage” why not close down the torture-chambers and withdrawal from Iraq? Instead, Rumsfeld is making the case for a preemptive-assault on free speech.

“The growing number of media outlets in many parts of the world….too often serve to inflame and distort, rather than explain and inform. And while Al Qaida and extremist movements have utilized this forum for many years, and have successfully poisoned the Muslim public’s view of the West, we have barely even begun to compete in reaching their audiences.”

“Inflame and distort”?

What distortion? Do cameras distort the photos of abused prisoners, desperate people, or decimated cities?

Rumsfeld’s analysis borders on the delusional. Al Qaida doesn’t have a well-oiled propaganda mechanism that provides a steady stream of fabrications to whip the public into a frenzy. That’s the American media’s assignment. And, they haven’t “poisoned Muslim public opinion” against us. That has been entirely the doing of the Pentagon warlords and their White House compatriots.

“The standard US government public affairs operation was designed primarily …to be reactive rather than proactive…Government, however, is beginning to adapt”

“Proactive news”? In other words, propaganda.

Rumsfeld confirms his dedication to propaganda by defending the bogus stories that were printed in Iraqi newspapers by Pentagon contractors. (We) “sought non-traditional means to provide accurate information to the Iraqi people in the face of an aggressive campaign of disinformation….This has been deemed inappropriate—for examples the allegations of ‘buying news’”.

A brazen defense of intentionally planted lies; how low can we sink?

This has had a “chilling effect for those who are asked to serve in the military public affairs field.”

Is it really that difficult to print the truth?

Rumsfeld boasts of the vast changes in “communications planning” taking place at the Pentagon.

A “public affairs” strategy is at the heart of the new paradigm, replete with “rapid response” teams to address the nagging issues of bombed-out wedding parties, starving prisoners, and devastated cities. No problem is so great that it can’t be papered-over by a public relations team trained in the black-art of deception, obfuscation, and slight-of-hand. Trickery now tops the list of military priorities.

“US Central Command has launched an online communications effort that includes electronic news updates and a links campaign that has resulted in several hundred blogs receiving and publishing CENTCOM content.”

The military plans to develop the “institutional capability” to respond to critical news coverage within the same news cycle and to develop a comprehensive scheme for infiltrating the internet.

The Pentagon’s strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the free flow of information has already been chronicled in a recently declassified report, “The Information Operations Roadmap”; is a window into the minds of those who see free speech as dangerous as an “enemy weapons-system”.

The Pentagon is aiming for “full spectrum dominance” of the Internet. Their objective is to manipulate public perceptions, quash competing points of view, and perpetuate a narrative of American generosity and good-will.

Rumsfeld’s comments are intended to awaken his constituents to the massive information war that is being waged to transform the Internet into the progeny of the MSM; a reliable partner for the dissemination of establishment-friendly news.

The Associated Press reported recently that the US government conducted a massive simulated attack on the Internet called “Cyber-Storm”. The wargame was designed, among other things, to “respond to misinformation campaigns and activist calls by internet bloggers, online diarists whose ‘Web logs” include political rantings and musings about current events”.

Before Bush took office, “political rantings and musings about current events” were protected under the 1st amendment.

No more.

The War Department is planning to insert itself into every area of the Internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. Their rapid response team will be on hair-trigger alert to dispute any tidbit of information that challenges the official storyline.

We can expect to encounter, as the BBC notes, “psychological operations (that) try to manipulate the thoughts and the beliefs of the enemy (as well as) computer network specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.”

The enemy, of course, is anyone who refuses to accept their servile role in the new world order or who disrupts the smooth-operation of the Bush police-state.

The resolve to foreclose on free speech has never been greater.

As for Rumsfeld’s devotees at the CFR, the problem of savaging civil liberties is never seriously raised. After all, these are the primary beneficiaries of Washington’s global resource-war; should it matter that other people’s freedom is sacrificed to perpetuate the fundamental institutions of class and privilege?

Rumsfeld is right. The only way to prevail on the information-battlefield is to “take no prisoners”; police the Internet, uproot the troublemakers and activists who provide the truth, and “catapult the propaganda” (Bush) from every bullhorn and web site across the virtual-universe. Free speech is a luxury we cannot afford if it threatens to undermine the basic platforms of western white rule.

As Rumsfeld said, “We are fighting a battle where the survival of our free way of life is at stake.”

Indeed, it is.
_________________
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/part_6.html www.drjudywood.com

Back to top

mason-free party
Super Poster

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 712
Location: Staffordshire
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

maybe john white and co have been employed by them/...

The Pentagon is aiming for “full spectrum dominance” of the Internet. Their objective is to manipulate public perceptions, quash competing points of view, and perpetuate a narrative of American generosity and good-will.

Rumsfeld’s comments are intended to awaken his constituents to the massive information war that is being waged to transform the Internet into the progeny of the MSM; a reliable partner for the dissemination of establishment-friendly news.

The Associated Press reported recently that the US government conducted a massive simulated attack on the Internet called “Cyber-Storm”. The wargame was designed, among other things, to “respond to misinformation campaigns and activist calls by internet bloggers, online diarists whose ‘Web logs” include political rantings and musings about current events”.

Before Bush took office, “political rantings and musings about current events” were protected under the 1st amendment.
_________________
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/part_6.html www.drjudywood.com

Back to top

masonfree party

02-12-2007, 12:18 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

As usual, a 9/11 apologist/shill (nick a_ht) starts defending the official story, and this goes on for a few pages until a very well informed post throws an accusation at him.
farang on physorg.com wrote:
It is heartening to see that the horrific crime of 911, for which NO ONE has been apprehended in my country, is still a burning issue for those that see a real problem in officialdom's explanation (or in the case of WTC 7, simply ignoring the issue entirely, which is cause of suspicion in and of itself for any reasonable person) of that day's events.

I wish those finding fault in Mr. Johnson's conclusions would state specifically what those are, not keep referring to something not in the reply. Damn sure would like to see ANY logical rebuttal.

In other words, I see no rebuttal to his statement that physics rules out a kerosene fire melting and collapsing three steel buildings in this manner.

That's fairly straightforward, and should be simple to refute, yet I see nothing but anger, resentment, insults and false statements about the structural strength (or lack thereof) of the two towers (the core should have stayed upright, with plane parts stuck to it). Not to mention how one poster claimed modeling a 22 second free fall, then stated a 13 second free fall, without explaining his conflicting statements.

Look, I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer.

I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, Blacksmith Forger and helper. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with @ 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning, the grounding failed, and the million gallons BLEW!!

Well, for a diesel fire that is. it simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, didn't melt squat. Tank, 1/4" steel, never melted.

Yet HUGE core I-beams, supporting the elevator and utility shafts, were VAPORISED at the WTC towers? Stop, I'll wet my britches laughing.

I've melted, welded, forged, bent, twisted, repaired sheared, punched, formed, plated, blasted and coated just about every metal you see used commonly in industry and construction, for over 32 years. I 've welded many a steel I-beam: purlin clips, joining plates, you name it.

I ask you plainly: you know the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower?

a_ht, what caused that?

Tell me you believe, like me, it was the JP-8 (yes, I work with jet fuel daily, too) contained in the jet's tanks, correct?

Huge explosion, you say you were there that day? Your father? He see this huge fireball?

What was it?

Because, if it was the kerosene (JP-8, acts just like diesel, you can put it right in your diesel tank, works great, low flash point of 140 deg) that did explode that way, that you state so assuredly melted steel,

explain how it reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building, and THEN what?

Ran down 90 floors to melt the "uninsulated I-beams"? What? "Shook" it off by jet impact? Are you kiddin' me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below!!! What nonsense, a_ht!!

Because I KNOW the dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank. About the size on one of the many offices on the floor hit. That's all, a_ht. The size of one office.

Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and only <14,000 gallons, a ridiculously small amount of fuel, ran 90 stories down the stairways (the stairwells the firefighters used to come up to see "small fires") and caused the beams to melt because the impact "knocked of the insulation".

One reply to that: WTC 7. Not hit, there goes THAT THEORY.

Melted steel bends. NEVER turns to dust. Never. No, not ever.

Say, how about this for argument: From now on, CDI never needs to use sophisticated computer analysis on where to place the explosives, amounts, sequences, no, no no. We can simply use a_ht's rational analysis, pour @ 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the basement, stand back, and watch a PERFECTLY SIMULATED controlled demolition, right? Right, a_ht? or, are you incorrect here?

a_ht, Mr. Johnson's British, I believe. Very polite, considerate.

I am not, I am just a blunt American: I believe you to be an Israeli disinformation agent.

Yes, obviously, the buildings were pre-rigged for controlled demolitions.

I never thought I would see the day my country chased the rabbit down the hole...and I would wake up in a land where black is white, up is down, liars are heroes, and criminals in charge of our government, and 19 "Arab Terrorists" could make physics stand down while they attacked.

Yet.....

Physics don't "stand down" for anyone. Therefore, I believe 19 Arab hijackers flying planes into the towers did not bring down the buildings on 911.

Obviously.
And here is the reply:
a_ht on physorg.com wrote:

I am not an Israely information agent, and I take offense.

I work at the American society of civil engineer, an office which contributed massively at the NIST report. I work at the public relation department, so if I seem angry when I post, its because my *** is on the line; they want to shut down our department because of people like you who oppose the official version. Politicians don't want another scandal.

So THAT'S what the 'public relations' department does!

HERE'S AN ARTICLE ABOUT GOVERNMENT SHILLS PAID TO POST ON MESSAGE BOARDS
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12060.htm

Intentionally planted LIES in the news
Quote:
Rumsfeld confirms his dedication to propaganda by defending the bogus stories that were printed in Iraqi newspapers by Pentagon contractors. (We) “sought non-traditional means to provide accurate information to the Iraqi people in the face of an aggressive campaign of disinformation….This has been deemed inappropriate—for examples the allegations of ‘buying news’”.

Employing shills to post on message boards.
Quote:
The War Department is planning to insert itself into every area of the Internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. Their rapid response team will be on hair-trigger alert to dispute any tidbit of information that challenges the official storyline.

The Israeli government has been doing this sort of thing for awhile now;
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/07/zionists-manipulate-pu blic-forums-on.html

Quote:
Israel's Foreign Ministry orders Internet propagandists, so called "trainee diplomats," to skew online polls and public forums to conform with the Israeli line. This is an organized effort, using "special 'megaphone' software," to alert "hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists" so they can manipulate Internet websites and chatrooms to conform with the slant that already permeates mainstream media.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2289232,00.html

Mr Cline said. "A poll like CNN’s takes just a few seconds to vote in, but if thousands take part the outcome will be changed.

Many of the apologists and supporters of the "Official Conspiracy Theory" of 9/11 that is pushed by the Bush Administration are posting as part of their job. In other words they are not truth seekers they are there to obscure the truth.

The same occurs with discussions of the Iraq War, and anything else that the USA government doesn't like.

That doesn't mean they're highly paid govt agents. More likely most of these guys are just hirelings over the internet, mixed with trailier trash, and low grade bureaucrats who have no real power of any kind. Private companies have started to get into the act too.
_________________
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/part_6.html www.drjudywood.com

masonfree party

02-12-2007, 12:25 PM

Many of the apologists and supporters of the "Official Conspiracy Theory" of 9/11 that is pushed by the Bush Administration are posting as part of their job. In other words they are not truth seekers they are there to obscure the truth.

The same occurs with discussions of the Iraq War, and anything else that the USA government doesn't like.

That doesn't mean they're highly paid govt agents. More likely most of these guys are just hirelings over the internet, mixed with trailier trash, and low grade bureaucrats who have no real power of any kind. Private companies have started to get into the act too.
_________________

hagbard_celine

02-12-2007, 12:27 PM

There's nothing wrong with being on the fence. Certanity and precision are worshipped in society, but I think it's fine to say: "I haven't made up my mind yet".

ukor

02-12-2007, 06:36 PM

There's nothing wrong with being on the fence. Certanity and precision are worshipped in society, but I think it's fine to say: "I haven't made up my mind yet".

Your statement is very true and indeed a brave and laudable one as long as that remains the case.

However for those whose research has taken them further along the road, there comes a point where doubt is reduced enough to make a decision.

In my own case - rightly or wrongly - I now see the "evidence" for no plane theory as a belief based more on a lack of knowledge than actual knowledge, which is about the shakiest foundation possible.

masonfree party

02-12-2007, 10:29 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tou71StrOb0

killtown

03-12-2007, 11:02 AM

In my own case - rightly or wrongly - I now see the "evidence" for no plane theory as a belief based more on a lack of knowledge than actual knowledge, which is about the shakiest foundation possible.
I see no-plane opponents base much of their opposition to this theory on ad-homonym attacks which is "about the shakiest foundation possible."

informationx

03-12-2007, 12:05 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tou71StrOb0

The Leidenfrost effect is a cool phenomenon that will allow you to comfortably dip your hand into molten lead (400+ degrees Celsius - 700+ degrees Fahrenheit).

This stunt involves no trickery. All you need to do is wet your hand first. As soon as the performer's flesh touches the hot liquid metal, the water on his/her hand is vapourized, coating the fingers with a vapour layer. If the dip was only brief (a few seconds), then the flesh can not be heated significantly because the vapour layer is not very conductive of heat.

This is called film boiling. It can also be used to pour liquid nitrogen into one's mouth without being hurt by its extreme cold. From the heat of your mouth, the liquid immediately undergoes film boiling on its bottom surface and does not directly touch the tounge. This stunt is especially cool because if you breathe out of your mouth, the moisture in your breath condenses and you create a terrific, 5-foot-long plume - like on a very cold morning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN5aMjTCfo4

Cheers!

sidlittle

03-12-2007, 09:17 PM

To address the point of the thread; I don't really care anymore where Icke stands on this issue. He is clearly less concerned about the intricacies of the 'five sense conspiracy' these days anyway.

To be honest, his actual 911 research is not as in depth as many, despite the release of 'alice in wonderland and the wtc'

teslafire

04-12-2007, 02:09 AM

got any links bro.

I cited the wrong link earlier..

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id25.html

john white

04-12-2007, 03:59 AM

Ad-homonym attacks don't take trained eyes to spot and are rarely justified. Ad-homonym attacks are a favorite trait of trolls.

I can oppose your theory quite succesfully without the single need for a hint of ad hominem Killtown: I would use reason and fact, they are adequate tools for the job

I have been asked if I would do a formal debate on NPT on the uk9/11board

I understand Ace Baker has become unavailable for the challenge (that the pro-NPT lobby instigated)

I therefore request you debate me in a formal one on one debate on that board

sean

04-12-2007, 11:20 AM

Guys, enough of the personal insults. Baiting eachother and having personal arguments is not on.

For the record, that guy quoted from the other forum is not john white.

Whether you agree or disagree with the NPT, you need to stop with the personal insults and stay on topic.

john white

04-12-2007, 01:17 PM

Yesterday, 06:20 PM john white

Killtown's over at the David Icke board
He should fit in quite nicely.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100328

Not me

I have not and never have had a membership at JREF

There are only a handful of places I post in my own name

Here

Malvern Messages

UK 9/11 Forum

Illusions

And thats it

If you see a John White anywhere else, its an impersonator: happens quite a bit

tb303

04-12-2007, 03:27 PM

Not me

I have not and never have had a membership at JREF

There are only a handful of places I post in my own name

Here

Malvern Messages

UK 9/11 Forum

Illusions

And thats it

If you see a John White anywhere else, its an impersonator: happens quite a bit

You had me worried there for a bit since this was "john white's" first post at JREF:

Dave shayler IS onto something: he is in pursuit of that ineffable "something" that is the birthright of us all:

But I don't accept that he has found it yet, or that his current state of mind is where his journey is going to end up

Which means I see no reason to accept his "messiahdom" in any form, especially since I see no need for "messiahs"

davidicke.com/forum/

Notice the link to this forum which doesn't appear in later posts ;)

veritas2007

04-12-2007, 06:10 PM

ukor

04-12-2007, 06:15 PM

To the non NPT crowd:

Your opinions are duly noted.

Now can we continue this and other NPT related threads without the condescending, hypocritical clap trap descending from your ivory towers? I for one want to hear what Killtown and others have to say. And please stop dragging crap in from other boards. What does it prove?

It mainly proves the selectivity of NPT in championing a point of view at the expense of finding out the truth.

In any case, on this board I'm still awaiting Killtown's evidence of the planted engine and a rooftop without stair access, though I expect here as elsewhere, he'll studiously avoid questions he can't answer.

ukor

04-12-2007, 08:30 PM

For goodness sake, stop trying to score points John.

UKOR, I've mentioned this another thread (Check sez) but would you consider the possibility of aircraft parts being placed in the empty floors prior to the attacks?

I'd consider the possibility of them being concealed prior to events in that shop in the background of the photo if necessary, but a multitude of possibilities requires evidence of some sort to narrow them down.

After all, it's not only a question of detonating a pile of spare aircraft parts and hoping for the best; the direction and timing has to be co-ordinated with events too.

john white

06-12-2007, 02:32 AM

I split a whole bunch of agenda munching nonsense off this thread

If anyones interested, you can find it here:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15406

masonfree party

11-12-2007, 12:45 AM

http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/

Dear Viewer,

I hope this finds you well, in good spirit and having a good day.

Regarding the 7/7/2005 terrorist attacks in London, let us look at the facts, and what we were told, and compare them. Then, using Ockham’s Razor and common-sense, let us see what conclusions are to be drawn, so we can all understand what most likely really did happen that day.

First Chapter Title: “MOCK EXERCISES AND BOMB HOAXES IN THE RUN-UP TO 7/7/2005.”

More than a year before the 7/7/2005 attacks, on the 16th of May 2004, an edition of the BBC ONE Panorama programme broadcasted a mock exercise, imagining what would happen if a terrorist-attack was executed in London, in the NEAR FUTURE, consisting of three explosions on tube-trains in the London Underground, and one explosion on a road vehicle.

The following excerpt from the BBC transcript of the programme, gives us a good idea of why this programme was made…

“PRICE: If there are now bombs going off above ground, in this case a lorry being attacked, it could happen anywhere, so the potential for mass panic across not just the capital, but the whole country, is very much with us. I think therefore we need to look at more serious measures. We do have reserve powers in effect to take over the BBC if we were to wish to, and to get them to broadcast whatever we wanted them to broadcast. Those powers are there in the Broadcasting Act. My advice to the Prime Minister would be not to use those, but I think we should be talking to the broadcasters about having the Prime Minister on the air very quickly.

GILBERTSON: You wouldn't disagree with that Michael at all?

PORTILLO: No, I entirely agree that the Prime Minister should be out there, and we shouldn't be using the powers to bring in the BBC, but we should certainly be talking to the broadcasters, about the way in which the coverage is going to be organised.” (end quote)

Please note well that he said, “the coverage is going to be ORGANISED.” In other words, he was saying that they would write the script for, then edit and control, the media coverage of an event in which there were three explosions on London tube-trains, and one on a road vehicle, if such an event were to take place in the near future. The question that begs to be asked is this: was that what they were actually in the process of planning, and precisely the reason for that programme?

Gavin Esler: This is the kind of terrorist attack the government repeatedly says is going to happen.

March 2004 David Blunkett, Home Secretary: "We've been absolutely clear we can't guarantee that there will never be an attack. It's quite likely that they're planning one now."

Michael Portillo says, “I am wondering about the purpose and effect of this very programme.”

This BBC Panorama programme appears to have been used by those behind the 7/7/2005 attack, as the means by which the media's response to the attack in the near future was studied, so it could be controlled and directed towards their own ends. Mr. Price plays the “bad cop” and issues the threat of taking over control of the BBC, and then Mr. Portillo plays the “good cop” and says that there is no need to do that, as long as the BBC behaves itself, and broadcasts whatever they want them to. The “good cop”, “bad cop” scenario is just theatre, to deceive the viewer. The reality is that the BBC is a government propaganda machine and is already, and always has been, controlled and used by the government.

Tues May 25, 2004, 09:00
TUBE EXPLOSIONS
3 blasts on London Underground
The headlines at 9 o'clock.
In the past hour there have been three major explosions on the London underground. The first occurred at 10 past 8 on the Piccadilly line between Knightsbridge and Hyde Park Corner. The second, at 16 minutes past 8, on the Central Line between Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Circus, and the third at 27 minutes past 8 as a train was arriving at Vauxhall Station from Stockwell on the Victoria line. Emergency services have been called to all three scenes. There are no reports available yet on the number of casualties, and the police have said that it's too early to identify a possible cause. London underground is now closed and the police are asking people not to travel.

Peter Power clip from Panorama from 6:45 to 7:00 minutes:
Our research indicates that something like 350,000 people alone are making their way towards the city of London at this point, and if the access overload system has been triggered and they can't get onto their mobile telephones, this will have profound indications for them, the next of kin...

Tues May 25, 2004, 10:41
LONDON ATTACKS
Chlorine tanker explodes
We can now confirm that a tanker carrying chlorine has exploded at the junction of Shoreditch High Street and Commercial Street. Chlorine is extremely toxic in this form and the police are issuing express warnings to people to stay indoors, close windows and remain there until the all clear is given. (end quote)

In the days leading up to 7/7/2005 there were hoax bomb-scares in Nottingham and Sheffield.

Were these false-alarm hoaxes meant not only to cause panic and confusion, but also to lull everyone into a false sense of security, and into thinking that the initial reports in London on 7/7/2005 would also be false-alarm hoaxes, so people would ignore them; until it was too late?

Town bomb scare 'genuine mistake'

Bomb scare leads to city gridlock

Second Chapter Title – “PETER POWER: DUPE, OR ACCOMPLICE?”

Then, on 7/7/2005, we were told on TV, by Peter Power of Visor Consultants, that they, and the private company employing them, who helped choose the scenario for it, were running a mock terrorist drill, in the London Underground, with practically the same scenario as what actually really happened on that day. In other words, the actual mock anti-terror drill that the BBC Panorama programme of May 2004 had outlined, had been chosen, by Visor’s client, to be carried out on the VERY same day that four Muslim suicide-bombers, ALSO chose the same scenarios that Visor’s client had chosen for the mock drill, causing real and devastating explosions on three London tube-trains and one road vehicle. Please think about that unbelievable set of coincidences for a few seconds, to let the implications of it sink in. Then, please ask yourself: what are the odds against all of that happening by chance?

In his TV video clip Peter Power states that their customer helped to choose the exact scenario. I repeat: Visor’s customer helped to choose the exact scenario. To this day Peter Power refuses to publicly identify the customer who chose the exact scenario. Why?

Third Chapter Title: “FOREIGN SECURITY FIRMS - CAN THEY BE TRUSTED?”

Verint Systems is the security firm that is responsible for the CCTV surveillance cameras, in the London Underground rail network, and it is an Israeli company, with approximately 1000 employees. No CCTV footage of the four Muslims boarding the tube-trains has been released by Verint; who claim that their cameras were not working. Why? Because the four Muslims were not on the tube-trains that blew up.

Fourth Chapter Title: “THE FOUR MUSLIMS: ACTORS, OR PATSIES?”

We were also told that the training exercise involved 1000 people, and, of course, amongst those 1000 people, would have to be the four people, who were recruited to play the parts of the mock terrorists.

Therefore, as part of the exercise, they would have recruited four young Muslim men to carry four backpacks, that were to contain mock explosive devices.

Who were their Muslim recruits?

These Muslim men would naturally buy return train tickets, and not one-way tickets, because they would be going home after playing their parts in the training exercise.

Why did they buy return train tickets to Luton?

One of them, the oldest; who would be considered the ring-leader of the group, because of his age; would have been asked to make a “suicide video” prior to 7/7/2005, being told it would form part of the training mock-terrorist exercise; in order to make the exercise, and possibly a film to be made of it, look as realistic as possible. He would obviously not have been told the details of the whole plan, until later, probably when he and the others arrived in Luton on the 7th of July 2005, to make absolutely certain that the scenario of the drill which would take place that day, could not be talked about by, or to, anyone.

The second oldest would also be asked to make a similar video, as a back-up, for just in case anything went wrong, and/or the oldest pulled out of the drill before the 7th of July 2005.

It should be noted that neither Mohammed Sidique Khan, nor Shehzad Tanweer, specify what their targets were, in their videos. It is also interesting to note that no-one has ever claimed responsibility for the 7/7/2005 bombings, except for a message on a fake Al Quaeda website on the same day, that was traced to Texas in the USA.

UK-based dissident denies link to website that carried al-Qaida claim

Two years afterwards; because more and more people doubt the official story and are proving it to be lies and deception, and are rightfully demanding an independent investigation; the police have arrested, frightened, intimidated and harassed Mohammed Sidique Khan’s widow into publicly condemning her husband. She has a young daughter to protect, and has stated that she is now afraid of the police. They kept her in custody for 6 days, to intimidate her and then showed her what they claim is her husband’s Will and “suicide-note.” Obviously this was done to get her to condemn her husband publicly, in exchange for the authorities’ implied agreement to leave her alone, to which she will have agreed, in order to protect herself and her young daughter from further harassment. Where were these documents found, and why did it take two years for them to be shown to her? They are, after-all, her rightful property, if genuine. Two years is ample time to forge a short handwritten note, and signature on a Will.

| J7 | The July Seventh Truth Campaign

In view of the amount of time this “suicide-note” has taken to be mentioned, the timing of it, and all the lies and evidence the authorities have told, fabricated and planted, it cannot be trusted and must be considered another forgery, along with any other new so-called evidence that they might come up with.

So, the scene is set for the training exercise to go ahead.

The fake terrorists have been recruited, the suicide videos have been made, and everyone has been given basic instructions, for the day that the exercise is to be put into operation – 7/7/2005.

The four mock-terrorist actors were to meet at Luton Train Station at 07:20 AM on the 7th of July 2005 and catch the 07:40 AM train from Luton to Kings’ Cross Thameslink Station, with their pretend-bomb backpacks, and then split up and catch three tube-trains and one bus, to pre-arranged destinations, where the fake explosions were to take place, as part of the training exercise.

Finally the big day arrived.

Everyone was ready. Everyone was either already where he was meant to be, or was heading there.

But first let us take a step backwards for a moment, to look at the bigger picture, and put this mock-terror exercise into context with what was happening in Britain at that time.

Tony Blair was in big trouble, because he had just been sent a very clear message from the British nation; via the May 2005 General Election, in which he was almost voted out of power; that the British people did not want British troops fighting in George Bush’s War of Terror in the Middle-East. So, to be able to keep the British troops fighting in the Middle-East, Tony Blair desperately needed something to happen, to change the nation’s mind.

Gleneagles = Tony Blair; George Bush; G8 Meeting; Agenda of addressing World Poverty forced on them by Live Eight concerts around the world, but not for long. Their lucrative, evil, phoney and very unpopular War on Terror (which is really a War OF Terror) will promptly return to the top of the agenda, with four big bangs. No time for the poor, the rich have lots more money to make, and people to murder.

Leeds = Where 3 of the Muslim actors lived and were recruited, and where the oldest, Mohammed Sidique Khan, was befriended by the local police, and was regularly called upon by them, to help them to sort out gang-rivalry problems. Mohammed was also taken on a tour of the House of Commons by a Leeds MP, who befriended him. The perfect patsy? Someone who was made to believe he could trust the authorities, and that they would therefore not deceive, or harm him? Someone who could, in turn, recruit 2 other Muslims for the drill, so they could all become famous and make a nice bit of clean and easy extra money, and show their patriotism by helping the authorities to protect Britain from terrorism?

|7 July 2005 London bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aylesbury = A fourth Muslim actor who has been recruited, Germaine Lindsey from Aylesbury, will also meet them in Luton.

Luton = Transport security firm ICTS, another Israeli company, has an office just a mile away from the Luton train station, which is suspected to be where the Muslim actors received their final instructions, before setting off for the train station - the details of which trains to board, which carriages to get into, where to sit, and which bus to catch, where to sit on it, and at what time.

London = Commissioner of Police Ian Blair; Rudy Giuliani (Mayor of New York on 9/11); Benjamin Netanyahu (who said 9-11 was good for Israel); Peter Power; and all those taking part in the mock-terrorism drill, are present in Central London, in or around London Underground locations where the explosions take place, and also Tavistock Square.

The four men were supposed to arrive together, on time, at Luton Station, and be caught on CCTV, at 07:21:54 AM, entering the station, but three of them are not on the same video frames as Hasib Hussain, so have to be inserted later, using computer software. Hence the obviously, and very badly, doctored official single frame, time-stamped photo that we have been shown, from the CCTV outside Luton Station.

They can’t show them moving, because it has been faked, that’s why they show only one single frame still photo.

Why did the authorities have to fake this photo? They would have had to fake it, because three of the actors missed the tube-trains that they were supposed to catch, and which blew up without them being onboard, and so there was no video footage from Verint Systems of them boarding the three tube-trains, for the authorities to be able to use, as false evidence, to try to prove to the public that the Muslims were guilty. So they had to doctor and show us the fake photo instead.

Remember what Michael Portillo said on the May 2004 BBC Panorama programme: “the coverage is going to be ORGANISED.”

So far, they are apparently running according to the training exercise plan, and on schedule.

Fifth Chapter Title: “THE GHOST TRAINS.”

Unfortunately for the people who have organised the event, the train that the four Muslim actors are supposed to catch, the 07:40 AM train to Kings’ Cross Thameslink, has been cancelled and the next one too, so they cannot possibly make it in time to catch the tube-trains, that they were supposed to catch, as part of the training exercise.

The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry, as the Hand of God interferes.

In spite of official confirmation that the 07:40 AM train was cancelled, and the next one too, the Home Office report still contains the lie that the non-existent 07:40 AM train was the one that the four Muslims caught. The authorities have to keep lying about it, in order to continue to try to make the public believe, that three of the four Muslim men, who boarded a train from Luton to King’s Cross, arrived in time to catch the three tube-trains that blew up. In so doing, the authorities make it perfectly clear, that the truth of what happened that day is of no importance to them. It is obvious from their actions that the only thing that is important to the authorities, is to make us believe what they had already planned to make us believe, even when the facts prove it to be a lie.

|Facts About the Train Times on July 7th

The first available train the Muslim actors can catch, gets them to King’s Cross after the tube trains have already left without them. Hasib Hussain splits off from the other three at King’s Cross Thameslink station, because he still has time to catch the number 30 bus, as his part in the mock-terror exercise. When the tube-trains they were supposed to catch are blown up, the other three smell a rat and realise they have been duped, and are Muslim patsies who will be blamed for the attacks, and everyone knows what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald.

The Muslims are not from London. Their homes are many miles away, and so they are like fish out of water, and have no idea what to do, or where to go and hide. They realise that they can’t go home, and do not know anyone in London whom they can trust.

The phones are all not working, first of all because they were jammed, and then shut down by the authorities, so they cannot phone anyone to tell them what has happened. What can they do to prevent themselves from being wrongly blamed for the explosions? What would you do in that situation?

On one of the early TV news broadcasts that day, a newsreader announced that a report has come in, that three of the terrorists involved in the bombings have been shot and killed, by the anti-terrorist branch of the police, at Canary Wharf, in the Docklands area of London’s East-end. The announcement was made only once, and never repeated, for obvious reasons. How could suicide-bombers possibly have survived the tube-train bombings, and then been in the Docklands to be shot? In a New Zealand Herald newspaper article it says that two people were shot dead outside the HSBC building, and in Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper only one.

'Police shot bombers' reports New Zealander

There is another newspaper report, that the police shot a suicide bomber outside the Credit Suisse First Boston Bank, which is approximately 1,400 feet, or 467 yards, away from the HSBC building, measured door to door. The two buildings are very different in both shape and size, and 467 yards apart, and thus they are not easily confused with each other.

POLICE were yesterday probing reports a man had been "neutralised" outside Canary Wharf. It is believed the man was shot dead by police marksmen outside the Credit Suisse First Boston bank. South London Press:-

That means that the police shot and killed at least three suicide-bombers in Canary Wharf, on 7/7/2005. How could suicide-bombers, who were supposed to have blown themselves up on the three tube-trains, have survived and been shot-dead at Canary Wharf?

If we have at least three of the four "suicide-bombers" shot dead at Canary Wharf, and we KNOW they weren't on the tube-trains that blew up, because the 07:40 AM train from Luton to King's Cross was cancelled that day, then we have overwhelming proof that they did not blow the tube-trains up, and that the blowing up of the three tube-trains was an inside-job.

At the Canary Wharf Docklands site there are media companies, for the Muslim patsies to have told their story to and cleared their names, if they could, and two possible escape routes, via air from the nearby London City Airport, that has flights to 34 destinations in the U.K. and Europe, and, if they couldn’t fly out, there was the possibility of getting a boat across the channel to France.

Sixth Chapter Title: “THE NUMBER 30 BUS.”

The fourth Muslim backpacker, Hasib Hussain, who has been blamed for the number 30 bus-bombing, is reported to have been seen wandering around London, going into McDonalds, and eating a beef-burger. He is reported to have tried unsuccessfully to contact the other three by phone, on Euston Road outside King’s Cross at 08.55 AM, but the phones were not working, because they were first of all jammed, and then shut down by the authorities.

What happened to him?

He was the youngest of the four, only eighteen years old, and described, by those who knew him, as a gentle giant. Therefore he was possibly the least worldly-wise, and he was also on his own, in a strange city, and a long way from home. He might not have realized he was in danger of being framed as a patsy, believed all the chaos around that part of London was just part of the mock-terrorism exercise that he was part of, and so just continued with his assigned role, which was to board a certain double-decker bus, at an appointed time, and sit at the back of the top deck. A double-decker, upon which a large advertisement for a play had been placed on one side, reading: “Outright Terror, Bold And Brilliant.”

Please think about that sign on the side of the bus, and the sick minds of the people who planned the attacks.

Now this is where it gets weird, because we are told that Hasib Hussain started from King’s Cross Thameslink station, and was seen on a number 91 bus travelling West along Euston Road to Euston Station, where he caught the number 30 bus, that would have then travelled East, back along Euston Road retracing his steps, back to where he started from at King’s Cross, if it had not been diverted into Tavistock Square. Why would someone carrying a large, heavy backpack do that, unless he was following a script, written by someone who knew, in advance, that that particular number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, would be diverted into Tavistock Square, and that Hasib Hussain would therefore not be able to get on it at King’s Cross Thameslink, which is where he had arrived at, on the train from Luton? Only someone who is a stranger to London would do that without asking why, because it is a totally illogical thing to do, for someone who knows London, and knows that the number 30 bus goes past King’s Cross Thameslink station, so that they could have caught it there, instead. It would be a complete waste, of time, energy, money, and an unnecessary risk to take, and thus a totally illogical thing for a real terrorist to do.

London Buses route 30

It now gets unbelievably weird, because the number 91 bus, that Hasib Hussain is reported to have taken from King’s Cross, along Euston Road to Euston Station; to board the number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, that got diverted into Tavistock Square; actually goes to Tavistock Square. So, if he wanted to get to Tavistock Square, he could just have stayed on the number 91 bus, and been sure of getting directly to Tavistock Square. The number 91 bus route goes from King’s Cross to Tavistock Square.

London Buses route 91

That is conclusive proof that that particular number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, was part of Peter Power and his customer’s mock-terrorist drill, pre-rigged with explosives, like the three tube-trains, and was pre-planned to be diverted into, and blown up in, Tavistock Square, rather than blown up by a backpack bomb. Whoever planned this, obviously planned to kill Hasib Hussain with that bus explosion, so he could not tell anyone what had happened, just as they had planned to kill the other three Muslim actors with the explosions on the three tube-trains.

At 09.00 AM a number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, left Marble Arch on its return journey to Hackney Wick. It arrived at Euston Bus Station at 09.35 AM, but was then diverted from its normal route, into Tavistock Square, and stopped outside the medical offices of the BMA, where it was blown up, at 09.47 AM, as part of the terrorist exercise gone live. This also fits with the BBC Panorama mock-terrorist programme of May 2004, where the explosion of a road vehicle was scheduled to take place AFTER the three tube-train explosions.

A white van from a demolition company called Kingstar is seen and photographed parked at the side of the bus, immediately after the explosion, and a mysterious “witness”, Richard Jones, gives an account of what he says happened to the bus, on camera; which is something that normally would not be allowed by the police, unless it was part of a filmed training-exercise. Then, after a spate of very contradictory TV and newspaper interviews, within a very short space of time; that make sure everyone now believes the explosion was caused by a suicide-bomber on the bus; Richard Jones disappears from view.

However, and of particular interest, some newspapers, including the U.K.’s Sunday Mail on the 10th July 2005, reported that Richard Jones served an apprenticeship at an explosives factory, in Ayrshire. Richard Jones’ statements, about the suicide-bomber, are very suspicious, for two reasons: first, because they are so inconsistent and contradictory that they are not believable; and second, because criminals usually accuse someone else, to divert attention away from themselves. Is that what Richard Jones did? He says that he and eleven other people got off the bus, just before it exploded. Were the twelve of them a team, with the other eleven there to cover up what Richard Jones was doing, as he planted a bomb? Another strange statement he made, to The Sun Newspaper, reported in the 8th July 2005 edition, is that he got off the bus, because he had reached his destination. How could he possibly have reached his destination, on a bus that had been diverted from its normal route, unless he was part of the mock-terrorism exercise team, and got off the bus, as planned, in Tavistock Square, after planting a bomb, just before it was detonated? Does he work for Kingstar? Kingstar, whose white van was parked next to the bus, is a company that specializes in controlled demolitions, and Richard Jones said he served an apprenticeship at an explosives factory in Ayrshire. Was the Kingstar van there as part of Peter Power and his customer’s training mock-terrorism drill, to supervise the mock-explosion that became real?

So, if Hasib Hussain was supposed to have been on that number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, how would it be possible for him to get the exact bus, that would get him to one of the four locations where the mock-terrorist exercise would be taking place, when that bus was diverted from its normal route, to Tavistock Square, unless he had been recruited to play the part of a mock-terrorist and told exactly which bus to get, where and at what time, by the people who organised the mock-terrorism exercise, and who knew the bus would be diverted to Tavistock Square? The odds against that happening by coincidence are unbelievable, and thus it is not possible that it was a coincidence.

Another unbelievable coincidence is that all of the CCTV cameras, at all four of the blast sites, were not working that day.

The four CCTV cameras on the number 30 bus were; just like the Israeli Verint Systems’ ones on the underground; not working, and there are no reliable witnesses who can place Hasib Hussain on the number 30 bus. Richard Jones is an unreliable witness, whose physical description, of the man he says was the suicide-bomber, does not fit with Hasib Hussain’s appearance, or what he was wearing that day. So there is no proof that Hasib Hussain was either on that bus, or blew it up. Even so, he has been tried and wrongfully found guilty of blowing up the number 30 bus, by the government organized and controlled media machine, without a shred of real evidence.

London Stagecoach Employee Says Bus Bombing Suspicious

CCTV cameras on the bus were not working .

They claim to have found Hasib Hussain’s ID in Tavistock Square. However, they also claim that ID from another of the four, Mohammed Sidique Khan, was found in at least two, some reports say three, separate blast locations. He cannot possibly have been in two or all three locations at the same time, proving that these items were planted after the blasts. How could their IDs have survived suicide bomb-blasts? Millions of people are aware of the magic fireproof Mohammed Atta passport, that was planted at the WTC on 9-11. In light of these incidents, if ID from Hasib Hussain was found at Tavistock Square, it does not necessarily mean that he was on the bus, and not somewhere else, or, if he was on the bus, that he blew the bus up.

What has happened to the presumption of innocence; and being considered innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a jury of your peers, in court; that has always been the mainstay of British justice?

The most likely case is that the number 30 bus had been pre-rigged with explosives during its previous service, when the CCTV cameras were disabled. The CCTV systems on Stagecoach buses are normally either the Israeli company Verint Systems RP12001, or Timespace X.200.

A witness, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, aged 35, who worked at the BMA in Tavistock Square, and was hailed as a heroine for her actions during the London bombings, said she heard two explosions on the bus. The controlled media immediately went on the offensive, and did a character assassination of the heroine, because her testimony did not fit with the official story, and she died unexpectedly, shortly afterwards. However, other witnesses also reported a second explosion on the bus. Richmal’s and other witness’ testimonies would account for pre-planted explosives, and a bomb being planted later, on 7/7/2005.

What we can be certain about though, is that, either on the bus, or elsewhere, Hasib Hussain; like the other three Muslim patsies; was murdered.

Seventh Chapter Title: “PRE-PLANTED EXPLOSIVES.”

Witnesses of the tube-train explosions state that there were no Muslims with backpacks, and no backpacks, or bags, left unattended on the trains, in the carriages that blew up, and that the floors of the trains blew upwards from underneath, not downwards, as would be the case with explosives inside the trains.

Explosives underneath the train floors; powerful enough to rupture the carriage floors and bend them upwards; would also lift the carriages up off the rails and derail them, as did happen. Those explosives were not home-made, but military-grade high-explosives, that would not be available to Muslim suicide-bombers. The official story was that they used home-made explosives, which has later been proven to be a lie.

So we know, from reliable eye-witnesses, who can be traced, that there were no backpack home-made bombs or Muslim bombers inside the tube-train carriages that blew up, and that the floors blew upwards, so the bombs, which were made from military high-grade explosives, must have been fastened underneath the floors of the train carriages. Only people having access to the tube-trains, during the times that the trains were not running, would be able to plant those bombs, under the train floors.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Finance Minister, said that he was warned by Scotland Yard; not to leave his hotel-room, on the morning of 7/7/2005, before the first explosion was reported; implying that they had foreknowledge of the plan. Scotland Yard then quickly denied being the ones who provided the warning, but have not told us who did warn Netanyahu, if they did not. Why was Benjamin Netanyahu warned, but not the British people who pay their wages, and whom they are paid to protect? Was it because it would have spoiled their evil plan, to murder British people, to change the nation’s mind, about British troops fighting in the Middle-East?

Two weeks later the head of the Israeli Mossad, General Meir Dagan, said that he had warned Benjamin Netanyahu at 08.40 AM, on 7/7/2005, ten minutes before the first blast occurred. How did he know what was going to happen in London, if Scotland Yard did not warn him? Did he wait, to warn Benjamin Netanyahu, until it was too late to warn the British people, so as not to spoil their evil plan? Was the London bombing a covert MI5 operation, or an Israeli Mossad operation, or a joint operation by both of them? The British people have the right to know.

Tony Blair said on the day of the explosions, that, “We KNOW this was done in the name of Islam”, when there was no proof whatsoever of who had done it, therefore indicating he possibly had foreknowledge of the plan and who they intended to blame, and the reason why they were going to blame the Muslims.

As proof that this was a slip-up, and needed covering up, look at how the BBC later falsely reported his actual words, giving further proof that the BBC is a government propaganda machine and the coverage was “organised”, exactly as Michael Portillo said it would be, in the BBC Panorama programme in May 2004.

"In addition I welcome the statement that has been put out by the Muslim Council of Great Britain. We know that these people act in the name of Islam..."
Statement from the PM following COBR meeting

"In addition, I welcome the statement put out by the Muslim Council who know that those people acted in the name of Islam..."
BBC: In full: Blair on bomb blasts

Later that same day, Efraim Halevi, a former head of the Israeli Mossad, wrote in an article published on the Jerusalem Post website, at 18:10 PM (London time), that the attacks had been carried out simultaneously with "near-perfect" execution. How did he know they had only been “near-perfect”? How could he have known what the "perfect" results should have been, in order to know that the actual results were not perfect, unless he was in on the plot? How many more people had they intended to murder, in order for it to be considered "perfect" execution? How did he know, at least two days before the London authorities released the information on the 9th of July, that the bombs were detonated simultaneously, unless he was in on the plot? As proof that this too was a slip-up, the Jerusalem Post article in question was completely removed from their website, after people began to ask similar questions.

Ex-Mossad Chief Calls For World War After London Attack

The following day Police Commissioner Ian Blair also made a slip-up, on camera, and said that there were four miserable bombers, and then very quickly corrected himself, showing that he too possibly had foreknowledge of the plan to use four Muslims as patsies.

We are told that the first reports were of an electrical power-surge that occurred, and then later we were told that there were bombs that exploded on the tube-trains, and that it was an Al Quaeda terrorist attack, with Muslim suicide-bombers carrying backpack home-made explosive-devices onto the tube-trains.

A couple of weeks later, a Brazilian contract electrician is brutally and publicly murdered, on a tube-train, and again we are told lies by the police and media, about him.

He was a contract electrician. For whom had he been working, and what had he been working on, in the days leading up to the 7th of July 2005? Remember that the first reports from the media about 7/7/2005 were of an electrical power-surge, and Jean Charles de Menezes was a contract electrician.

Was he hired, as part of the terrorist exercise’s 1000 people, to wire up devices for mock-explosions, to be set off by a power-surge? Did he see the explosive-devices being fastened under the tube-train carriage floors, and later realise what had really happened, and was starting to talk about it?

Did THEY (The Hierarchy Enslaving You) publicly execute him, to shut him up, and as a warning to others to keep their mouths shut?

We have been unable to find out where he worked. We know about his cousins who live in London, and his family coming over from Brazil, but we do not know where he worked.

Why?

Who is the person calling himself Richard Jones, and claiming to have been next to the suicide-bomber on the bus, and a witness to the bus-bombing, and why did he tell so many lies? Why did Peter Power smirk, grin and giggle, when he spoke about the “coincidence”, that the exercise had turned out to be real, when lots of people had been killed and injured?

What is funny about that?

The probability of the 7/7/2005 Drill and Attack Coinciding, without being planned to coincide, in a 10 year period is: ONE chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000.

Infowars.com | July 13, 2005
Comment:
This is absolutely mind-boggling. The chances for these two events taking place at the same time, let alone in the same locations, are astronomical (numbers so big we had to look up how to say them). And these estimates are within a very conservative five year mean. In other words, most statistical analysis that is designed to create the impression of a similarly incredible improbability is usually framed within a greater amount of time: 50 years since England began experiencing bombings, 130 years since the Tube first opened, etc. We don't need to frame these results in that way, because the chance is so low, that these events would ever occur simultaneously, without some sort of intervention, that one might go so far as to call it impossible.

Probability of 7/7 Drill and Attack Coinciding

London Underground Stations: 274

RELATED:

Explosions In London

Probability of one attack by hour (5yr mean): One chance in 9,474,920

Open Hours per Day: 19

Probability of 3 station terror hit (5yr mean): One chance in 850,602,500,906,920,000,000

Open Days a Year: 364

Mean Sample frequent (yrs): 5.

Probability of one attack by hour (10yr mean): One chance in 18,949,840

Mean Sample frequent (yrs): 10.

Probability of 3 station terror hit (10yr mean): One chance in 6,804,820,007,255,360,000,000

Same Time 3

London Underground Stations: 274

Probability of drill on 1 stations per hour: One chance in 817,342

Open Hours per Day: 19

Probability of drill on 3 stations per hour: One chance in 546,023,643,432,766,000

Open Days a Year: 157

Same Time 3

PROBABILITY OF DRILL AND TERROR ATTACK COINCIDING BY CHANCE (10yr mean): One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000

Estimate of Grains of sand in the whole world: 7,500,000,000,000,000,000

( HYPERLINK "http://www.miamisci.org/tripod/whysand.html" http://www.miamisci.org/tripod/whysand.html)

In context:

If I go to a beach, or a desert, or under the sea and pick a single grain of sand. What chance is there of you going to the same part of the world, by chance, and picking up the same grain? You are trillions of times more likely to do this, than the London drill coinciding with this attack at that hour.

I wonder why the media aren't investigating the drill??
Probability of 7/7 Drill and Attack Coinciding

Why are Peter Power, Verint Systems, Richard Jones, Commissioner Ian Blair, the anti-terrorist branch who shot and murdered these innocent people, the Israeli Mossad, Tony Blair and the government itself not under investigation for these horrendous crimes?

Eighth Chapter Title: “CONCLUSION.”

The times of the trains and tube-trains, on that day, have been carefully checked. The first train after 07:40 AM left Luton at 07:56 AM, and arrived at King’s Cross Thameslink Station at 08:42 AM. The three tube trains that blew up left Kings’ Cross underground station at:-

08:35 AM - the Eastbound Circle line train (204);

08:42 AM - the Westbound Circle line train (216);

08:48 AM - the Piccadilly Line train south.

It was therefore impossible for any of the four accused Muslims to have caught the tube trains that blew up.

If we have at least three of the four "suicide bombers" being shot-dead at Canary Wharf, and we KNOW they weren't on the tube-trains, because the 07:40 AM train from Luton to King's Cross was cancelled that day, and the photo of them outside Luton Station at 07:21:54 AM is a fake, and that Hasib Hussain was part of the mock-terrorism exercise, then we have overwhelming proof that the four accused Muslims were patsies, and are innocent, and that it was an inside-job, and that, like Lee Harvey Oswald, they too have been murdered, to silence them.

Whether the bombings were done by MI5, the Israeli Mossad, or both of them, and/or others has yet to be determined, but the one thing we can be sure of, is that it was NOT done by four young Muslims.

Ninth Chapter Title: “EPILOGUE.”

Hopefully, amongst the security-services, there must be at least some decent, honest people who know that the official story is a pack of lies, and are troubled by it. Unfortunately they are all keeping quiet about it. We need them to have the courage to come forward, and say what they know, and arrest their evil colleagues, and bring them to justice, if they don't want to be also condemned as accomplices of the government and media criminals who committed treason, and mass-murder that day, and helped to cover it up, enabling the Orwellian Big Brother Police State plans for Britain to pick up steam, and the real perpetrators, the New World Order government-terrorists, to plunge the world into World War 3, and Armageddon.

Why do you think THEY have made a Big Brother TV programme, to programme people’s minds and get them used to the idea of living under constant surveillance, and to like it, and volunteer to take part in it?

Why do you think they are called PROGRAMMES?

It is because they are used for mind-control, brainwashing, programming of the public’s minds, into obeying, and sleep-walking, whilst following their New World Order hidden agenda.

The sleeper must awaken. The sleeper must awaken.

The television is the greatest mind-control and propaganda weapon ever invented.

Do you think you should be paying for a TV license to fund all THEIR programming of YOUR mind and the lies and propaganda they are broadcasting to deceive, brainwash, control and enslave everyone, including you? Does the TV, and watching it, not already control most of your life and the way you think?

Do you think you should be paying for all those CCTV cameras and their operatives to spy on you, everywhere you go, so they can enslave you, and fine you, thereby stealing your money, for doing nothing wrong? Especially when they use your own money from those fines and taxes to pay for even more CCTV cameras, so you have even less privacy and freedom, and then they claim that the cameras do not work, when there is a real crime being committed, by the people who control the cameras?

Don’t you realize that, in paying fines and taxes, you are actually paying for the chains they are using to enslave you with? Wake up, look and see the reality, that you are actually paying for them to turn you into their slave.

The government is continually and illegally passing new legislation, to restrict your freedom and obtain more and more information about you, to control you, and yet, they themselves are becoming more and more secretive, and out of control. They have turned the relationship between the people and government, into the opposite of what it should be. It should be, public servants serving the people, not the people serving public government masters, or, more accurately, dictators.

Please, for your own sakes, make copies of this film for everyone you know, and for the media outlets in your area, to wake them up and let everyone know the truth, so that the public will give the decent, honest people in the security-services their support, and encouragement, to tell the truth, and arrest their evil colleagues.

Long live the Fighters,

Muad’Dib.

http://JforJustice.co.uk

masonfree party

11-12-2007, 01:34 AM

i see this film has been out since 5/11/07....anyone got any info about Muad who created it?Seems very professional job ...like to know more about the people behind it though but overall i thought it was excellent

cruise4

11-12-2007, 01:58 AM

Very comprehensice article that. Going to watch the film now.

helloperator

11-12-2007, 06:47 AM

Tell me it doesn't have atmosphere music!

masonfree party

12-12-2007, 01:56 AM

http://jforjustice.co.uk/

click on their 911 link and it directs you to von kliest's 911 ripple effect film...i have my doubts who is behind this 77 film now...hidden agenda?

masonfree party

12-12-2007, 02:03 AM

thought phil jayhan would be in on it http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3500196319143561669

behind the scenes of 911 ripple effect

helloperator

12-12-2007, 06:02 AM

I have my doubts too...but it's more to do with my insane paranoia

dark86

12-12-2007, 06:15 PM

superb, I have sent to lots of ppl who will no doubt again "not have time to watch my fantatic movies".

i will plod on regardless :-)

masonfree party

12-12-2007, 10:56 PM

The Canary Wharf Executions and Muad’Dib’s Conjecture

We all like to be told a story; but are liable to complain if too much by way of interpretation is offered. A fairly plausible scenario, which we may call Muad’Dib’s Conjecture, (1) released on November 5th 2007, has pulled together several threads, and suggests what may have been the doom of the four young men, who were cut down in their prime. Three anonymous alleged suicide bombers were executed outside Canary Wharf at 10.30 in the morning of July 7th – an event gaining a brief coverage on the morning ITV news but never repeated and then airbrushed out of history, discussed in no UK national media.

The four young men, in Muad’s narrative, had been roped into Peter Power's 'mock' terror drill. This simulation of a terror attack upon London, which involved a thousand people (as Power stated) would have needed four persons acting as the mock terrorists. The 30-year old Mohammed Khan had come to have a certain trust for the police, as indeed he ‘was regularly called upon by them, to help them to sort out gang-rivalry problems. Mohammed was also taken on a tour of the House of Commons by a Leeds MP, who befriended him,’ to quote Muad’Dib. And so they agreed.

The four purchased return tickets from Luton to King’s Cross that morning, for their day-outing: however, due to the delay of all trains that morning, plus the cancelled 7.40 train, they arrived in London too late to be on the tube trains they were supposed to be on. If we suppose they caught the delayed 07.30, which actually left at 07.42, they would have arrived at King’s cross Thameslink at 08.39 - way behind its scheduled arrival time of 08.04. The three tube trains they had been told to catch left King’s Cross at 8.35, 8.42 and 8.48 am (and there is a walk of not much less than ten minutes to get over to these platforms). But, soon they get to hear of the bombs going off as mass panic starts to swirl around them at King’s Cross, and the horrible truth starts to dawn upon them: they had been set up, and therefore - not being familiar with London, and with the phones not working - they try to escape via Canary Wharf. This excludes Hasib Hussein: ‘Hasib Hussain splits off from the other three at King’s Cross Thameslink station, because he still has time to catch the number 30 bus, as his part in the mock-terror exercise.’

As the four gradually apprehend their dire predicament, in a city London with which they are not too familiar, they make the decision to flee eastwards, towards the City. Then mobile phone networks around the City are closed down, and remain closed for an hour or so. The question has to be asked:
Quote:
The mobile phone networks did not work in the first hours after the bombings ... Were the networks deliberately closed down?
(2)
That statement was made by Rachel North, and as such it is worth a great deal, as she has been in the think of things, and is the last person who could be suspected of endorsing views here expressed (See also Gareth's testimony, below). For one answer to her question, we could turn to a discussion on the on the Mayor of London’s forum, 'Mobile Phone Networks Access Overload Control in the aftermath of the July 7th 2005 terrorist attacks in London':
Quote:
What is not acceptable is the apparent lack of coordination between the Metropolitan Police "Gold Command" who were nominally in charge of the emergency, and the City of London Police (presumably one of the "Silver Commands"), who for their own understandable reasons got the O2 mobile phone network to implent Access Overload Control (ACCOLC) , in an area of about 1 kilometer around Aldgate Tube station i.e. covering much of the City of London, in spite of the decision by Gold Command not to impose ACCOLC in the same area at the request of the London Ambulance Service.
(3)
One had gained the impression that, in the wake of the bombings, London’s mobile phone systems soon crashed out due to general overload. But, we here learn that what happened was rather different. The City of London Police decided to implement a procedure around the City of London, which closed down mobile networks, admittedly somewhat later than the time when (in Muad’s story) three of the four young men apprehended what had happened and three of them decided to flee, going Eastwards. This probably had to last an hour or so, until they were gone.

They are shot, and the reported time of their shooting, 10.30 am, will just about fit in with the lads emerging from King's Cross Thameslink and missing their assignments. The journey to Canary Wharf from King’s Cross normally takes around one hour, 15 minutes, by bus. As to why they chose to head out East, Muad explains:
‘Quote:
At the Canary Wharf Docklands site there are media companies, for the Muslim patsies to have told their story to and cleared their names, if they could, and two possible escape routes, via air from the nearby London City Airport, that has flights to 34 destinations in the U.K. and Europe, and, if they couldn’t fly out, there was the possibility of getting a boat across the channel to France.’
The Independent newspaper was just around the corner. On one of the early TV news broadcasts that day, a newsreader announced that a report has come in, that three of the terrorists involved in the bombings have been shot and killed, by the anti-terrorist branch of the police, at Canary Wharf, in the Docklands area of London’s East-end. Clearly the ‘suicide-bombers’ could not have survived the tube-train bombings, and then been in the Docklands to be shot. A story appeared in the New Zealand Herald, concerning how two 'apparent suicide bombers' were shot outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.

Until about 11 am, the story announced concerns a ‘power surge’ on the London Underground (4). That is a whole hour after the bus has blown up in Tavistock Square. Why would they keep on reporting such an odd story? One could say that, the authorities were not willing to start the ‘bomber’ story until the four ‘patsies’ had been terminated and were not liable to speak to anyone.

An ‘Operation Kratos’ killing?
Why dispose of them so dramatically and publicly? One answer here would be, for the same reason that De Mendezes was bumped off so publicly and not bundled away somewhere first – namely, that the Operation Kratos protocol mandates it. It allows certain members of the police to kill ‘suspected suicide bombers,’ but quickly, because the protocol involves shooting them before they have time to detonate their (alleged) strapped-on bomb. Operation Kratos was developed with guidance from the Israeli Defence Force advisers, whereby: ‘a senior officer is on standby 24 hours a day to authorize the deployment of special armed squads, who will track and if needs be shoot dead suspected suicide bombers.’ It was initiated without public consultation. Its protocol mandates that ‘a police officer should not decide to open fire unless that officer is satisfied that nothing short of opening fire could protect the officer or another person from imminent danger to life or serious injury’ (5).

Quoting from the NZ Herald of July 9th, ‘The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time). Following the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours, the New Zealand man said. He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues, who he said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower.’ That sounds a considerable degree of intimidation, if, even Down Under, a Reuter’s correspondent has to write anonymously and withhold the name of his witnesses.

The story was that the men were ‘wearing bombs’ – one assumes they were no more doing so than was de Mendezes, 15 days later. The ‘tough talk’ of 8000 workers being instructed to stay indoors for the next 6 hours indicates that it was not just the Metropolitain police at work here: the job was done by elite killers, maybe the SRR, Special Reconnaissance Regiment, a branch of the British Armed Forces concerned with counter-terrorism. This was, it would appear, an execution of the highest importance.

The story seems to be authentic: according to the NZ Herald, ‘Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported an unconfirmed incident of police shooting a bomber outside the HSBC tower. Canadian Brendan Spinks, who works on the 18th floor of the tower, said he saw a "massive rush of policemen" outside the building after London was rocked by the bombings.’ Another newspaper report tells how the police shot a suicide bomber outside the Credit Suisse First Boston Bank, which is approximately 470 yards, away from the HSBC building. Altogether four newspapers reported the Canary Wharf killings: New Zealand Herald, South London news and Canada's Globe and Mail Newspapers. (6)

The erasure of this story from UK media could suggest that it has considerable importance. Muad’Dib has here put together a plausible scenario. It predicts that Hasib Hussein was really on the 91 bus (for only one or two stops) coming from King’s Cross Thameslink, having separated from the others. ‘Hasib Hussein was the youngest of the four, only eighteen years old, and described, by those who knew him, as a gentle giant. Therefore he was possibly the least worldly-wise, and he was also on his own, in a strange city, and a long way from home. He might not have realized he was in danger of being framed as a patsy, believed all the chaos around that part of London was just part of the mock-terrorism exercise that he was part of, and so just continued with his assigned role, which was to board a certain double-decker bus, at an appointed time, and sit at the back of the top deck.’

The Government's 'Official Report' on 7/7 has Hasib Hussein get onto the 91 bus outside king's Cross Thameslink, and then change when he gets to Euston onto the 30: ‘We are told that Hasib Hussain started from King’s Cross Thameslink station, and was seen on a number 91 bus traveling West along Euston Road to Euston Station, where he caught the number 30 bus, that would have then traveled East, back along Euston Road retracing his steps, back to where he started from at King’s Cross, if it had not been diverted into Tavistock Square. Why would someone carrying a large, heavy backpack do that, unless he was following a script, written by someone who knew, in advance, that that particular number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, would be diverted into Tavistock Square, and that Hasib Hussain would therefore not be able to get on it at King’s Cross Thameslink, which is where he had arrived at, on the train from Luton? Only someone who is a stranger to London would do that without asking why, because it is a totally illogical thing to do, for someone who knows London, and knows that the number 30 bus goes past King’s Cross Thameslink station, so that they could have caught it there, instead. It would be a complete waste, of time, energy, money, and an unnecessary risk to take.

Quote:
The 91 bus, that Hasib Hussain is reported to have taken from King’s Cross, along Euston Road to Euston Station; to board the number 30 bus that got diverted into Tavistock Square; actually goes to Tavistock Square. So, if he wanted to get to Tavistock Square, he could just have stayed on the number 91 bus, and been sure of getting directly to Tavistock Square. The number 91 bus route goes from King’s Cross to Tavistock Square. That is conclusive proof that that particular number 30 bus was part of Peter Power and his customer’s mock-terrorist drill, pre-rigged with explosives, like the three tube-trains, and was pre-planned to be diverted into, and blown up in, Tavistock Square, rather than blown up by a backpack bomb. Whoever planned this, obviously planned to kill Hasib Hussain with that bus explosion, so he could not tell anyone what had happened.

Here Muad'dib seems to be arguing that H.H. might really have been on the 30 bus. His story has a bit of a problem in getting the group to Canary wharf by 10.30, given that the DLR (Docklands Light Railway) had been closed down. It predicts that there should be some CCTV footage of the four in London, as well as at Luton station, albeit arriving somewhat late, and this is could be a difficulty, because the police have not in two years been able to produce this. The main difficulty lies in the notion that British police could shoot dead three people, at a busy location, with hardly any media coverage.

The Testimony of ‘Gareth:’ (7)
'I was working in the main Canary Wharf building on the morning of J7. I was contracted to a mailroom and worked in the same office as the facilities people. These are the people that have the responsibility for the health and safety for the bank’s employees and every office throughout London has a team of these people.

'In these offices is an electronic wall panel linked directly to the government, through which they can send information incase of an emergency. On the morning of 7/7, every facilities office received a message that their had been a power surge in the London underground. This was put out, but nothing was said about any explosions. Only Sky news and the other news broadcasters reported them. '

'As time passed the facilities people asked me and a colleague to go and prepare food and water at an evacuation site the bank were paying for as well as set up a phone line and internet connection. That was at a church in Mile End, which was over a mile away. We took a small 5-man passenger lift down to the shopping precinct under the tower. We soon found out that a section of the shops had been marked off-limits by security. The main HSBC entrance is underground where the shops that had been blocked off were. As well as being blocked off by many security personnel, they had also cut the lights so no-one could see what was happening in the area they were guarding. I thought this was strange, because there were no reports of explosions at Canary Wharf on the news.

'By this time there were a lot of people at the train station, but could only get there by following certain routes because the CW security where blocking off areas to the public, so they were being led. Anyway, me and my colleague made our way to the street and soon noticed there wasn't any cars on the roads, only emergency vehicles. This was also odd.

'After we left the Isle of Dogs we noticed the police had set road-blocks denying anyone access, but never said why. At this point on our journey my colleague somehow received a phone call from a friend working in the city saying that someone had been shot and killed by a sniper at CW. A lot of people tried to call relatives, but the phones had been jammed. After hearing about the explosions and then bus explosion our office caught wind of snipers having shot some people at ground level outside the building next to us. We heard that the HSBC staff were being told to stay away from their windows

1. http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/ 7/7 Ripple Effect
2. Timesonline 18.12.05, Rachel North ‘The July 7th Questions that Still Haunt victims.’
3. www.mayor-of-London.co.uk/blog/2006/06/mobile_phones_networks_access_o verload_control_london_july_7th_2005.html
4. A ‘power-surge’ was the official story for much of that morning. But, a power surge ought merely to have blown the fuses, which would (a) have stopped the trains and (b) brought on the emergency lighting. Here is an electrician’s view: ‘During the first hour following the blasts, the 'official version' attributed the cause of the explosion to 'an electrical power surge'. Hmm....as a qualified and experienced electrician, I cannot quite figure how a 'power surge' can lead to an explosion. Electricity does not explode, and unless the laws of the physics have once again changed … we have a serious flaw to contend with.’ http://planetquo.com/7-7-The-London-Terror-Attack-Death-Of-A-Nation
5. Feb 2005, Ahmed p116.
6. ref: South London.co.uk 'Hidden holdall bomb' causes carnage by Ben Ashford.
7. http://westyorkshiretruth.aceboard.com/225988-9331-5906-1-ripple-effec t.htm This video was sent to Muad’Dib and helped to inform the theme of his video. One would like to hear when 'Gareth' first wrote this down.

masonfree party

18-12-2007, 10:27 PM

received my 7/7 dvd today from Ireland...excellent quality and info

brassneck69

18-12-2007, 10:43 PM

Can anyone give me some help on this.

That bus appears to of been taxed until 7-10-06, which means if it was taxed for a year, it was taxed on 7-10-05.
I would of thought it would of been scrapped by then after the bombing? Obviously it was still on the road then, but isnt now??????

The enquiry is complete
The vehicle details for LX03 BUF are:

Date of Liability 07 10 2006
Date of First Registration 01 03 2003
Year of Manufacture 2003
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 8268CC
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type Heavy Oil
Export Marker Not Applicable
Vehicle Status Unlicensed
Vehicle Colour RED
Vehicle Type Approval null
The information contained on this page is correct at the time of enquiry.
Vehicle Excise Duty Rate for vehicle
6 Months Rate £90.75
12 Months Rate £165.00

masonfree party

22-12-2007, 11:07 AM

I don't know about others views on here but 911 ripple effect film makers were the ones behind the pod theory so abit dissapointed www.jforjustice.co.uk have linked that film on their website....could be because of the similar title 77 ripple effect....or they have been got at to link it.

911ripple effect is being promoted by phil Jayhans http://www.letsroll911.org where you get banned instantly for mentioning no planes hit the twin towers..he was the originator of the pod theory

http://jforjustice.co.uk/ click to see the 911 link[half way down]

email Muad-Dib@JforJustice.co.uk and ask him why he has linked possibly the worst 911 film to his website...no response from him so far

masonfree party

22-12-2007, 09:53 PM

Terrorists' Friends Pose as Truth Seekers

Updated: April 21, 2007

Since this piece was written in May 2006, evidence has emerged that Eric Hufschmid is an agent provocateur and Christopher Bollyn was installed as a Zionist infiltrator at American Free Press. Hufschmid's role, aided by Daryl Setter a.k.a. Bradford Smith, is to divide the 9/11 truth movement, gather information on truth-seekers, and control the flow of information. Bollyn's brief was to write some hard-hitting articles that exposed Israel's involvement in 9/11 and forensic evidence of the WTC demolition, e.g. pools of molten steel or iron. His cover story was that he got to meet Michael Collins Piper and joined American Free Press after Bollyn attempted to place one of Piper's books in a library, but the library banned it. It does not seem very likely that someone would get so worked up over a library banning a book, that they would be motivated to join a newspaper and devote the next six years of their life to writing articles exposing Israel's crimes. The idea was that Christopher Bollyn would write about 90% truth, 10% hoaxes, so that all of his work could subsequently be knocked down as unreliable. See this page for much more on Hufschmid and Bollyn's operations, such as the Sam Danner hoax and the Hoffman Estates arrest of Bollyn.

Since Bollyn and Hufschmid are the source of claims regarding the individuals named below, the conclusions are rendered highly suspect. If these people are innocent of the charges of being an "agent", then an unreserved apology is offered. It is probably worth taking a look at what they have to say, and referring to as many sources as possible. The page has been retained for historical purposes, but Hufschmid, Smith and Bollyn are certainly not to be trusted...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are three kinds of 9/11 truth seekers: (i) Those who can connect the dots. (ii) Agents employed by the perpetrators to muddy the waters. (iii) Those who have been misled and misdirected by the latter group.

It has now emerged that Deborah Simon - a woman who married into a wealthy family of Zionist billionaires - is a common link between many of the phony truth seekers and Zionist real estate billionaires who are in regular contact with Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli State. Deborah Simon is linked to Phil Jayhan (who runs www.letsroll911.org), Tom Flocco, Karl Schwarz (aka Jon Carlson), John Kaminski, and is also believed to have financed the Loose Change video after a meeting with Dylan Avery.

For months, Daryl Bradford Smith and Eric Hufschmid have maintained that the 9/11 truth movement is dominated by Zionist disinformation agents working to protect the 9/11 perpetrators. Initially, this seemed somewhat exaggerated, and Hufschmid's treatment of the three lads who made Loose Change appeared less than fair.

The Simon family includes two Deborahs. Deborah J Simon is the daughter of Melvin Simon and Vice President of Simon Properties. The shills handler, Deborah S Simon, is the daughter of Gerald Cox, a former Captain of Naval Intelligence, and married Jeffrey who was one of the sons of the Simon family. Jeffrey died, evidently of a drug overdose, in the Eighties. Deborah S Simon is still in close contact with Diane Meyer Simon, who married Herbert Simon in 1981. Herbert, 71, is ranked 346= with $1.0 billion in the Forbes 400 (Richest Americans); Melvin, 78, is ranked 93= with $2.5 billion.

Melvin Simon is a business partner of Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy, who acquired the World Trade Center - and made sure the insurance did not exclude terrorism - a mere six weeks before the 9/11 attacks. Larry Silverstein had close ties to Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, and Benjamin Netanyahu. The latter used to call Silverstein every Sunday afternoon, New York time, without fail. Netanyahu is linked to both 9/11 and the London bombings.

Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press was interviewed by Daryl Bradford Smith on May 18 and by Michael Collins Piper on May 23, 2006. On Wednesday May 24, WING TV gave an overview of the previous day's Piper-Bollyn broadcast. These are all worth downloading before they disappear. WING TV's Thursday show features the "Holocaust" hoax, and includes pointers to a free excerpt of a video with some unique 1940s footage.

Jayhan promotes nonsense such as the "pod" theories, Flocco pushes absurd stories about Barbara Olson being arrested at a non-existent border, Schwarz/Carlson also directs people to the Bush administration rather than Israel (when Rumsfeld and Cheney agreed to crash a UAV into the Pentagon they were not told about the planned WTC demolition and that Israel's agents were setting them up as reserve patsies), Kaminski is trying to turn those who recognise the true WTC demolishers into racists who hate all Jews, and the Loose Change producers are basically innocent but were persuaded not to broach the subject of Israeli culpability in 9/11. In a telephone conversation, Deborah S Simon admitted to Christopher Bollyn that the evidence is overwhelming that the Israeli government was involved in and had foreknowledge of 9/11. The products of the people she works with are inconsistent with that position.

masonfree party

23-12-2007, 01:16 AM

here's the link to the article
http://www.takeourworldback.com/short/shills.htm

the only trouble is that site promotes the molten metal /thermite theory so maybe there is a hidden agenda there too...they don't leave any name/contact details so always suspicious of that

masonfree party

24-12-2007, 01:25 AM

http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcdemolition.htm

check out this..its like steven jones had written it...

de_shit

24-12-2007, 01:43 AM

That is a nice article Masonfree. You should make a new topic on it or something man.

menses

25-12-2007, 02:48 AM

masonfree party

25-12-2007, 02:15 PM

menses...you're absolutely right mate....i always say to newbies on the 911 truth path ...remember 2 things,there were no molten metal and no planes...saves alot of time investigating the false truths

weston white

26-12-2007, 05:38 PM

masonfree party

26-12-2007, 06:04 PM

What do you mean it promotes the thermate/thermite theory so there is a hidden agenda? There is more evidence proving this is what actually occurred then all of the other "theories" combined. Which, theory are you pushing as true?

I PROMOTE THE NO MOLTEN METAL,NO PLANE EVIDENCE.... WWW.CHECKTHEEVIDENCE.COM WWW.DRJUDYWOOD.COM

WOULD THERMATE/THERMITE CAUSE SO MUCH DUSTIFICATION?

weston white

26-12-2007, 07:37 PM

Would they not use thermate/thermite to break away the supporting structural core and then a controlled demolition to bring the actual buildings themselves down? That is what makes sense to me, the use of the demolition charges is what cause the actual "pyroclastic" flow effect, not the thermate/thermite, that job of these compounds was just to lessen the need for the use of explosives.

Although, I believe the mini-nuke theory is also likely do to the brown smoke seen in the area and the loud preblast and vibrations from the basement, prior to collapse and the massive heat that was felt in the area and witnessed by persons such as William Rodriquez., so perhaps a nuke type devise was used in conjunction after the thermate/thermite was set off to destabilize the core and then the charges were set of on ever other 2-3 floors to bring the building down to the ground. All the windows were blown out from the nearby buildings a building collapsing on its own would not be able to achieve a feat such as this, (unless of course the building fell onto such a building causing the damage, but this is not what it being referred to in this case).

It was noted in 9/11 Justice that the roof of the building can be observed raising upwards prior to being turned into dust and spreading out in all directions horizontally. With hundreds of tons of steel bars and columns being ejected up to 600 feet away and in many instances lodging themselves into other structures like as if they were arrows being fired into a target.

I just think they purposefully went overboard on their amount of charges, probably for PSYOP effect/impact, moreso then to ensure they get the job done on the first try without failure. When viewing other controlled demolitions you realize that these demolition companies know what they are doing and know the exact amount of explosive required to collapse the building without cause damage to any nearby buildings and without blanketing the entire city in toxic dust.

The aircraft and massive loss of life were needed to explain the total collapse of the buildings to give a "justifiable" reason for avengement.

weston white

26-12-2007, 08:16 PM

I just happened to see a few videos from this thread that includes a opposite angle of the ejection and that one does appear more so to be a nose from the aircraft rather the possibly smoke in the shape of the nose:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16006&page=3

Though this along with several other inconsistencies within the video only proves that the entire video has been altered or is completely bogus. It does not mean real planes were used to cause the damage and it does not verify if missiles were fired into the buildings. At the very most it shows that something within the building exploded, then the question becomes what, and if the videos are fakes then are the explosions themselves even real? What there any predamage existing prior to the collapse at all then? This would mean the fire fighters and police responded to the scene and seemed over whelmed for absolutely no reason, (assuming this was the case).

shredmasteruk

27-12-2007, 01:37 PM

The dust was mainly Gypsum (from drywall plasterboard). Its not exactly the strongest substance on the planet, and its not designed to have thousands of tonnes of building collapse onto it.

masonfree party

27-12-2007, 06:38 PM

This presentation was given by Dr Judy Wood at the Madison 9/11 Conference (What's Controversial and What's Not) organised by Jim Fetzer on the weekend of Aug 3rd-5th, 2007.

This is most of the 1st hour of Dr Wood's important presentation, which looks at the destruction of the WTC - and how it was most likely caused by a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3932150728705348373

Part 2 will follow soon, along with other Madison Presentations.

I am hoping to make a better version of this video, with better audio and a screen capture of the pictures etc intermixed with this video.

weston white

28-12-2007, 12:58 AM

Oh really now? Could you show me some photos from Ground Zero with even just one of the ~200 concrete floors intact... and don't forget to include the same from any one of the 47 floors at WTC7. TIA.

shredmasteruk

29-12-2007, 12:42 PM

WOULD THERMATE/THERMITE CAUSE SO MUCH DUSTIFICATION?

No, but crushed Gypsum would.

shredmasteruk

29-12-2007, 12:48 PM

Weston, there were firefighters trapped in a stairwell in one of the towers, who survived because the debris pile which built up, cushioned the part they were in, and protected them. So no, not all the concrete was destroyed.

Admittedly concrete is just a mix of sand and cement, and if enough force is applied, the hydrogen bonds which glue it together break.

The kinetic energy applied by the collapsing upper floors, was phenomenal.

masonfree party

29-12-2007, 12:51 PM

This is most of the 2nd "hour" (a bit longer) and includes the missing part of hour 1 of Dr Wood's important presentation, which looks at the destruction of the WTC - and how it was most likely caused by a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8990315294090560154

It also includes a short discussion of the Minnesota Bridge event which took place on a 1st August - 3 days earlier

I am hoping to make a better version of this video, with better audio and a screen capture of the pictures etc intermixed with this video.

weston white

29-12-2007, 10:56 PM

Not steel reinforced (rebar) concrete with steel bottom pans and multiple girder railings, which were themselves also reinforced.

Yes, the energy from the falling floors was phenomenal, too phenomenal in fact... the only why such momentum could have been achieved is if a vacuum was created and one was through the help of explosive detonations. A naturally collapsing structure would have experienced massive resistance the entire way down, sure floors would have buckled, twisted, warped, and cracked. It would have been a very slow event and would not have resulted in a complete breakdown of the building to literally a molecular level. All past building collapses proves this point.

The collapsing of all three WTC are identical and uniform to those of all known building demolitions.

weston white

29-12-2007, 11:02 PM

I have a question about this, if she is claiming a beam ray of some sort, why is she referring to is a Hiroshima, that title makes me think she is pushing the mini-nuke theory. Because Hiroshima involved the use of nuclear weapons.

masonfree party

29-12-2007, 11:18 PM

no she is implying that it was a new weapon used on New york just like a new weapon was used on Hiroshima that the masses knew nothing about...if you watch the Independence day movie you'll see similar weaponry used on new york...but by aliens

weston white

29-12-2007, 11:54 PM

I see, thought I feel it is a little misleading. Why not call it another Manhattan Project. That would make more sense to me, given its intended purpose then.

masonfree party

30-12-2007, 11:53 AM

masonfree party

01-01-2008, 10:30 PM

scholars for 911 truth discuss 911tv fakery

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://911scholars.org/

I'm quite surprised how they openly portray the evidence of 911 tv fakery unlike the www.nineeleven.co.uk forum that likes to tuck it away under controversial 911 conspiracies and strictly marshalled by its naughty moderators

New Studies
Purdue 9/11 Animation: Politics, not Science
23 June 2007, Nick Irving, Scholars for 9/11 Truth

POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF VIDEO FAKERY:

"SEPTEMBER CLUES" (video) in six parts:

SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 1
"THE 911 NEWSWMEDIA COVERAGE"
http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/6F393F4DE41C4CF798CBB438E6378129/september-clues-part1.aspx

SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 2
"THE FLYING TELEPHANTS"
http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/2CE2112F00F24F4182C73582D0F89949/september-clues-part2.aspx

SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 3
"OF MISSILES AND MEN"
http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/E0E8DC73928D42D4A01CF664B22E16B5/september-clues-part3.aspx

SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 4
"THE DENSE COINCIDENCE DANCE"
http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/3F706266A8524D6AA3CCC4CFC2F0F257/september-clues-part4.aspx

SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 5
"17 SECONDS"
http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/0A68FD7C73F8440E9CDCAE38D86C5129/september-clues-part5.aspx

SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 6
"FORGERIES INC."
http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/C69E733A247346FE94FCA7A0EC01945F/september-clues-part6.aspx

SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 7
"PANDEMONIUM"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1243451968453361872&q=September+Clues&total=190&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 8
"SYNCHRONICITY"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1397681962918880096&q=September+Clues&total=190&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

Genghis6199's Epic - 911 Flatline - #1 [video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6MIU-rUPrI

Genghis6199's Epic - 911 Flatline - #2 [video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxKJxFArD-o

Genghis6199's Epic - 911 Flatline - #3 [video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf-adnwEIQU

Genghis6199's Epic - 911 Flatline - #4 [video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMiVjSpoMHI

"Chopper 5 Composite":
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Chopper5Velocity2.html

REBUTTALS AND REPLIES:

Debunking "September Clues": A Point by Point Analysis
10 October 2007, Nick Irving, Scholars for 9/11 Truth

September Clues - Busted! (Anthony Lawson on "September Clues")
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550

Eric Salter's Rebuttal:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/Fox5analysis.html

Ace Baker's response:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/SalterDeconstruction.html

ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE AND ARGUMENTS:

Unseen September 11th Footage (video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UyGQ-6yKbU

9/11 Attack (worth sorting out)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfDaGYYcz48&sdig=1

South Tower Anomalies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BspxdVv7C4

South Tower Anomalies - Extended
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ388KB3OqM

South Tower Anomalies III - Addressing the Debunkers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh7cKDXnS_s

North and South Tower Anomalies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvJdxJ2Fhog

masonfree party

04-01-2008, 12:56 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbYAV5fCGiM

zarah

04-01-2008, 11:14 AM

That was a really, really good video. Cheers, fella

lennart

04-01-2008, 04:48 PM

Nice video, good job:D

white horse

04-01-2008, 07:18 PM

Some very clear analysis, thanks for that!

masonfree party

05-01-2008, 05:27 PM

did anyone hear on the BBC1 news yesterday that someone had been arrested for tv fakery in Prauge for hacking into a live weather forecast and faking digital image of a nuclear explosion was seen to go off...it was so brief i really didnt have time to take it in...agenda? They said they could face 3 years in jail...

Here it is...

Fake nuclear bomb shown on TV weather
Friday Jan 4 07:00 AEDT
By ninemsn staff

Viewers of a Czech television network may have thought they were witnessing the start of World War III if they tuned in on June 17 last year.

A live weather show broadcast what appeared to be a nuclear explosion taking place in the northern Czech Republic.

But it was all one big hoax.

Now, the members of a Czech art group who hacked into the television station and broadcast images of a phoney nuclear explosion have been charged and will stand trial.

The six members of the Prague-based group were charged with spreading false information and could face up to three years in jail according to Dusan Ondracek, the state prosecutor in charge of the case.

In December, the group's project won a $20,828 prize for young artists awarded by Prague's National Gallery.

It is unclear if that money will be put toward their legal bills.

This post has been edited by masonfree-party on Jan 5 2008, 03:49 PM
"Now, the members of a Czech art group who hacked into the television station and broadcast images of a phoney nuclear explosion have been charged and will stand trial. "

OK, so now we see that it is possible for outsiders, some people other than the people at the TV network, to hack in and do the fakery.

Sounds like a perfect exonerating alibi for any 9-11 TV fakery that is ever brought to stringent legal questioning on the TV

MASON/ZIONISTS WORK IN VERY DEVIOUS WAYS

masonfree party

06-01-2008, 12:48 AM

http://www.livevideo.com/media/playvideo_fs.aspx?fs=1&cid=1C074ED750694730BF1F536A0950A502

masonfree party

06-01-2008, 01:11 AM

i noticed in Simon's 2nd part 911 amateur video that as the firemen look up towards the twin towers there is a shadow on the white building across the road on the right...the shadow has a distinctive spire...can someone check that this shadow is at the precise place at the time the 1st plane hit...i guess you'll have to wait until se[ptember 11th or maybe march 11th to check if its precise.If the Naudet film was taken on a sunday because of lack of traffic they may have made the mistake of filming it later in the day ...so if the shadow doesn't match up its got to be faked...just an idea away

weston white

06-01-2008, 04:48 AM

Except for the fact that it was broadcast live and was suppose to be an event nobody could have imagined, ever.

shredmasteruk

06-01-2008, 02:17 PM

They were not intermingling live footage of a building from various different sources (including tourists) , and trying to render in aeroplanes, whilst trying to match lighting conditions, fool eyewitnesses on the ground, and perpetrate a vast hoax involving potentially hundreds, maybe thousands of 'conspirators'.

The scenario which seems to be suggested here, is that, because these hackers were able to insert pre recorded footage of a nuclear bomb going off, somehow the same could have been done with the live tv newsfeeds of 11th sept 2001.
Sorry but I doubt it.

To do a render takes time even now. To do an animation takes longer still.
A factor which increases render time further, is the lighting complexity.
If you doubt this, go onto the caligari website, and get a free copy of truespace 3, that has a raytracing rendering engine in it, and renders require processing time.

Monsters inc took YEARS of processing time to render. Shrek took years of processing time to render, and thats with millions of dollars of render farms (dedicated servers set up to speed up the rendering process). And they don't even look photo perfect.

masonfree party

06-01-2008, 11:15 PM

Please forward this to anyone who may watch it...Bush must know the games up..
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613

This is the first hour including the part which was transferred to the 2nd hour.

If you haven't digested this material yet, I would strongly suggest you take a look - the implications of it are likely to grow in significance this year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you interested in what's really going on in the world, behind the facade? Then...
http://www.checktheevidence.com/

What happened on 9/11?
http://www.drjudywood.com/

awakening

06-01-2008, 11:21 PM

ok gonna check this out!

thnx for the link

masonfree party

06-01-2008, 11:25 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please forward this to anyone who may watch it...Bush must know the games up..

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613

This is the first hour including the part which was transferred to the 2nd hour.

If you haven't digested this material yet, I would strongly suggest you take a look - the implications of it are likely to grow in significance this year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you interested in what's really going on in the world, behind the facade? Then...
http://www.checktheevidence.com/

What happened on 9/11?
http://www.drjudywood.com/

masonfree party

06-01-2008, 11:45 PM

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2367&st=315

Who is first for the guillotine?

adimon

07-01-2008, 12:01 AM

Not the same angle though is it?

masonfree party

07-01-2008, 12:06 AM

Not the same angle though is it?

err think you're wrong there... the Naudet film was shot alot earlier in the morning judging by the larger shadow...hence why the traffic was clear at that moment...could have been anyday though

watch http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice 2nd part of 911 amateur to check the naudet film shadow mistake...this proves that the french tossers are a couple of lying gits!

adimon

07-01-2008, 12:32 AM

http://edit.81x.com/Authors/TruthExplosion/naudet1sthit.jpg

http://www.likeanorb.com/wtc/franklin.jpg

These pictures are not from the same angle, and so prove nothing.

weston white

07-01-2008, 12:43 AM

As well could it have been attributed to a passing cloud?

masonfree party

07-01-2008, 01:41 AM

also check this out too...
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2367&st=315

helloperator

07-01-2008, 03:30 PM

As usual...there's a buttload of 'totally debunked' videos out there attacking this one...and every other theory under the sun.

masonfree party

10-01-2008, 06:59 PM

anyway not long to wait until late March to see if the Naudet shadow lines up with the 9am time..if it doesn't then the film is a fake...absolute proof

weston white

11-01-2008, 02:08 AM

What do you mean by March?

masonfree party

11-01-2008, 12:44 PM

What do you mean by March?

well late march will correspond with the same position of the sun on 11th september...around 10days to equinox which wil give same shadow on building

weston white

11-01-2008, 03:50 PM

well late march will correspond with the same position of the sun on 11th september...around 10days to equinox which wil give same shadow on building

Would you not want to do it the same day though, taking the leap year into consideration? Of course though realizing that the same time of the year will not guarantee the same results, regardless (being that shadows are entirely dependent upon the weather).

masonfree party

11-01-2008, 11:10 PM

http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_feb01ghc01.html

Strategic Analysis:
A Monthly Journal of the IDSA

February 2001 (Vol. XXVI No. 11)

Scientists knew for many years that either a coherent monochromatic light collimated beam; a beam of charged particles or neutral energy particles, can carry potentially destructive amounts of energy, capable under certain circumstances of melting or cracking metal.
Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) would replace the nuclear monsters soon enough and take the centerstage, probably proving the legendary HG Wells to be correct. In his book, The War of the Worlds, Wells talked about the invading Martians with heat ray guns. These ray guns of H G Wells are chillingly similar to the real laser weapons of today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Directed Energy Weapons
By C.N. Ghosh *

Abstract

Scientists knew for many years that either a coherent monochromatic light collimated beam; a beam of charged particles or neutral energy particles, can carry potentially destructive amounts of energy, capable under certain circumstances of melting or cracking metal. Effective range could be many thousands of kilometers. An United Nations protocol signed during their session from September 25 to October 13, 1995 banned use or transfer of blinding Laser weapons Yet there are reports appearing that the advanced nations are engaged in serious research work to develop Laser and Particle beam weapons.. Revolution in Military Affairs is on the anvil and it may be coming through the potential use of these Directed Energy Weapons. Such extraordinary kill mechanisms of future weapon systems raise a lot of questions in the military mind as well as about its implications.

Considering the capabilities of laser, United Nations decided to prevent its use against human beings and a protocol 1 was signed to limit the use of laser blinding weapons. As it stands, NATO nations are bound by this protocol and hopefully will restrict their use of laser weapons honouring the code of conduct dictated by the United Nations. These nations are to use laser against electro-optical sensors. But the development process in this direction belies all hopes of the United Nations. Laser weapons have already been dubbed as inhumane. Yet, the development of these weapons is progressing unabated. Certain defence analysts have already opined that the concept of nuclear weapons is as outdated as that of bows and arrows. Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) would replace the nuclear monsters soon enough and take the centerstage, probably proving the legendary HG Wells to be correct. In his book, The War of the Worlds, Wells talked about the invading Martians with heat ray guns. These ray guns of H G Wells are chillingly similar to the real laser weapons of today. At that time, DEW may have been the prerogative of comics and movies. But the superpowers of the pre- Cold War era took it up on themselves to develop these super killers. Clandestine research development went ahead under a strict veil of secrecy. Reports appearing in various magazines bring out to a large extent the general facts about the state of these weapons and the state of their development and the goal. This does not indicate in any way that the advanced nations are ready to subscribe to the United Nations protocol regarding DEW and their future use.

Concept of the DEW may have originated as early as in 212 BC in Greece, when Archimedes used polished mirrors to direct sun-light on the sails of Roman ships while defending the city of Syracuse. It was not until 1890 that HG Wells resurrected this concept in his book The War of the Worlds. And taking a leaf out of history, on May 23, 1983, Ronald Reagan the US President urged the development of a system that could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before these could reach US soil 2 or that of the US allies. He copied the idea directly from the star wars.. Enough funding was promised despite loud protests from various quarters. Subsequently, a report appeared in the IDR August 2000 issue that the DEW were well on their way towards actual deployment 3 .

High Energy Lasers

Laser (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation), is nothing but an atom or a molecule stimulated to reach a very high-energy state. This is done by various means like chemical reaction, electrical currents or intense light. When an atom falls to a lower energy state, it emits a photon. This photon has some finite energy and it is capable of colliding with another atom in a high-energy state and extracting another identical photon from it. This is called stimulated emission 4 . Stimulated emission of lights occurs when electrons are forced by incident radiation to add more photons to an incident beam. In a laser there are mirrors, which reflect these photons back and forth through the medium, the emission gets amplified and the escaping photons are known as the laser beam. This output beam is a light of continuous wavelength, which depends on the lasing medium being used. Laser light is highly monochromatic because it is generated by electron transitions between two narrow energy levels. As a consequence, laser light can be focused to a spot, less than 1 ìm in diameter. 5 Another outstanding feature of laser light is its strong collimation i.e. the parallel emergence of light from a laser window. 6 Therefore, it may be clearly understood that a laser weapon works by depositing intense heat energy on the target and destroying it by burning or causing fracture. Laser can be used for two types of attack, thermal and impulse. In a thermal kill, the target is destroyed by a long dwell time of the laser and burning through it. On the other hand, if a very high power laser pulse is used, it vapourises a small layer of the target skin and its surrounding air. These super heated gases expand explosively sending shock wave in to the target. Such a shock wave can destroy the skin, and is known as impulse kill. A particle beam could bore a hole in the outer shell of a missile, a satellite or an aircraft and cause serious damage to electronics inside or explode the high explosives trigger of a nuclear weapon. Such damage requires about 103 joules/cm3 deposited on the target. 7 The total energy of beam that has an angular divergence of a micro radian and can deliver that amount of energy can be generated by an accelerator that produces a particle beam pulse of 1000 amperes flux accelerated to 1 Ge V (Gega electron volt) that lasts for 100 ìsec. 8 ( One electron volt may be explained as the energy required to bring an electron from 0 volt to 1 volt).

Exoatmospheric uses of electron and proton beams will have their problems: 9

Spreading of the beam due to the coulomb repulsion of similar charges. An electron beam of 1000 ampere, 1 GeV with an initial radius of 1 cm, will be 15 meters in diameter at a distance of 1000 km. 10 And a proton beam can spread upto 18 kms in diameter at a similar distance. The target will remain unharmed unless the beam can be concentrated on it. Therefore beam concentration is a prerequisite for this type of weapon.
Charged particle beam bends due to the geomagnetic forces. A beam like the one described above will have a radius of curvature of about 100 km and therefore will never reach the target. It is nearly impossible to calculate the exact position of a charged particle beam at large distance, because of the uncertainty of the strength of the geomagnetic field in the intervening space between the weapon and the target. 11
During their generation, Neutron beams also disperse very badly. because of the properties of nuclear matter. As a matter of fact a neutral hydrogen beam can be produced but will have dispersion of about 10 ìrad and will require energy like 1010 joules. It was considered difficult to produce such level of energy but presently things are changing.
Limitations of Laser Beam

Inside atmospheric conditions the beam suffers from absorption and scattering, and becomes defocused and bent because of the properties of air. Whereas, in the vacuum of outer space the beam suffers only diffraction, which is inversely proportional to the size of the laser. There is an upper boundary of power density ( 107 /cm2) that a laser beam can transmit inside atmosphere, 12 because laser light of very high intensity can cause electrical breakdown of the air, which in turn disrupts the beam. Moreover, laser weapons efficiency while operating in the earth's atmosphere depends on local weather conditions and the presence of dust, smoke or aerosols. Application of laser for target detection and tracking would have to take these factors into consideration.

A scientific calculation based on facts can prove beyond doubt that a laser beam may not be able to melt or vapourise a metallic target very easily without disturbing the air, because the power density levels required tend to exceed the breakdown threshold of air. But there is no doubt that the most effective way to damage a target with a thin metallic skin like aircraft or missile will be by impulsive loading. Because these structures are already under severe stress, any addition to this stress need be supplied to exceed the acceptable stress of the material. Thermo mechanical damage can be caused to a target if it is exposed to a repetitively pulsed laser beam; each pulse will deposit plastic energy in the target, until an amount equivalent to the fracture energy is reached. This repetitive pulse beam exploits both thermal weakening and mechanical damage and will melt through.

Despite the UN protocol it can be safely estimated that high-energy lasers will be used in the near future for attacking targets like aircraft, satellites, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles. And the design of these new weapons systems will depend on the vulnerabilities presented by the target. To cause maximum damage, the laser wavelength, pulse shape, energy, and beam diameter should be chosen correctly. The thermal damage to a target need not necessarily be melting. It can cause thermal damage mostly due to overheating. The energies absorbed by the target of ~103 joules/cm3 per pulse delivered in pulses of several tens of microseconds over a small area of the target will cause impulsive failure of a thin metal target. 13

There are four major types of lasers for weapon system applications. These would have differing wavelengths and differ in their output power. All of them could be employed in potential weapons systems. The types of laser are:

Gas Dynamicsaser 14
Chemicalaser 15
Solid Stateaser 16
Ruby 17
YAG 18
Glassaser 19
Semi Conductoraser 20
Heat Capacityaser 21
Free Electronaser 22
Despite production of high-energy laser, the fundamental requirement would be strong coupling action of the laser light to the target in order to cause any damage. This would depend on factors like wavelength, target material, and the aspect angle of the target to the beam. That is why a military application will have to take into consideration reflectivity of the beam for beam control and best absorption of the light by the target to cause maximum damage.

IDR reported that :

"US Department of Defense currently funds three kinds of device technology for High Energy Laser weapons; chemical, solid state and free electron. Chemical lasers use a chemical reaction (combustion) to provide the pumping energy. Weapon class chemical lasers include types using hydrogen fluoride(HF) and deuterium fluoride (DF) and chemical oxygen iodine lasers (COIL). These have achieved power levels of several megawatts with good beam quality." IDR August 2000. 23

Particle Beam Weapon

History of particle beam dates back to 1950s, even before the laser made its theoretical appearance. Scientists were able to accelerate charged sub atomic particles to very high speed in an accelerator. 24 And all such devices generate their destructive power by accelerating sufficient quantities of these sub atomic particles or atoms to velocities near the speed of light and focus the energy into a high energy beam. Each particle moving in the beam would have its kinetic energy due to its own mass and motion. Presently particles used to form this beam are electrons, protons and hydrogen atoms. In the case of hydrogen a single electron and a proton combination form a neutrally charged atom. Because of being neutrally charged, hydrogen atoms would not be susceptible to bending by the earth's magnetic field, which is a problem of weaponisation of particle beam (PB). In the atmosphere, charged particle beam neutralises itself by colliding with air molecules, effectively creating enough ions of the opposite charge to neutralise the beam.

To form a particle beam, an electronic accelerator should have a diode in a vacuum. A very high electrical voltage is applied across the diode, the negatively charged electrons that are emitted instead of being collected at the anode are made to pass into an accelerator. This accelerator has suitable arrangement of electrical and magnetic fields, which impart high acceleration to these electrons and can focus them also. This is a simple linear accelerator. 25 A similar process can be achieved in a circular accelerator with the electrons accelerating in circles of increasing diameters, which is known as cyclotron. Energy of the beam is expressed in electron volts, the beam current in amperes, and power of the beam in watts. The power of a PB is the rate at which it transports energy. That would give a clear idea about the rate at which the energy will be deposited on the target. The electron and protons of the beam are deposited on the target, which collide with the atoms of the target, and break the atoms like snooker balls. The area of the target where the beam has been focused will get heated up rapidly and the target will explode.

There are two types of Particle Beam Weapons. Charged particle beam weapon and the neutral beam weapon. The charged particle weapons are for use within atmosphere (endoatmospheric) and the neutral particle beam weapons are used in space (exoatmospheric). Both these weapon systems will have different characteristics of their own. 26

The fire control, procurement and tracking system of PBW must acquire and track the target, point the weapon at the target, fire the beam at the appropriate time and assess target damage. The miss distance has to be calculated and correction has to be carried out on time. Advantages of PBW: 27

Beam Velocity. Being the speed of light (186,000 miles/sec), computing and the aim point for a moving target like an incoming missile become simpler. It would be difficult for the target to carry out any evasive manoeuver.
Beam Dwell Time. In an endoatmospheric weapon the target can be destroyed instantly provided the beam could be held even for a short period of time.
Rapid Aim Capability. Because of its high velocity the beam can be aimed on a number of targets at very short range of time, by means of a magnetic field. Varying the current would change the magnetic field intensity, which could deflect the particle beam.
Beam Penetration. Sub atomic particles can penetrate a target. It is not restricted to surface effects as in the case of laser. It could damage the internal components of the target and even cause an explosion by implanting massive quantity of energy. It would be nearly impossible to defend the target against such an attack. No amount of target hardening will have any effect.
All Weather Capability. PBW has an added advantage over the laser. It has an all weather capability. Laser beam can get degraded if there is fog, cloud or rain but it does not affect the PBW. In the atmosphere as the particle beam travels, it produces an ionised channel, which tends to keep the beam together and does not allow it to disperse.
Power Supply and Accelerator Technology

This is no doubt a difficult problem for the PBWs. To operate an endoatmopheric weapon, tremendous amount of electrical energy is required over a very short period of time. As power is energy divided by time, large amounts of energy over a short period of time translate into extremely high power level. Lightweight components capable of producing millions of watts will be the actual requirement of the weapon system. In addition, the accelerators create the high-energy particle beam. It is composed of a source of ions (electron, protons or charged atoms) a device injecting the particles into the accelerating section and the accelerating section itself. There are various types of accelerators, like linear, circular and radio frequency linear. As reported, Advanced Test Accelerator is designed to generate 50 Me V (million electron volt) beam with 10,000 amperes of current in pulses of 50 nano second ( 50 billionths of a second). 28

High Power Microwave Weapons

High power microwave weapons were on the drawing board for a long time. But for the first time in Kosovo war some testing could have been carried out, (as claimed by the Russians). It seems that the weapon can be delivered by cruise missile or by any other stand off platform and can be exploded within yards of a target. The explosion would be followed by generation of high power microwaves that can disable electronic circuitry in computers and communication systems. The electromagnetic pulses could create havoc to anything that is electronically operated. The EMP, which was noticed during the high altitude nuclear explosion has at last been perfected by a team of US scientists probably at Los Alamos and may add a new and unknown dimension to future wars. 29 The technology that would be used to generate the EMP is:

lExplosively pumped flux compression generator.

lHPM devices based on virtual cathode ray oscillator or vircator

lPropellant driven magneto hydrodynamic generators.

Like all other DEW, defence against such weapons systems would be very difficult to install because the capabilities of such a menace are not yet known exactly. It is very well to claim that certain amount of electronic hardening would be the solution but there are some serious limitations. It is not known whether equipment can be hardened totally or some part will remain vulnerable to electromagnetic attack. And if one part gets affected, what would happen to the equipment as a whole. Also it is quite clear that this would be the route to gain command of the electromagnetic spectrum so as to carry out subsequent operations with impunity using other conventional weapons. Subject to the lethality of the weapon, command and control system would become ineffective and cause havoc to the economic system. Effect of a massed attack with such weapons at the opening phase of the battle can only be imagined.

DEW of USA

"Lt Gen John Costello commanding general of the US Army's Space and Missile defence command describes DEW as a potentially revolutionary addition to the battlefield of the future." 30 During the frightening period of the Cold War arms race, both the superpowers generated a lot of heat by claiming the development of death ray and other DEW. But since then it was the prerogative only of USA to spend enough amount of money and time to gain superiority by gaining access to these frightful and seemingly innocent weapons systems and call for a global nuclear disarmament. It was way back in the Falkland War of 1982 that UK, an US ally employed a laser dazzler and now it has come to notice that the Chinese People's Liberation Army has deployed weapons like ZM87 laser interference device that could cause short term blindness at ranges upto 10 km. PLA's Type 98/WZ-123 main battle tank carries a turret mounted installation of a laser equipment which could be used against both ground based and air borne optical and electro optical sensors 31 . It is understood that US development of the DEW is progressing unabated despite many obstacles. And there is no doubt that US will forge ahead in this field considering the pace of the development brought out in the IDR. High Energy Laser Executive Review Panel of USA headed by the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Science and Technology clarified in their report that: 32

High-energy laser systems are ready to meet some of today's most challenging weapons applications.
And these laser weapons will offer US the potential to maintain a technological edge over adversaries in the foreseeable future.
This is more or less an accurate statement because despite having a solid base in the field of physics; break up of the Soviet Union has put many impediments for the growth of this field in present day Russia. The main problem being the funding for fundamental research. The US committee while commenting on laser weapon development identified a few areas which require immediate attention and are to be supported by adequate funding: 33

Solid State Lasers of US Army. In this field the aim would be to develop and demonstrate coherently phased fiber arrays; scale up heat capacity lasers to powers of 100KW and beyond.
Chemical Lasers (USAF) Tactical weapons based on chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) together with hydrogen fluoride (HF) and deuterium fluoride. Evaluate the proposed Air Borne Tactical Laser.
Free Electron Laser.
For beam control develop illuminators, sensors, mirrors etc.
Determine lethality and affectivity of the pulsed versus continuous wave lasers.
Out of the many lasers, USAF research for the Air Borne Laser (ABL) 34 and Space Based Laser (SBL) System have advanced on the determined path. Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures programme (LAIRCOM) is aimed at arming C-17, and C130 air lifters, together with KC 135 tankers. USAF would be ready to deploy at least seven Boeing 747-400Fs with capabilities to engage ballistic missiles during their boost phase from a stand off distance of about 400 km. 35 The system is expected to be functional during the financial year 2005 and will hopefully be completed by the year 2009. The Space Based Laser (SBL) deployment will take longer than ABL. The entire system would comprise 20-40 satellites at altitudes of 700-1300 km for global coverage. The system would be able to engage any ballistic missile with a range of more than 120 km during its boost phase. 36 Each satellite equipped to carry acquisition, tracking and pointing system using low power illuminator and a high energy laser with a range of more than 3,000 km, would engage the missile. The system fits all the QR of the much talked National Missile Defence (NMD) of USA.

US Army's joint programme with the Israeli scientific community which began in 1996 has brought about the development of the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL), which could destroy a Katyusha rocket in flight carrying a live warhead. 37 On its success, Lt Gen Costello commented that " we have just turned science fiction into reality" But it seems that the statement cannot be taken just at face value. There is a subtle warning about the US's emergence as the sole leader in the field of DEW without a challenger to be seen anywhere.

DEW of India

DEW are not mentioned in the Indian defence environment because it is more or less taken for granted that such weapon systems are beyond our means and that is why they do not feature in any of the military studies. Indian military may not be thinking of application of laser beyond laser ranging and laser designation. Recently a study has been ordered by the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) to look into the feasibility of the DEW. Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the only research organisation in India serving Indian defence purposes has certain research projects on laser weapons but it is not known what the state of that research is and whether any weapon system is developed for deployment with the armed forces. But before the Indian Armed Forces can lay their hands on the DEW and employ them, they may undertake defensive measures.

Defensive Tactics Against Directed Energy Weapons

As has been already described that DEW include lasers, Particle Beam (PB) and High Power Micro (HPM) wave weapons. These weapons produce casualties and damage equipment by depositing energy on the target. Whereas, conventional weapons rely upon kinetic/chemical energy of a projectile to destroy the target. DEW depend upon sub atomic particles or electromagnetic waves impacting on the target at or near the speed of light and are expected to cause damage to soft targets like personnel, soft components of hard targets, like optics. It is expected that the equipment fielded in future wars will be built with certain amount of hardening against DEW attacks and older equipment may be refitted with protective devices. But presently the armed forces personnel should be taught to defend themselves against these weapons.

Defence against Laser

Laser systems will definitely be fielded by the enemies of Indian armed forces in some form or the other. There is increasing evidence of the presence of laser devices in the inventories of all the armed forces, like target designator or a laser range finder. And the most probable target of laser weapons will be optical and electro-optical systems, and the personnel behind the sights. A laser beam entering a direct view optical system such as a telescope will have its power magnified. Anyone looking through the system will suffer burns to the eyes. The severity of the burns, the permanence of the damage and the time required for healing will depend upon weather conditions, the intensity of the laser, magnification of the optical laser and the duration of the eye's exposure to the laser. Eye injury may range from temporary flash blinding and mild burns to total blindness. A soldier subjected to this type of injury may be incapacitated and unable to aim his weapon. It is anticipated that a laser weapon will fire at a target for a split second and aim at another. Laser weapons fired against individuals could cause burns. As the eye is more sensitive during the night, laser energy entering the eye during darkness will have a greater effect than it would during daylight. Certain forms of laser will be hazardous to soldier's eyes even though the laser cannot be seen.

A laser beam entering an electro optical device, such as night vision sights or thermal imagery device, will deposit its energy in the form of heat on the sensor screens inside. There are chances that this can burn out the screen, making the device useless. Any uncovered glass surface ( eyeglasses, vision blocks, or binoculars) has the potential to attract or alert an anti electro-optical weapon's target acquisition system. However, it is not precisely known about the effect of a laser beam on human beings.

How to avoid anti-electro-optical weapon systems:

Fire artillery, mortars or direct fire weapons to suppress known or suspected anti-electro-optical weapons locations. Smoke rounds are very good for temporarily defeating laser devices.
While operating from static positions within line of sight of known or suspected enemy locations, minimise the exposure of glass surfaces in the direction of the enemy by positioning vehicles and weapons in covered or concealed positions.
When there is a possibility of the exposure of many glass surfaces, block the line of sight between friendly forces and known or suspected enemy locations with smoke or by planning routes to minimise this exposure time.
Sound tactics will prevent enemy from locating weapons and prevent subsequent attack by laser devices.
All devices that have external glass surfaces and are not in use should be covered or shielded until needed. Even vision blocks and headlights can alert anti-electro-optical weapon tagged acquisition systems, so these must be included when taking protective measures.
Reduced number of personnel in observation, will reduce possibility of injuries. Use of night vision goggles and thermal night sights when possible to protect these observers.
Tubular extensions over optical lenses will lessen their chances of being detected except from almost head on.
Low energy anti-electro-optical weapons will work only if they have line of sight to their target. However, smoke, fog, snow and dust will degrade their effectiveness. Another countermeasure would be to cover part of your optical lenses with tape or some other type of cover. Some degradation of the viewing will occur but it would be a direct benefit by reducing vulnerability.
Defence Against EMP Weapons

Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) can severely damage or destroy sensitive electronic equipment such as microchips, coils and fuses by overloading them with electrical current. 38 Any equipment containing electronic components is subject to damage or destruction from EMP attack. The amount of damage to equipment depends on its distance from the source of the pulse and type of hardening it had. An EMP attack lasts only for a split second and affects a large area. Protecting equipment against such an attack is extremely difficult. The only way to protect equipment would be to totally encase the equipment in a metallic shielding. Burying or covering with sandbags or other nonmetallic materials will not provide any protection. Terrain masking is also ineffective because EMP follows the curvature of the earth. While operating from combat vehicles, sensitive equipment not needed for use at the moment should be disconnected and moved to the center of the vehicle. Hatch cover should be kept closed. By doing this, only a minimum of equipment is susceptible to destruction and the remainder is available for use after the attack. Direct or indirect fire weapons within range should attack known EMP generating ground-based weapons.

Defence against PBW

Particle beam is a directed flow of atomic or sub atomic particles. When concentrated into a beam that can interact with a target it can melt or fracture target material. But it is not known whether a particle beam weapon is ready for deployment by any country. The defence against the same will be similar to that of the other DEW as discussed earlier. Commanders at all levels will have to bring awareness to their subordinates to this new dimension of threat that is emerging and will become a reality in the next round of combat.

Impact of Directed Energy Weapons

RMA is gaining ground in the thought process of the military strategists of the entire world and there is no doubt that the changes are technology and information driven. While discussing these, Kapil Kak of IDSA mentioned that;

"Technology change may well revolutionise warfare in the 21st century. Countries that can exploit emerging technologies and synergise the same with innovative operational doctrines and organizational adaptation could doubtless achieve far higher levels of relative military effectiveness." 39

Technology changes are round the corner and these would be more dangerous and more lethal than anything seen or experienced before the directed energy weapons. Neither do they make any noise nor do they inform about their deployment. The super observation capability of a nation may discover the design of an adversary but it would be very difficult to determine the time and direction of the attack and the effectiveness. For example, the EMP weapons could write off the entire computer systems and throw the command and control in complete disarray. Few military analysts know how to combat this new dimension of warfare. A complete paradigm shift is expected when the Laser and Particle beam weapons are brought in. Nuclear bombs and the perceived threat from them vis a vis these new developments have to be analysed by the military thinkers and effective action taken before being completely surprised. It would not be very easy to assess the impact of these weapons because of their peculiarities and the absence of collateral damage scenario. Collateral electrical damage is the most likely possibility. It may paralyse a nation for few days, but as long it does not affect a human being no one will raise a finger at the aggressor and. make an issue out of it. The aggressor will achieve his purpose. Nuclear doctrines, mutually assured destruction, limited response, (CTBT), (MCTR) etc will lose their relevance in the backdrop of the silent revolution of DEW. The Air Borne Laser system to be deployed by USA, with capability to destroy a missile with any range beyond 120 km at boost phase is not very far away. But the Space based laser or particle beam weapon capable of punching a hole in any missile at a range of 3000 km or more can only be analysed to an extent.

Indian military planners must take these new threats into their force structuring or else they will face a new kind of battlefield unknown to them. The concept of DEW application is like the morning star on the horizon. It looks good but is difficult to reach. The DRDO is in the process of developing some of these weapon systems but till such time it is made available with the military, the system cannot be integrated with other weapons in the inventory of the Indian Armed Forces. DRDO may carry on with their own research and will be welcomed by the armed forces if they produce something worthwhile and hand it over to the Indian military. But it would be consistent to suggest that Indian Armed Forces must have their own laboratories manned by dedicated scientists, to develop the futuristic weapons under proven military scientific leadership or else the technological world will drive past the door of the Indian military and the RMA will be the word of the analysts only. It should be understood by the Indian military system that technology driven RMA is brought about by weapons or systems exploiting powerful combinations of technologies, combined with supporting doctrine and organisation. Input process being the technology breakthrough and the output being the RMA.

Whether the current technological breakthrough in relation to DEW is real term RMA or not, cannot be defined readily now. Because after detailed strategic analysis only, can it be assessed, whether the new weapons can render obsolete or irrelevant one or more core components of a dominant player in the new dimension of warfare. But it cannot be discounted either. The cyberspace-based technologies supported by the DEW in a future conflict might inflict unacceptable damage, sufficient to significantly alter the course of the conflict. Revolution in Military Affairs is however unclear and definitely not taking a predictive course. That is why a hypothesis can only be drawn from the present about the future.

masonfree party

11-01-2008, 11:52 PM

DEWS did 911 doesn't seem so far fetched now does it?

cyince

12-01-2008, 12:24 AM

One telling quote from the article
DEW are not mentioned in the Indian defence environment because it is more or less taken for granted that such weapon systems are beyond our means and that is why they do not feature in any of the military studies. Emphasis mine

What would power this DEW masonfree, as it would require extremely high amounts of energy?

weston white

12-01-2008, 02:27 AM

We do now that such systems do exist on small scale but for them to work on such a large scale (and so effectively nonetheless), I do not see that as being possible.

masonfree party

12-01-2008, 10:00 AM

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13122

Quote:
Fujita Yukihisa,DPJ, asked the question regarding the truth of 9.11 to the current Prime Minister Fukuda. With the panel,he explained the conspiracy theory and made the pants of prime minister sweaty because he was the Chief Cabinet Secretary under Koizumi cabinet in 2001. He pointed out the fact that the 7th tower collapsed even though air plane did not hit it and there was the suspect of insider dealing that people benefit by using the Put Option.

If the attack was not done by Al-Qaeda,then the Iraq war cannnot be justified, so the decision of sending the Japanese self-defense force to Iraq cannot be justified as well. Thefore, the self-defense force does not need to provide the oil to the American military in order to support the operation in Iraq. It is China and Japan buying the large share of American Treasury bond,so if China and Japan stop buying the bond, America cannnot finance the war in Iraq anymore whoever become the President after Bush. Hopefully, Ron Paul will become the President and bring peace to the world.

zarah

12-01-2008, 10:04 AM

In Britain, where unfortunately I live, there's huge suspect coverage of the US election, and yet Ron Paul's name hasn't once been mentioned on any news programme that Ive watched, which proves to me he deserves to be president :p

masonfree party

12-01-2008, 10:14 AM

we haven't a clue what goes on regards research into DEWS so no point in asking questions about what powers it etc...they are probably 30 years in advance of what they let out to the public

masonfree party

12-01-2008, 10:30 AM

During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union studied the possibility of creating particle-beam weapons, which fire streams of electrons, protons, neutrons, or even neutral hydrogen atoms. The kinetic energy imparted by a particle stream destroys the target by heating the target’s atoms to the point that the material literally explodes very much like the twin towers did...

April 28, 2006
The Viability of Directed-Energy Weapons
by Alane Kochems and Andrew Gudgel
Backgrounder #1931

When directed-energy weapons are mentioned, most people think of “death rays” or Hollywood’s lat*est science fiction movie. However, directed-energy weapons (DEWs) are a reality, and several have already been tested under battlefield conditions.[1] They may begin to appear on the battlefield within the next decade, bringing a revolution in weapons and how war is waged.

While DEWs are not the solution to all combat sit*uations, these technologies would provide the U.S. military with additional flexibility in tailoring its response to different types of threats. However, con*siderable work still needs to be done before they can be deployed. These technologies need the full support of the armed services, and the Department of Defense (DOD) needs to generate clear guidelines for their use.

The Pentagon believes that DEWs are legal under international law, but human rights groups are argu*ing that DEWs could be used inhumanely. Putting the proper protocols in place should mitigate these con*cerns. While DEWs are not a panacea, the armed ser*vices should fully support research and development of these useful technologies.

Weapons Revolutions

From the Stone Age until the Middle Ages, a weapon’s power was limited by the strength of the man wielding it or, in the case of bows, by the strength of material from which it was made. In the late Middle Ages, a revolution in the weaponry occurred when chemical-powered (gunpowder) weapons began to replace swords and bows. This revolution changed the nature of warfare: not just tactics, but also the usefulness of armor, castles, and then-popular weapons.

Since the invention of gunpowder, a weapon’s effectiveness has no longer depended on the wielder’s strength, but on the chemical energy of the propellant or explosive. While centuries of technological advances have improved the power of these materials, the basic operating principle of chemical-powered weapons ultimately remains the same. Modern battlefield weapons are the descen*dents of muskets and cannon.

Another revolution in weaponry is currently underway, with directed-energy weapons on the cusp of replacing chemical-powered weapons on the battlefield. DEWs use the electromagnetic spectrum (light and radio energy) to attack pin*point targets at the speed of light. They are well-suited to defending against threats such as mis*siles and artillery shells, which DEWs can shoot down in mid-flight. In addition, controllers can vary the strength of the energy put on a target, unlike a bullet or exploding bomb, allowing for nonlethal uses.

The Beginning of Directed-Energy Weapons

Both the Allies and the Axis powers conducted basic research and studies into primitive directed-energy weapons before World War II. However, British scientists calculated that the electronic sys*tems of the time could not generate the power nec*essary for a “death ray,” and research was redirected into early radar detection systems.[2]

During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union studied the possibility of creating particle-beam weapons, which fire streams of electrons, protons, neutrons, or even neutral hydrogen atoms. The kinetic energy imparted by a particle stream destroys the target by heating the target’s atoms to the point that the material literally explodes very much like the twin towers did.
These weapons were considered for both land and space-based systems. However, because beam strength degrades rapidly as the particles react with the atoms in the atmosphere, it requires an enormous power plant to generate a weapons-grade beam. The countries abandoned particle-beam weapon research as impracticable.[3]

How Lasers Work

Albert Einstein described the theoretical under*pinnings of lasers in 1917. However, the first work*ing laser was not built until 1960, opening an entirely new avenue of directed-energy research. Lasers produce narrow, single-frequency (i.e., sin*gle-color), coherent beams of light that are much more powerful than ordinary light sources.

Laser light can be produced by a number of dif*ferent methods, ranging from rods of chemically doped glass to energetic chemical reactions to semiconductors. One of the most promising laser devices is the free-electron laser. This laser uses rings of magnetically confined electrons whirling at the speed of light to produce laser beams that can be tuned up and down the electromagnetic spec*trum from microwaves to ultraviolet light.[4]

Lasers produce either continuous beams or short, intense pulses of light in every spectrum from infrared to ultraviolet. X-ray lasers may be possible in the not too distant future. The power output necessary for a weapons-grade laser ranges from 10 kilowatts to 1 megawatt. When a laser beam strikes a target, the energy from the photons in the beam heats the target to the point of combus*tion or melting. Because the laser energy travels at the speed of light, lasers are particularly well-suited for use against moving targets such as rockets, mis*siles, and artillery projectiles.

One problem that affects laser beam strength is a phenomenon known as “blooming,” which occurs when the laser beam heats the atmosphere through which it is passing, turning the air into plasma. This causes the beam to lose focus, dissipating its power. However, a variety of optical methods can be used to correct for blooming. Laser beams also lose energy through absorption or scattering if fired through dust, smoke, or rain.

The number of “shots” a laser weapon can pro*duce is limited only by its power supply. Depend*ing on the type of laser, this means that the weapon can have an almost “endless magazine” of laser bursts. In addition, a laser shot (including the cost of producing the energy) is much cheaper than a shot from a chemical-powered weapon system. For example, when deployed, the anti–ballistic missile Airborne Laser will cost approximately $1,000 per shot,[5] while each Patriot missile currently costs $2 million to $3 million.[6]

Current Laser Technology

Because they were invented several decades ago, lasers are the most mature of the DEW technolo*gies. Laser dazzlers—devices that use laser light to temporarily blind sensors, optics, and personnel— are already available for law enforcement and mili*tary use. In 1995, the Chinese military marketed the ZM-87 laser interference device, a tripod-mounted battlefield laser dazzler designed to blind enemy soldiers and optics temporarily. In March 2003, North Korea may have used a ZM-87 to “paint” two U.S. Apache helicopters patrolling the Demilitarized Zone.[7]

The two U.S. laser weapons systems closest to actual deployment are the Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL) and the Airborne Laser (ABL).

Development of the THEL began in 1996 as a joint program between the United States and Israel to develop a laser system capable of shooting down Katyusha rockets, artillery, and mortar shells. The THEL system uses radar to detect and track incom*ing targets. This information is then transferred to an optical tracking system, which refines the target tracking and positions the beam director. The deu*terium fluoride chemical laser fires, hitting the rocket or shell and causing it to explode far short of its intended target.[8]

In August 2004, the THEL system shot down multiple mortar rounds during testing. However, the Army felt the fixed-base laser system was too large and cut funding for the program after the demonstration phase. Research was also conducted on a mobile version of the THEL called the MTEL.[9]

The ABL is a system that uses a megawatt chem*ical laser mounted on a modified Boeing 747 to shoot down theater ballistic missiles. The system consists of several modules: an infrared detection system to detect the missile’s launch; the Tracking Illumination Laser (TILL); the Beacon Illuminator Laser (BILL); and the Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL).[10]

Once tracked by the TILL, the BILL measures the atmospheric distortion between the COIL and the missile. These data are then passed on to the mirror system, which makes appropriate corrections so that, when the COIL fires, maximum energy is transmitted to the target. The skin of the missile heats up, melts, and deforms, and the target breaks up in midair.[11]

The megawatt-class laser was tested at full power in early 2006. The Beacon Illuminator Laser sys*tem, which measures and corrects for atmospheric distortion, has also been shipped to Boeing for test*ing.[12] A complete prototype ABL weapons system will be assembled in 2006.[13]

A related project is the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) system, which uses a less powerful version of the ABL’s COIL laser, instead of missiles, to attack ground targets. The laser is being built and will be tested in mid-2006. Boeing has received a C-130H transport aircraft from the Air Force and is modify*ing it for installation of the laser system. The full system will be fitted to the aircraft by 2007 and test-fired against ground targets.[14]

One shortcoming of laser weapons is that their beams travel only in straight lines, which means they have no indirect-fire mode and cannot shoot beyond the system’s visual horizon. The DOD Office of Force Transformation (OFT), in conjunc*tion with the Air Force Research Laboratory, is developing the Tactical Relay Mirror System (TRMS), which would use a mirror system mounted on an aerostat or UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) to redirect the beams from laser weapons such as the ATL and ABL. Design specifications are already being determined.[15]

How Microwave Weapons Work

Written off as impractical during World War II, technological advances have now made microwave weapons feasible. However, current research focuses on using them as a means of nonlethal area defense and as anti-electronic weapons rather than as “death rays.”

High-power microwave (HPM) weapons work by producing either beams or short bursts of high-frequency radio energy. Similar in principle to the microwave oven, the weapons produce energies in the megawatt range.[16] When the microwave energy encounters unshielded wires or electronic compo*nents, it induces a current in them, which causes the equipment to malfunction. At higher energy levels, the microwaves can permanently “burn out” equipment, much as a close lightning strike could.

Semiconductors and modern electronics are par*ticularly susceptible to HPM attacks. Electronic devices can be shielded by putting conductive metal cages around them; however, enough micro*wave energy may still get through the shielding to damage the device.

The short, intense bursts of energy produced by HPM devices damage equipment without injuring personnel. Mounted on properly shielded aircraft or ships, or dropped in single-use “e-bombs,” HPM weapons could destroy enemy radars, anti-aircraft installations, and communications and computer networks and even defend against incoming anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles. With the ever-increasing use of electronics in weapons systems, HPM devices could have a devastating but nonle*thal effect on the battlefield.

Current Microwave Weapons

HPM weapon technology is based on the same technology as radar devices, which already have a long history of research and development. How*ever, no military has yet openly deployed HPM weapons. Current HPM research focuses on pulsed power devices, which create intense, ultrashort bursts of electrical energy and would be used to power the microwave generator of an HPM weapon. The Air Force Research Lab’s Propulsion Directorate has studied using generators that use high-temperature superconducting wire and high-voltage capacitors.[17]

Another power source, well-suited to one-time use in an e-bomb, is the Explosively Pumped Flux Compression Generator (EPFCG). The EPFCG uses chemical explosives to compress an electri*cally charged coil. This destroys the device but pro*duces electrical pulses in the terawatt range—the equivalent of 10 to 1,000 lightning strikes.[18]

Paired with a microwave generator, an EPFCG could produce an ultrashort, intense microwave burst. Depending on factors such as burst height, microwave frequency, and the shielding around the target electronics, such an e-bomb could have an effective range of several hundred meters.[19]

A subset of HPM devices can affect the human body. Millimeter waveband energy can penetrate human skin to a very shallow depth, heating the tissue below. This produces a burning pain without actually damaging the tissue. The pain forces the person to flee the area. This type of weapon shows great potential as a riot-control device or area-denial system.[20]

The Active Denial System (ADS) is a nonlethal anti-personnel DEW that uses millimeter-wave*length beams to create a painful sensation in an individual without causing actual injury. It is rela*tively close to deployment. The system generates a focused beam of energy at the frequency of 95 giga*hertz. These waves penetrate only a few millimeters into the skin and cause the sensation of heat. The sensation increases in intensity until the affected individual moves out of the beam or it is shut off. There is no injury to the target individual.[21]

A demonstration system was tested at Kirtland Air Force Base in 2000. A year later, testing showed that the ADS could produce effects at ranges beyond current small-arms range. A prototype ADS system mounted on a Humvee went into testing in August 2005.[22]

The Future of DEW

Future research will seek to increase the power and decrease the size of DEW systems. As they become smaller, DEW weapons will first be vehi*cle-mounted and then possibly man-portable. The death ray of science fiction may in fact become a reality in the not too distant future.

Lasers are becoming smaller and more powerful. For example, a recent test of a solid-state laser by Northrop Grumman produced a continuous 27-kilowatt beam that lasted just under six minutes.[23]

A possible future development is the electrolaser. Electrolasers make use of laser bloom, a normally undesired effect. In an electrolaser, twin laser beams create an ionized channel inside the atmo*sphere, which conducts electricity. A high-voltage electrical charge is then fed into one of the laser beams, striking the target. The electrical shock is enough to stun personnel, detonate improvised explosive devices, or destroy electronic equipment.

Improvements in energy-generating systems may also make particle-beam weapons feasible. Particle beams would have tremendous power as weapons. Like lasers, particle beams travel at the speed of light, but unlike lasers, the particles in a particle beam have mass, giving the beam tremen*dous kinetic energy.

At some point in the future, entire military units may be armed with only DEWs. A mechanized unit advancing through a town, protected by an anti-artillery and anti-missile laser shield, clearing the surrounding buildings of snipers and enemy troops with an active denial system, and using electrolas*ers to stun them before taking them prisoner, all while using HPM weapons to render the enemy’s communications useless, would be a powerful mil*itary unit indeed.

Policy and Legal Implications for DEWs

Weapons designed to cause undue suffering are banned under the Geneva Convention, and human rights groups argue that directed-energy weapons raise a host of new legal and moral concerns that do not apply to previous generations of conventional weapons. For example, while the Chinese ZM-87 laser interference device is technically a laser daz*zler, it can permanently damage the human eye at a distance of two to three kilometers.[24] Would the permanent blinding of a soldier struck by a ZM-87’s laser beam be considered intentional or acci*dental? Does the mere use of a weapon that can cause permanent blindness constitute inflicting undue suffering? The humanitarian community is also concerned about the long-term biological effects of DEWs (microwaves in particular) and their possible use against civilian targets.[25]

However, a stronger counterargument is that directed-energy weapons, especially lasers, are more humane than conventional weapons because they can strike pinpoint targets, thus causing less collateral damage. A laser weapon could target not only a single vehicle in a convoy, but also a specific spot on that vehicle (e.g., the engine) and disable it without injuring the passengers. Furthermore, the power of lasers and microwave weapons has decreased, allowing for nonlethal uses.

DEW technology is changing faster than interna*tional laws and treaties can adapt. General DOD policy is that directed-energy weapons can be used legitimately on the battlefield. As with all new weapons, the DOD General Counsel reviews each DEW for compliance with international and U.S. laws before the Pentagon is allowed to field it.[26] Most DEWs are not yet far enough along in devel*opment and thus have not received this final stamp of approval.

As the Pentagon addresses these issues, it should do so in the same way that it would for any other category of weapon that it has reviewed. While some uses may be illegal (e.g., targeting an unarmed civilian who in no way poses a threat), other uses are just as assuredly legal and legitimate.

Fixing the Research and Deployment Bottlenecks

While directed-energy research is advancing, inadequate funding is hindering more rapid devel*opment and deployment of these technologies. The military has rhetorically embraced the wonders of DEWs, but it has not always opened its wallet to fund the technologies.

True support for a program is often best mea*sured by the resources that an organization is will*ing to devote to it. For instance, the Active Denial System was not ready for deployment when the United States invaded Iraq, in part because the money was not there. The Defense Department and Congress should start to fund promising and proven DEW technology so that promising weapon systems can move from the lab to the battlefield where they can help military personnel.

Conclusion

DEW technology and its enabling infrastructure have matured to the point that DEWs can begin moving from the lab to the battlefield. While directed-energy technology is not the panacea for all situations that its most ardent advocates claim, it can give the U.S. military flexibility in tailoring its responses (e.g., lethal or nonlethal) to different types of targets (humans or machines).

Much work needs to be done before DEWs are deployed. The armed services need to move from just saying that DEWs are a good idea to fully sup*porting their development. The Defense Depart*ment needs to establish clear guidelines for using the technology. The speed, ultraprecision, and non*lethal capabilities of directed-energy weapons are all good reasons why the United States should con*tinue to research, develop, and, where appropriate, field these technologies.

—Alane Kochems is a Policy Analyst for National Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Stud*ies, at The Heritage Foundation. Andrew Gudgel, a former Army Warrant Officer, is currently a freelance writer.

cruise4

12-01-2008, 10:39 AM

This happened last night on the number 1 Japanese network pumped into every Japanese home. Interrogation of PM for 30 minutes about the truth concerning 9/11.

The wheels are coming off their train!

PM Japan 9/11

9 min - Jan 10, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX9PQayrX-s

"Why the WTC towers collapsed?"

10 min - Jan 10, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhlYD0uguiQ

"How could terrorists attacked the Pentagon?"

8 min - Jan 10, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5LHUInaZ9M

Another radio program 90 Minutute interview: http://www.guba.com/watch/3000103979?duration_step=0&fields=23

UPDATE: Actually it contains more elaboration as to what has been occuring.

Can anyone translate any of this?

masonfree party

12-01-2008, 11:06 AM

Japanese MP questions 911 tru
th in parliament
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13122

Quote:
Fujita Yukihisa,DPJ, asked the question regarding the truth of 9.11 to the current Prime Minister Fukuda. With the panel,he explained the conspiracy theory and made the pants of prime minister sweaty because he was the Chief Cabinet Secretary under Koizumi cabinet in 2001. He pointed out the fact that the 7th tower collapsed even though air plane did not hit it and there was the suspect of insider dealing that people benefit by using the Put Option.

If the attack was not done by Al-Qaeda,then the Iraq war cannnot be justified, so the decision of sending the Japanese self-defense force to Iraq cannot be justified as well. Thefore, the self-defense force does not need to provide the oil to the American military in order to support the operation in Iraq. It is China and Japan buying the large share of American Treasury bond,so if China and Japan stop buying the bond, America cannnot finance the war in Iraq anymore whoever become the President after Bush. Hopefully, Ron Paul will become the President and bring peace to the world.

masonfree party

12-01-2008, 11:14 AM

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:49 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anybody got any result from this? Well reposted, planetfrog. I suspect this has previously gone under people's radar; it's certainly new to me.
This could provide a handle to approach our MP's and MEP's, particularly anti-war MP's and MEP's. If Japanese Parliamentarians have the guts to question the veracity of the NWO War Criminals, how come the UK, the 'Mother of Parliaments', dare not raise the issue?

masonfree party

12-01-2008, 04:29 PM

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: People of Japan question their Prime Minister about 9/11 Tru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People of Japan question their Prime Minister about 9/11 Truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« on: January 11, 2008, 11:51:32 AM »

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
This happened last night on the number 1 Japanese network pumped into every Japanese home. Interrogation of PM for 30 minutes about the truth concerning 9/11.

The wheels are coming off their train!

PM Japan 9/11

9 min - Jan 10, 2008 - (1 rating)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX9PQayrX-s

"Why the WTC towers collapsed?"新テロ...

10 min - Jan 10, 2008 - (4 ratings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhlYD0uguiQ

"How could terrorists attacked the Pentagon?"

8 min - Jan 10, 2008 - (1 rating)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5LHUInaZ9M

Apologies,i see someone has already posted this.

cyince

12-01-2008, 05:29 PM

we haven't a clue what goes on regards research into DEWS so no point in asking questions about what powers it etc...they are probably 30 years in advance of what they let out to the public

What facts do you base this on? Why wouldn't one question things like the powers source? People have done calculations with regard to how much energy would be needed, (to 'dustify' the WTCs), and its a massive amount (like more power then the us currently produces). So it would be my contention that it would be virtually impossible to hide the source of this power, or for the draw of power to go unnoticed.

masonfree party

12-01-2008, 10:20 PM

don't people realise how big this news is?...should be a 'sticky'

joor

12-01-2008, 10:37 PM

Well not everyone understand it,i dont :)

mindsplinter

12-01-2008, 10:44 PM

It was 2003 and I was listening to a professor from Shang Hi, who is american and teaching college in China. The professor was using the 9/11 event to teach his students how a free country can be captured and taken over by Communists. He showed them all of the anomolies about the supposed terrorist attack. The buildings crumbling into powder. It was easy for the students to pick up on because they weren't near as dumbed down as the Americans are. The professor talked about the laws and the homeland non-security of the Bushits administration. He showed how they started a war and that it was all on a false assumption from 9/11

Still the people in the States slumber on in their media induced comas.

druggalo

13-01-2008, 12:54 AM

im not sure if the goverment planed for planes to hit the pentagon being its where they conduct thier evil , but i do belive bush and the masons planed the twin towers falling to blame it on the arabs to profit and convince americans we had to go to war ,(so they could get the oil) not to mention all the fear ,hate, and sadness it generated .(. one very stange thing is back in 1990 i purchased i deck of terrot cards and recently found them and one of the cards shows towers falling and ppl jumping out falling to their death, they were printed in 79. i could scan it but how do i post it without a url?

horus21

13-01-2008, 01:02 AM

I think Subtitles would be a great idea.

masonfree party

13-01-2008, 01:09 AM

well this story has had 7753 views on http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=21901.0

www.whatreallyhappened.com does a good coverage also but Icke hasn't mentioned it...

YouTube - ã€Œï¼™ï¼‘ï¼‘ã¯æé€ ï¼Ÿã€"Why the WTC towers collapsed?"æ–°ãƒ†ãƒ*æ³•æ¡ˆæ–*å›ºåå¯¾ï¼å•è²¬æ±ºè*°æ¡ˆæå‡ ºã‚’ï¼
Fujita Yukihisa,DPJ, asked the question regarding the truth of 9.11 to the current Prime Minister Fukuda. With the panel,he explained the conspiracy theory and made the pants of prime minister sweaty because he was the Chief Cabinet Secretary under Koizumi cabinet in 2001. He pointed out the fact that the 7th tower collapsed even though air plane did not hit it and there was the suspect of insider dealing that people benefit by using the Put Option.
If the attack was not done by Al-Qaeda,then the Iraq war cannnot be justified, so the decision of sending the Japanese self-defense force to Iraq cannot be justified as well. Thefore, the self-defense force does not need to provide the oil to the American military in order to support the operation in Iraq. It is China and Japan buying the large share of American Treasury bond,so if China and Japan stop buying the bond, America cannnot finance the war in Iraq anymore whoever become the President after Bush. Hopefully, Ron Paul will become the President and bring peace to the world.

Posted Jan 12, 2008 09:29 AM PST

"How could terrorists attacked the Pentagon?"
Fujita Yukihisa,DPJ, asked the question regarding the truth of 9.11 to the current Prime Minister Fukuda. With the panel,he explained the conspiracy theory and made the pants of prime minister sweaty because he was the Chief Cabinet Secretary under Koizumi cabinet in 2001. He pointed out the inconvinience facts showing the pannel. If the attack was not done by Al-Qaeda,then the Iraq war cannnot be justified, so the decision of sending the Japanese self-defense force to Iraq cannot be justified as well. Thefore, the self-defense force does not need to provide the oil to the American military in order to support the operation in Iraq. It is China and Japan buying the large share of American Treasury bond,so if China and Japan stop buying the bond, America cannnot finance the war in Iraq anymore whoever become the President after Bush. Hopefully, Ron Paul will become the President and bring peace to the world.
Posted Jan 12, 2008 09:28 AM PST
Category: 911

YouTube - Al-Qaeda the real suspect?"
Fujita Yukihisa,DPJ,asked the question to the current prime minister Fukuda regarding the truth of 9.11. He was arguing whether Terrorism is crime or war. Some Japanese people were killed, so he believes this was a crime, so Japanese police should investigate the real suspect even though Japanese government assumed that the suspect was Al-Queda since Bush told Koizumi so and sent the self-defense force to Iraq. Can Japanese police arrest president Bush if he was one of the suspects?
Posted Jan 12, 2008 09:26 AM PST
Category: 911

Inside the Martial Law Act of 2006
One might think that given the experience with the USA PATRIOT Act and many other abuses of power, Congress would be leery about giving this president his biggest blank check yet to suspend the Constitution. But that would be naive.
The new law was put in place in response to the debacle of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. There was no evidence that permitting a president far more power would avoid future debacles, but such a law provides a comfort blanket to politicians. The risk of tyranny is irrelevant compared with the reduction of risk of embarrassment to politicians. According to Washington, the correct response to Katrina is not to recognize the failure of relying on federal agencies a thousand miles away but rather to vastly increase the power of the president to dictate a solution, regardless of whether he knows what he is doing and regardless of whether local and state rights are trampled.

Posted Jan 12, 2008 08:47 AM PST
Category: DICTATORSHIP

Ex-Italian Prime Minister says 9/11 was carried out by CIA and Mossad
Posted Jan 12, 2008 08:46 AM PST
Category: 911

ukor

13-01-2008, 03:49 AM

we haven't a clue what goes on regards research into DEWS so no point in asking questions about what powers it etc...they are probably 30 years in advance of what they let out to the public

You blithely state this as if it lets you off the hook.

No doubt you similarly imagine Star Trek transporters are within our grasp.
Yet it would take a stack of hard drives reaching from here to the centre of the galaxy to encode the Heisenberg-free positions of every atom in a person.

DEW weapons of the power hypothesised about - and it's only a hypothesis - are similarly beyond current technology.

masonfree party

13-01-2008, 10:41 AM

You blithely state this as if it lets you off the hook.

No doubt you similarly imagine Star Trek transporters are within our grasp.
Yet it would take a stack of hard drives reaching from here to the centre of the galaxy to encode the Heisenberg-free positions of every atom in a person.

DEW weapons of the power hypothesised about - and it's only a hypothesis - are similarly beyond current technology.

so where did all the missing material/rubble pile go from the towers?...something turned it into tiny dust particles...give me a better explanation then?

cyince

13-01-2008, 03:44 PM

so where did all the missing material/rubble pile go from the towers?...something turned it into tiny dust particles...give me a better explanation then?
What missing rubble? The cleanup effort took eight months with crews working 24 hours a day. So what rubble do you think was missing?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/30/rec.wtc.cleanup/
The ceremony marked the end of cleanup efforts after eight months and 108,342 truckloads of debris. The cleanup was originally estimated to last a year.

There are extensive photographs of the clean up, and debris pile.
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_damage_02.html
http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc035.jpg
http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Profiles/9-11/Multimedia/Cleanup.jpg
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/articles/sep06/ste29.jpeg
This was just the 1st page of google images. So how much more debris do you think there should have been?

ukor

13-01-2008, 08:22 PM

so where did all the missing material/rubble pile go from the towers?...something turned it into tiny dust particles...give me a better explanation then?

What missing material/rubble?

Look at the numbers in this thread:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13077

weston white

13-01-2008, 11:30 PM

It blanketed the entire area with ~4 inches of powdery toxic dust. It launched massive steel beams into other buildings and onto the rooftops of other buildings. It piled steel up in twisted spaghetti piles around a 600+ foot radius. It made a very small select group of people, rich, very, very rich.

liltroofer

14-01-2008, 03:39 AM

trouble is, it was supposed to be a perfect, cloudless day, right?

cripes, if the whole media is lying, maybe they used weather control to make Guaranteed Sunshine®

anyway, it's a good find. may as well research EVERYTHING on 9/11. haha

hagbard_celine

14-01-2008, 03:20 PM

i think you're talking out of ya backside mate...the shadow wouldn't have changed that much in 15 mins even if it was a slightly different angle..bloody obvious the film was taken much earlier in the day

And a shadow falling on a distant object is not effected by what angle you're filming it from. The size and shape of a shadow is determinded by one thing: Where the sun is in relation to the object casting it. This is why the moon landing photos can't be real either.

masonfree party

14-01-2008, 09:07 PM

Member of Japanese Diet Doubts Official 9/11 Fairy Tale

Kurt Nimmo
Truth News
Sunday January 13, 2008

Don’t expect the New York Times or CNN to report on Fujita Yukihisa’s grilling of Japanese PM Fukuda over the official 9/11 fairy tale.

Yukihisa is a member of the House of Councillors in the Diet, that is to say the national legislature of Japan, and his questions about the transparent sham that is the official version of events is indeed a big deal — but not as important in America as the travails of Britney. Yukihisa’s presentation was all the more important due to the fact he was the Chief Cabinet Secretary under former PM Junichiro Koizumi in 2001.

Although we don’t yet have an English translation of the video — taped from Japanese television — now appearing on YouTube, the 911.video.de site posted the following, apparently a translation from Japanese:

On January 11th 2008 member of Parliament Yukihisa Fujita of the Japan Democratic party, made a 20 minute long statement at the House of Councillors, the upper house of the Diet (parliament) of Japan. He questioned the official version of 9/11 presented to the Japanese government and the public by the US administration in a session of the defense commission.

He asked the current Prime Minister Fukuda who was the Chief Cabinet Secretary under Koizumi cabinet in 2001.

“How could terrorists attacked the Pentagon?”

(Article continues below)

He asked whether Terrorism is crime or war. Some Japanese people were killed, so he believes this was a crime, so Japanese police should investigate the real suspect even though Japanese government assumed that the suspect was Al-Queda since Bush told Koizumi so and sent the self-defense force to Iraq. Can Japanese police arrest president Bush if he was one of the suspects?
The statement was made in connection with the discussion about the renewal of the Japanese logistic assistance program for the US navy in the “fight against terrorism”.

US President George W Bush has recently pressed Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to ensure Tokyo resumes crucial naval operations to support the war in Afghanistan. The Japan Democratic party which is in the opposition is blocking the resumption of the mission,which supplies fuel and water to US-led forces operating in the Indian Ocean.

The government wants to continue and to be part of the fight against terrorism. The opposition argues that the operation has not been approved formally by the United Nations. It claims that oil supplied by Japanese ships has been diverted for use in operations in Iraq, an accusation the Americans deny.

The government has made changes to the legislation which authorizes the mission. It has to be renewed every year after approval by parliament. The new law says Japanese ships can only refuel and supply water to vessels on anti-terrorism patrols. Ships involved in military operations — whether they be attacks, rescue operations or humanitarian relief — will not receive Japanese supplies.

Yukihisa Fujita did question Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba and Minister of Finance Fukushiro Nukaga about the way in which the US government did inform the Japanese government about the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Mr.Yukihisa Fujita stressed that of the 24 people that died on 9/11 only 13 were identified and 11 bodies remain unaccounted for. He pointed out that there was never an official police investigation into the deaths of these japanese nationals.

He then explained that in the USA many people doubt the official version of 9/11 and numerous websites and scientists have collected evidence that contradicts the governments version..

He presented several largescale photographs of:
a) the Pentagon entry and exit hole
b) the flight path towards the Pentagon
c) the exploding WTC towers
d) the WTC 7 collapse.

He concluded that the japanese governments support of the “war against terror” is solely based on information provided by the US-administration. He demanded further investigation in the face of the governments drive to support the war more actively.

Yukihisa Fujita was elected to the House of Councillors for the first time in 2007

The Democratic Party of Japan (Minshinto) is a social liberal political party founded in 1998 by the merger of several smaller parties.
It is the second-largest party in the House of Representatives and the largest party in the House of Councillors, and it constitutes the primary opposition to the long-dominant Liberal Democratic Party.

Here we have a respected Japanese politician asking on public television if Bush can be arrested in connection with events of September 11, 2001, and the corporate media finds this unworthy of publication or even mention in passing.

But then, of course, the neocon corporate media, snugly in bed with the “defense” industry and long ago sold down the river by the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, has ignored the coming out of former Italian president Francesco Cossiga, who declared the attack was a CIA and Mossad operation. As well, they have ignored former German Intelligence Minister Andreas von Bülow, who stated his informed belief that 9/11 was orchestrated at the highest level of the U.S. government.

Once again, another important news story is relegated to the memory hole.

liltroofer

14-01-2008, 09:18 PM

there has been a lot of recent coverage of the bogus Naudet movie.

however, i thought that the explosion shown was real and the plane faked.

are you saying even the explosion was an animation?

hagbard_celine

16-01-2008, 03:52 AM

there has been a lot of recent coverage of the bogus Naudet movie.

however, i thought that the explosion shown was real and the plane faked.

are you saying even the explosion was an animation?

There was an explosion because loads of New Yorkers saw it. Whether it was the same as the explosion in the film is another matter.;):confused:

adimon

16-01-2008, 04:18 AM

And a shadow falling on a distant object is not effected by what angle you're filming it from. The size and shape of a shadow is determinded by one thing: Where the sun is in relation to the object casting it. This is why the moon landing photos can't be real either.

The size and shape might not change, but the angle would change for definite.

Stand next to the wall in your corridor with the bathroom light on and the hallway light off and get a friend to take a picture from the hallway, and then another from the bathroom. See?

hagbard_celine

16-01-2008, 04:26 AM

The size and shape might not change, but the angle would change for definite.

Stand next to the wall in your corridor with the bathroom light on and the hallway light off and get a friend to take a picture from the hallway, and then another from the bathroom. See?

It would look different due to perspective yes, but the shadowed part of the wall and the part lit by the light would be the same.

cruise4

16-01-2008, 08:20 AM

http://benjaminfulford.com/Transcript%20of%20Japanese%20Parliamentary%20discu ssion%20of%20911.html

Fujita standing in front of microphone: .

This will be the last televised broadcast of this committee for so I would like to talk about the origin of the war on terrorism which was the attacks of 911. On September 11 of 2002 I went to a theater house for a charity concert to help build a school in Afghanistan. They chose to have the charity concert on that day as a gesture of respect for the dead. Normally 911 commemorative events are for the people who died in New York but the people who held this event decided that more innocent people died as a result of 911 in Afghanistan than in New York. So they built a grade school near where the statue of Buddha was destroyed in Bamiyan. The name of the school is "the school of hope." They also lit candles to commemorate the dead both in Afghanistan and in New York in the year 2002, one year after the attacks. So, when discussing these anti-terror laws we should ask ourselves, what was 911, what is terrorism? So today, I would like to talk about the beginning of the war on terror.

So, I would like to ask the people who call this law an anti-terror law to realize that the biggest victim of the war on terrorism has been Afghanistan so I believe helping the people of Afghanistan should be our biggest priority. I would like to ask Mr. Inuzuka about this.

Tadashi Inuzuka walking to the microphone:

As Mr. Fujita says the main purpose of this law is to provide peace and security to Afghanistan. And, as he says, the biggest sufferers have been the people of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has 1.7 times the land area of Japan and 20 some million people live there. Also, because of a drought on the Eurasian continent close to 5 million have died due to water shortages. Even now 1 million people live close to the main battlegrounds. So, the main purpose is to provide stability to those war zones so in that context what should Japan do? However, instead of providing support by providing fuel to the U.S. forces we at the Democratic Party have decided that providing water is more important. The philosophy behind our anti-terror law is to get the ruling party to help deal with this problem.

Head of the committee: Mr. Fujita

Mr. Fujita:

I would like to talk about the origins of this war on terrorism. You may recall that in November I asked you if terrorism was war or if it was a crime. And the whole start of this war on terrorism was 911. What I want to know is if this event was caused by Al Qaeda or not. So far the only thing the government has said is that we think it was caused by Al Qaeda because President Bush told us so. We have not seen any real proof that it was Al Qaeda. I would like to know why the Prime Minister thinks it was the Taliban who was responsible for 911. Committee Chief, I want to ask the Prime Minister because he was chief cabinet officer at the time.

Prime Minister Fukuda:

Since the attacks we have communicated with the U.S. government and other governments at different levels and exchanged information. According to secret information obtained by our government and reports put together by foreign governments the 911 attacks were carried out by the international terrorist organization known as Al Qaeda.

Mr. Fujita:

So, you are talking about both secret and disclosed information. My question is has the Japanese government carried out its own investigation using the police and other resources? It is a crime so surely an investigation needs to be carried out. When a Japanese journalist was shot in Myanmar you carried out an investigation. In the same way over 20 Japanese people died on 911 so surely the government carried out its own investigation and decided that Al Qaeda was responsible. So, what kind of investigation did you carry out? At the time you were Chief Cabinet Secretary so surely you would know better than anybody so I want to ask you about your investigation.

Prime Minister Fukuda:

After the 911 attacks the National Police Agency sent an emergency anti-terror team to New York. They met with U.S. government officials and gathered information about missing Japanese.

Mr. Fujita:

So you are saying over 20 people died as a result of a crime and most of those people were working in New York. Also there were some Japanese who died in the four airplanes that were hijacked. I would like to know exactly how many people died in the buildings and how many died in the airplanes. I also want to know how you confirmed this. I would like the Foreign Minister to answer for me.

Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura standing at right in front of microphone:

We found the bodies of over a dozen Japanese following the simultaneous terror attacks carried out on September 11 2001. We were also informed about the death of 11 more people by the U.S. authorities. In total 24 Japanese died in those attacks. Of those 2 were in the airplanes.

Mr. Fujita:

I would like to ask what flights the two Japanese who died in the airplanes were on and how you determined who they were. If the foreign minister does not know it is OK to get a bureaucrat to answer:

Foreign Ministry division chief Ryoji Tanizaki:

Since this a question of fact, I will answer. As the Foreign Minister said, of the 24 people who died two were on the airplanes. One of them was on United Flight 93 and the other was on American airlines flight 11.As for how we know this, well I do not have the information in front of me but we were told by U.S. authorities and, in general, they use DNA testing. So we believe that is how we know about those two people.

Mr. Fujita:

So you are saying you do not know because you do not have the documents. Also, you say you believe there was DNA testing but you do not know. So what I want to say today is that this was a crime and crimes are supposed to be investigated. So the government needs to inform the victims families of the results of their investigation. Also, instead of just observing the anniversary of 911 every year you must be gathering information and reacting to it. So, during the past six years have you been supplying the families of the deceased with information? I would like to ask the Foreign Minister to answer.

Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura:

So you do not want to ask any more about how we confirmed the deaths of Japanese but want to know about reports to the victims families? We provided the families with information about the bodies and about compensation funds. Also, for the 13 Japanese whose remains we found, we helped the families deal with the bodies. We also financial support visits to the World Trade Center site for the families on every anniversary.

Mr. Fujita:

Since I do not have much time I would like to ask about the suspicious information being uncovered and the doubts people world wide are having about the events of 911. Many of these doubters are very influential people. In such circumstances I believe the Japanese government, which claims the attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda, should be providing the victims families with this new information. In that context I would like to ask several questions.

First of all I would like to get all members of the committee to look at this panel and look at the pictures I have provided you with. This is concrete evidence in the form of photographs and other types of information. The first photograph has computer graphics attached to show how large the plane that hit the Pentagon was. A 757 is quite a large airplane with a width of 38 meters. So as you can see even though such a large plane hit the pentagon there is only a hole that is too small for the airplane. This is a photograph taken of firemen at work and you can also see there is no damage of the sort an airplane that large should make. I would also like you to look at the lawn in front and notice that there are no airplane parts on it. Let us now look at the third picture, which is also of the pentagon taken from a U.S. TV news report has captions that show the roof of the Pentagon is still intact. Again even though a huge airplane is supposed to have hit, there is not enough corresponding damage. Now let us move to the next photograph. Here is a photograph of a hole, as Minister Komura knows the Pentagon is a very strong building with many walls. Yet the airplane has pierced them. But as you know, airplanes are made of the lightest possible material. An airplane made of such light material could not make a hole like that. Next I would like to show a photograph of how the airplane hit the building. The airplane made a U-turn, avoiding the Defense Secretary's office and hitting the only part of the Pentagon that had been specially reinforced to withstand a bomb attack.

Also, in the middle of page five we have a comment from a U.S. airforce official. He says I have flown the two types of airplane used on 911 and I cannot believe it would be possible for someone who is flying one for the first time to be able to carry out such a maneuver. Also, as you know, they have not recovered the flight recorders from most of these 4 airplanes. Also, there were more than 80 security cameras at the Pentagon but they have refused to release almost all of the footage. In any case, as you have just seen there is no picture of the airplane or of its wreckage in any of these photographs. It is very strange that no such pictures have been shown to us.

As you know Japan's self-defense forces have their headquarters in Ichigaya. Can you imagine if an airplane hit a major city, if an hour and a half after an airplane hit New York that an airplane could hit the Pentagon? In such a situation how could our allies allow such an attack to take place. I would like the Defense Minister to answer this.

Defense Minister Fuyushiba Ishiba:

I have not prepared so I will have to answer ad-lib. If such a situation took place then the airforce would send fighters up to shoot down any airplanes. This is what happened with an attack on the German constitutional court. In the case of Japan our reaction would depend on what kind of airplane it was, who was flying it and what their purpose was. However, according to our laws it might be hard to order an airplane to be shot down just because it was flying at a low level. We would probably have self-defense forces fly with it and ask for a cabinet decision. Since an airplane would have many people on board we would have do discuss what to do. This happened a long time ago but a Cesna airplane was flown into the house of a person called Yoshio Kodama. There was also an All Japan Airways flight bound for Hakodate that was hijacked and had the pilot killed. It would be best if such a thing never happened but we need to prepare new laws for such situations and discuss them in Parliament.

Mr. Fujita:

Since we are running out of time I would like to present a new piece of evidence. Please look at this panel. The first picture is one you see often of the two towers that were hit by hijacked airplanes. I could understand if this happened right after the airplanes hit but here we can see large piece of material flying a large distance through the air. Some flew 150 meters. You can objects flying in this picture as if there was an explosion. Here is a picture I took from a book. This lets you see how far the objects flew. The third picture is of a fireman who was involved in the rescue talking about a series of explosions in the building that sounded like a professional demolition. We cannot present video today so I have written a translation of what the fireman said. Here his is saying "it went boom boom boom like explosions were going off."

Here is something said by a Japanese research team of officials from the fire department and the construction ministry. The interviewed a Japanese survivor who said that while she was fleeing there were explosions. This testimony appears in a report prepared with the aid of the construction ministry and the fire department. Now I would like you to see the following picture. Normally it is said that the twin towers collapsed because they were hit by airplanes. However, one block away from the twin towers is building number 7. It can be seen in the following map a block away from the WTC. This building collapsed 7 hours after the WTC buildings were attacked. If I could show you a video it would be easy to understand but take a look at this photograph. This is a 47 story building that fell in this manner (He drops and object to demonstrate). The building falls in five or six seconds. It is about the same speed as an object would fall in a vacuum. This building falls like something you would see in a Kabuki show. Also if falls while keeping its shape. Remember it was not hit by an airplane. You have to ask yourself if a building could fall in that manner due to a fire after 7 hours. Here we have a copy of the 911 commission report. This is a report put out by the U.S. government in July of 2004 but this report does not mention the collapse of the building I just described. It is not mentioned at all in here (he waves the book). FEMA also issued a report but they also fail to mention this building. Many people believe, especially after seeing the story about building number 7, that something is strange. Since this is an incident where many people died people think is should be investigated.

We are running out of time but I would also like to mention the put options. Just before the 911 attacks, ie on September 6th, 7th and 8th there were put options put out on the stocks of the two airlines United and American that were hit by hijackers. There were also put options on Merril Lynch, one of the biggest WTC tenants. In other words somebody had insider information and made a fortune selling put options of these stocks. The head of Germany's Bundesbank at the time, who is equivalent to the Governor of the Bank of Japan, said there are lots of facts to prove the people involved in the terror attacks profited from insider information. He said there was lots of suspicious trading involving financial companies etc prior to the attacks. The had of the Bundesbank was willing to say this much. I would like to ask the Finance Minster about these put options. Did the government of Japan know about this, and what do you think about this? I would like to ask Finance Minister Nukaga about this.

Finance Minister Fukushiro Nukaga:

I was in Burkina Fasso in Africa when I heard about this incident. I decided to fly immediately to the U.S. but when I got to Paris I was told there were no flights to America. So I only heard what was reported later about the facts. I know there have been reports about the points you raise. So we made it obligatory that people provide ID for securities transactions and for suspicious transactions to be reported and we made it a crime to provide money to terrorist organizations. We believe the international financial system should not be abused. In any case, terrorism is a horrible thing and must be condemned. This type of terrorism cannot be stopped by one country but needs to be stopped by international society.

Mr. Fujita:

I would like to ask finance specialist Mr. Asao to tell me about put options. A group of people with large amounts of money, clear insider information and financial expertise would have been necessary for such a thing to take place. Could a few terrorists in Afghanistand and Pakistan carry out such a sophisticated and large scale set of transactions? I would like to ask Mr. Asao to respond.

Keiichiro Asao:

I understand put options are a deal to sell stocks at a fixed price. In this case somebody must have had insider information to carry out such transactions because nobody could normally predict these airlines would have their planes hijacked. So, I believe this was certainly a case of insider trading.

Mr. Fujita:

Prime Minister, you were Chief Cabinet Secretary at the time and as somebody has already noted, this was an incident of the sort that humanity had never previously experienced. Also, there appears to be a lot more information about this incident coming out now than came out in the months after the attacks. Now that we are an internet and visual society, this information is being made public so if we look at the situation now, the whole starting point for these two laws , the start of the war on terror itself, as you have seen from the information I have presented, has not been properly investigated or analyzed. So I do not believe the government has acted properly by investigating this incident or asking the U.S. government for an explanation. So far we have not started refueling U.S. ships yet so I think we need to go back to the beginning and not just simply and blindly trust the U.S. government explanation and indirect information provided by them. There were too many victims so I think we need to start again from the beginning. We need to ask who the real victims of this war on terrorism are. I think the citizens of the world are its victims. Here in Japan we have disappearing pensions and disappearing records about victims of Hepatitis C contaminated blood but everything I have presented on facts and confirmable evidence. Let us talk about the vanishing black boxes, vanishing airplanes and vanishing remains. Also lots of the remains of these buildings have disappeared. Even FEMA says that prevented it from carrying out a proper investigation. We need to look at this evidence and ask ourselves what the war on terrorism really is. I can see the ministers nodding in agreement but I would like to ask Prime Minister Fukuda. Please look at me. I have heard that when you were Chief Cabinet Minister at the time you felt many strange things about these attacks. Do you not think it was strange?

Prime Minister Fukuda:

I never said I thought it was strange.

Mr. Fujita:

Prime Minister what about the origin of the war on terror and the idea of whether it is right or wrong to participate in it? Is there really a reason to participate in this war on terror? Do we really need to participate? I would also like to ask about how to really stop terrorism.

Prime Minister Fukuda:

We believe based on evidence provided to us by the U.S. government that the attacks of 911 were carried out by Al Qaeda. We need to put an end to Al Qaeda terrorism. That is why international society is united in the fight against terrorism. Here, concerning a law passed by the Democratic Party last year and based on UN resolution 16595. This is a resolution passed in response to the terrorist attacks on the U.S. So you passed the law agreeing with the UN didn't you?

Mr Fujita:

Did you confirm about the bodies and the facts behind the resolution because that is why you claim to be participating in this war on terrorism. So I believe to end terrorism we need to pass a law that actually helps the people of Afghanistan. I would like Mr. Inuzuka to talk about the law and about the fight against terrorism.

Tadashi Inuzuka:
Among the many problems raised by MP Fujita the thing we need to worry most about is that the people in Afghanistan can live in peace and without worries. That is the core of the issue of ending terrorism. Without discussing this but just operating behind the back lines by supplying oil and not thinking about the entire situation or the people involved it is nonsense to debate this law. This law should be made for peace and security in Afghanistan. Our country needs to pass a real anti-terror law.

masonfree party

16-01-2008, 05:07 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7438627977642539647

WTC Destruction and the Hutchison Effect
Andrew Johnson
58 min 1 sec - 15 Jan 2008

The Hutchison Effect -- An Explanation
by Mark A. Solis

People often ask, "What exactly is the Hutchison Effect?"
This brief essay is an attempt to answer that question to the
satisfaction of the majority.
First of all, the Hutchison Effect is a collection of
phenomena which were discovered accidentally by John Hutchison
during attempts to study the longitudinal waves of Tesla back
in 1979. In other words, the Hutchison Effect is not simply a
singular effect. It is many.
The Hutchison Effect occurs as the result of radio wave
interferences in a zone of spatial volume encompassed by high
voltage sources, usually a Van de Graff generator, and two or
more Tesla coils.
The effects produced include levitation of heavy objects,
fusion of dissimilar materials such as metal and wood (exactly
as portrayed in the movie, "The Philadelphia Experiment"), the
anomalous heating of metals without burning adjacent material,
spontaneous fracturing of metals (which separate by sliding in
a sideways fashion), and both temporary and permanent changes
in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metals.
The levitation of heavy objects by the Hutchison Effect
is not---repeat not---the result of simple electrostatic or
electromagnetic levitation. Claims that these forces alone
can explain the phenomenon are patently ridiculous, and easily
disproved by merely trying to use such methods to duplicate
what the Hutchison Effect has achieved, which has been well
documented both on film and videotape, and has been witnessed
many times by numerous credentialed scientists and engineers.
Challengers should note that their apparatus must be limited
to the use of 75 Watts of power from a 120 Volt AC outlet, as
that is all that is used by Hutchison's apparatus to levitate
a 60-pound cannon ball.
The fusion of dissimilar materials, which is exceedingly
remarkable, indicates clearly that the Hutchison Effect has a
powerful influence on Van der Waals forces. In a striking and
baffling contradiction, dissimilar substances can simply "come
together," yet the individual substances do not dissociate. A
block of wood can simply "sink into" a metal bar, yet neither
the metal bar nor the block of wood come apart. Also, there
is no evidence of displacement, such as would occur if, for
example, one were to sink a stone into a bowl of water.
The anomalous heating of metal without any evidence of
burning or scorching of the adjacent materials (usually wood)
is a clear indication that possibly the nature of heat may not
be completely understood. This has far-reaching implications
for thermodynamics, which hinges entirely on the presumption
of such knowledge. It should be noted that the entirety of
thermodynamics is represented by the infrared portion of the
electromagnetic spectrum, which is insignificant in a context
of 0 Hz to infinite Hz. The anomalous heating exhibited by
the Hutchison Effect shows plainly that we have much to learn,
especially where thermodynamics and electromagnetism meet.
The spontaneous fracturing of metals, as occurs with the
Hutchison Effect, is unique for two reasons: (1) there is no
evidence of an "external force" causing the fracturing, and
(2) the method by which the metal separates involves a sliding
motion in a sideways direction, horizontally. The metal simply
comes apart.
Some temporary changes in the crystalline structure and
physical properties of metals are somewhat reminiscent of the
"spoon bending" of Uri Geller, except that there is no one near
the metal samples when the changes take place. One video shows
a spoon flapping up and down like a limp rag in a stiff breeze.
In the case of permanent changes, a metal bar will be hard at
one end, like steel, and soft at the other end, like powdered
lead. Again, this is evidence of strong influence on Van der
Waals forces.
The radio wave interferences involved in producing these
effects are produced from as many as four and five different
radio sources, all operating at low power. However, the zone
in which the interferences take place is stressed by hundreds
of kilovolts.
It is surmised by some researchers that what Hutchison
has done is tap into the Zero Point Energy. This energy gets
its name from the fact that it is evidenced by oscillations
at zero degrees Kelvin, where supposedly all activity in an
atom ceases. The energy is associated with the spontaneous
emission and annihilation of electrons and positrons coming
from what is called "the quantum vacuum." The density of the
energy contained in the quantum vacuum is estimated by some at
ten to the thirteenth Joules per cubic centimeter, which is
reportedly sufficient to boil off the Earth's oceans in a
matter of moments.
Given access to such energies, it is small wonder that
the Hutchison Effect produces such bizarre phenomena. At the
present time, the phenomena are difficult to reproduce with
any regularity. The focus for the future, then, is first to
increase the frequency of occurence of the effects, then to
achieve some degree of precision in their control.
The work is continuing at this time. Before long, we
shall see what progress can be made.

Shreveport, Louisiana
February 16, 1999

masonfree party

16-01-2008, 05:54 PM

well done andrew and judy...superb interview!

masonfree party

16-01-2008, 09:57 PM

Post subject: Hutchison effect and 9/11 Exotic Destruction Tech

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously hinted at here:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5677

Judy Wood and John Hutchison have got together and written an excellent piece visually comparing damage episodes at the WTC area on 9/11 to many of the "exotic" energy experiments conducted by advanced researcher Hutchison.

Conventional demolition charges do not turn cars to rubberized versions of themselves, cause bizarre metal anomalies, random fires yards away from ground zero, selective burning of various materials, strange heat shimmering and fuming of objects etc etc.

See for yourselves and open up to the possibility that most of you here are stuck in a research reality bubble...

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

Strange fires around ground zero and the Hutchison research:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ2.html

Why has research dead-locked most people at the point of conventional demolition?

Could one of the main secrets of September 11th be the link to vast energy systems that do not rely upon conventional power sources?? ie: highly efficient over unity or quantum vacuum energy systems are readily available to a section of the M.I.C. - systems that could end the reliance on conventional, polluting fuels and their associated damage to the deeper ecological elements of the biosphere??

Quote:

"If people want evidence of advanced energy systems already in use, they need only look to the wealth of information in our skies as reported in so-called UFO sightings. These vehicles use such systems".

William Lyne - Author of Occult Ether Physics and Pentagon Aliens.
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
--

masonfree party

16-01-2008, 10:49 PM

Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect (New Paper by Judy Wood/John Hutchison)
CB_Brooklyn
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread326671/pg1

posted on 13-1-2008 @ 04:38 PM

Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect (New Paper by Judy Wood/John Hutchison)

Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect

by

Judy Wood and John Hutchison

drjudywood.com...

Excerpt:

=======================
In considering how the WTC complex was destroyed, many people have criticised the research posted here because it does not state or describe the exact technology employed.

These pages include data which strongly implicates a class of technology as being one of the main ones used.

The data below seem to strongly tie up with features of what has become known as “The Hutchison Effect”. The Hutchison Effect actually seems to describe a range of observed characteristics, some of which are listed below. John Hutchison is a Canadian inventor and experimental scientist who has been experimenting with “field effects” for almost 30 years. There is a great deal of information about him on the internet, and a selection is linked from this set of pages.

The table below lists effects and events seen at or in the vicinity of World Trade Center and compares those with observed characteristics of the Hutchison Effect. Clearly, the posting of this material is quite controversial, but even in the various documentaries that have featured John Hutchison, he has suggested that the techniques he has discovered and developed have been further refined by places like Lockheed Skunkworks, S.A.I.C. (Science Applications International Corp.), and also by perhaps other defense companies.
=======================

My comments: Although still under construction, the new paper gives many clues to the technology that was used to destroy the World Trade Center. Take a look at the many pictures and see for yourself! People can no longer claim that this technology does not exist. It definitely DOES exist!

Also note the two companies mentioned in the excerpt above (Lockheed Martin and SAIC). Both are sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society! The government even contracted with SAIC for the NIST Report.

See the "News" section of Dr Wood's website for upcoming interviews with Andrew Johnson where he will discuss the new paper. Also in the "news" section is a downloadable MP3 of an interview with John Hutchison.
drjudywood.com...

For proof that the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were all orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media, see my new article:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

Also note the two Court Cases in the US District Court, Southern New York, with attorney Jerry Leaphart:

Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
drjudywood.com...

Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
nomoregames.net...

Bottom line... there were NO hijackings on 9/11 and the entire War On Terror is BOGUS!

Even Peter Jennings knew the 9/11 airplane video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC plays the clip back in slow motion:
www.youtube.com...

As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Kieth says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"
nomoregames.net...

What about the eyewitnesses who say they saw planes hit the towers, you ask? See the following analysis of the WTC Task Force Interviews, which were published in the New York Times. You'll learn that only a very small percentage of the First Responders reported seeing airplanes hit the towers. Even fewer reported hearing them. But... they had no trouble hearing the fighter jets later on! Whatever they saw "hit" the towers was a projection:

Going in Search of Planes in NYC
www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

What about the airplane wreckage, you ask? Well, first of all, there are NO verified airplane parts. (The government refuses to release any.) And second, when an airplane crashes into a building, the engines are not going to wind up underneath scaffolding:
i18.photobucket.com...

See here for more:
nomoregames.net...

What about the cell phone calls, you ask? Faked using advanced voice synthesizer technology as reported in the Washington Post two and a half years before 9/11:
www.washingtonpost.com...

There were NO hijackings on 9/11.

There were NO plane crashes on 9/11.

The entire War On Terror is BOGUS.

daria

16-01-2008, 11:38 PM

I would like to know why there was that irritaing music in the bacground.
The people talking surely didn't have to listen to that, so why me.
Only listened to 12 or so minutes and thought I ain't getting anything out of this.
Do carry on though. Best of luck for your research.

masonfree party

16-01-2008, 11:49 PM

cruise4

17-01-2008, 08:32 AM

Yukihisa Fujita

Yukihisa Fujita ¨Member, House of Councillors, National Diet of Japan (equivalent to U.S. Senate). Director, Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense. Former Member of the House of Representatives. Former Vice Director General of the International Department of the Democratic Party of Japan.
*See the rest at
http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Fujita

And now, Part 3 is up on YouTube!!

Councilor Fujita Questions 9/11 Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1WkfkvkX2E

I added a bit of personal touch at the end.
I hope you like it. ;O)

Aus911Truth

9/11 Truth Australia
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Aus911Truth/

masonfree party

19-01-2008, 10:05 AM

Fridays 2nd programme:

Radio Discussion - WTC Destruction and the Hutchison Effect - Part 2‏

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/audio/911/index.php?dir=&sort=date&order=desc

weston white

19-01-2008, 11:34 PM

Is that true 5 million people dead from lack of drinkable water? Is this annual or total since the wars began?

masonfree party

19-01-2008, 11:35 PM

2nd part..good quality

http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/011808.html

lightcodes

20-01-2008, 03:38 AM

Amazing Stuff.

If you think you're "out of the box".

Then this is a good to test if thats really the case

masonfree party

20-01-2008, 11:25 AM

Try here: This a video for both shows as well as a video of the fuming in NYC they talked about in the second show.

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/JJ/#ambrose

dondaz

20-01-2008, 09:38 PM

Good to see horourable men speak out in Japan about this. The world really is waking up to this now. They know what is coming now and are speaking up about it!

masonfree party

20-01-2008, 10:02 PM

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO WATCH AND LISTEN TO THIS RADIO PROGRAMME...THE CONTENT IS HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE AND MAY CHANGE YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE WORLD AND ITS RULERS.

THERE IS A SHORT MUSICAL INTRODUCTION FIRST...

http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/011408.html

2ND programme

http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/011808.html

mr_pixie

21-01-2008, 06:17 PM

Amazing Stuff.

If you think you're "out of the box".

Then this is a good to test if thats really the case

Yes!

masonfree party

21-01-2008, 10:06 PM

masonfree party

24-01-2008, 01:24 PM

WAS 9/11 AN ATTACK WITH SCALAR WEAPONS?

Posted By: billym
Date: Monday, 25 September 2006, 12:12 p.m.
Was the demolition of the World Trade Center towers the the first major use of scalar electromagnetic weapons in an act of war? Were Israel's (or, less probably, someone else's) longitudinal wave interferometers (Tesla howitzers) used to to attack the U.S. (and then blame it on unsophisticated Arabs who certainly lack such technology)? These questions first came up among those familiar with scalar scientist Tom Bearden's work shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and now, 5 years later, I feel enough research has been done and enough information gathered to revisit the question.

I cannot explain the whole idea of scalar electromagnetic weapons here and leave it to the reader to get that info from other sources, such as:

[For some background info on scalar weapons try these links: Scalar Wars , Fer del Lance , and Bearden's Weapons Slides, and the article " Bright Skies "]

The plan to fly planes into the WTC and then demolish the buildings had one fatal flaw: the buildings fell at just slightly over the speed of gravity. Free fall was the fatal flaw in the plan. The planners should have made every effort to have the towers fall more slowly. Although it seemed to take a strangely long time for people to realize this, finally a bunch of scientists started speaking up, saying that the idea that the plane crashes caused the buildings to fall was completely false and impossible. They formed a group called Scholars for Truth, a group that is partly responisible for the fact that 1 in 3 Americans now completely disbelieve the official Bush administration's explanation for what happened.

So we have arrived at a point where it is clear to anyone who has studied the matter that clearly the buildings were consciously demolished, either by planted explosives or more exotic means such as scalar electromagnetic weapons. Or possible by a combination of both.

Even so there remain anomalies and questions which are hard to explain by explosives alone, but which all can be explained by the possible use of scalar weapons. All I can do in this first short post is to mention these things and suggest that all we have learned in the last five years seems only to strengthen the possibility that 9/11 was the first major attack of a nation by scalar weapons.

Tom Bearden does not provide much help here. He seems to avoid the issue, perhaps because he has always cast Israel as a possessor of scalar weapon which is helping the U.S. be protected from Russian scalar weapons. And this may in fact be true. (To be accurate he never mentions Israel by name, but refers over and over again to "a small friendly nation," which most people assume to be Israel. He has to be careful about what he says, and frequently admits he cannot say all that he knows). However after the 9/11 attacks he addressed the issue as to whether scalar weapons had been used that day in a letter which I can no longer find on his website. In that letter he said that in a scientific hypothesis one looks for a certain number of "hits" or points of confirmation, kind of like a preponderence of evidence. He said that in the case of the towers there were some "hits," but not quite enough yet to make the case either way. That was 5 years ago. My suggestion is that in those 5 years a good number of "hits" have been added and it is time to reconsider the idea.

The entrance of scientists into the 9/11 investigations has been extremely important. But it must be remembered that very few American scientists have any knowledge of scalar electromagnetic theories or scalar weapons. Tom Bearden is still regarded by most mainstream scientists as being on the fringe, even though virtually all those working in the zero-point energy field regard him very highly. So despite the importance of the scientists in the 9/11 Truth Movement for pointing out the free fall aspect of the buildings' collapse, they are unlikely to be of much help in examining the scalar weapons possibilities.

This topic is certainly worthy of more attention, time and research than I can give it right now, but at least I can mention a few of the anomalies of that day which can be explained by the possible use of scalar weapons.

For those who wish to research this further here is the link to the search engine which will search the whole of Tom Bearden's website Cheniere.org :

http://www.cheniere.org/search.html

1. Explosions

It has become clear now that the collapse of the 3 WTC buildings were caused by some kind of controlled demolition. This is assumed to have happened by explosives being hidden in the towers. This would have been a huge job to wire all this up and then control the explosives in sequence. Perhaps it happened that way.

But the point I want to make here is that it did not have to happen that way since since scalar weapons are perfectly capable of doing the same thing, and at a distance, even a great distance. In endothermic pulsed mode a longitudinal wave interferometer produces an explosive blast in the interference zone of energy tranduced from the (zero-point) vacuum of space. By varying the longitudinal wave pulses many different kinds of explosions can be produced. By aiming the blasts (from a distance) a series of blasts could be produced in sequence running from the top to the bottom of the buildings.

2. Sheered Columns

Columns of the buildings were found to be sheered neatly into 30 ft. sections. The current theory for this is that thermite was used to cut the columns (Steven Jones). However Morgan Reynolds has questioned this idea with reasoning that seems plausible.

At the same time scalar weapons provide an alternate possibility for the sheered columns since cleanly slicing steel is within their capabilities

3. Metal Softening

Bearden speaks frequently of ability of scalar weapons to produced metal softening at a distance. This is a result of actions on the atoms themselves and a result of heating the metal. The steel simply gets soft. This effect alone could, I think, account for the free fall collapse even without explosives since the softened steel would offer almost no resistence to the weight above it. The work of John Hutchinson include photos of various metalic and other objects which have passed completely though each other through some kind of softening effect.

I simply want to point out here that scalar weapons are capable of metal softening at a distance and thus could be used to aid the free fall collapse of a large building.

4. Pulverization of concrete

Workers at the demolition site spoke of their amazement that there were almost no large chunks of concrete, just pulverized concrete dust. We all saw the astonishing giant clouds of concrete dust that day which fell like volcanic ash over the city. This effect could also be accomplished by scalar weapons acting at an atomic scale blasting the concrete to dust from within itself by energy from the vacuum.

5. Vaporized metal

Workers spoke of metal beams which seemed to have been "vaporized" at one or both ends. This seems incredible. Only scalar weapons come to mind when trying to find an explanation for this.

Morgan Reynolds, at his website, has a truly amazing sequence of pictures showing the actual vaporization of the North Tower spire. Here it is:

Figure 16: Steel beams turn to steel dust.
What exactly was going on here? How does steel just vaporize like that? Reynolds' captions says: "The North Tower spire stood for 20-30 seconds, evaporated, went down, and turned to steel dust." This cannot be explained by explosives or thermite or anything other than scalar electromagnetic weapons.

6. Molten steel

Workers found pools of molten steel under the ruins which stayed in a molten state for weeks following the collapse. This is another clue that scalar weapons may have been used, and needs further research. I'm not sure how it is explained in non-scalar 911 theories.

Bearden talks about the aftermath of different kinds of scalar blasts. I don't really understand the physics and can only point out the general concept. He says that for about 3 weeks after a scalar blast the very atoms of the materials in the zone continue to "pump" some energy from the vacuum, after which the effect gradually dies down. The atoms are "self-pumping" energy from "the time domain." This is not a "radioactive" effective, but a scalar electromagnetic effect. Could such residual pumping of the atoms have been responsible for the molten metal? It is interesting that he says this effect lasts for a few weeks, and that the metal stayed molten for about the same length of time.

7. Melted cars

Again at Morgan Reynolds' site I saw photos taken on 9/11 showing cars near the area which had been curiously "melted." A little ways down this page one can see the photos and the captions are as follows:

Figure 4a: Unexplained spontaneous combustion toasted cars in a lot near the WTC.
Figure 4b: Peculiar wilting of car doors and deformed window surrounds on FDR Drive.
Figure 4c: Blistered car with unburned upholstery and unburned plastic window molding.
Figure 4d: Front half of a car burned with an unburned rear half.
Figure 4e: What burned and dragged these cars and mangled the left rear wheel?

Were these cars simply hit by the metal softening waves aimed primarily at the steel columns of the buildings? A kind of side-effect?

Scalar Wars

It is possible that the Scalar Wars have begun without anyone realizing it. That is one of the advantages of these weapons at the current time: almost no one knows about them so they can be used covertly without anyone knowing.

It is interesting also that exotic new weapons seem to have been used, perhaps testing them, in the recent invasion of Lebanon. Anomlous blackened bodies. Bodies burned but clothes left unburned.

One thing to keep in mind is this: conventional explosives were not needed at to produced the free fall collapse of the WTC towers. Scalar weapons could have accomplished all that we witnessed that day including many things which have no other explanation. If that is the case then we have entered the most perilous period the human race has ever known.

SCALAR WARS

Articles In This Thread

WAS 9/11 AN ATTACK WITH SCALAR WEAPONS? (views: 2195)
billym -- Monday, 25 September 2006, 12:12 p.m.
TYPO CORRECTION (views: 333)
billym -- Monday, 25 September 2006, 12:24 p.m.
COMMENTS WELCOME (views: 339)
billym -- Monday, 25 September 2006, 12:38 p.m.
I THINK IT WAS A 4TH GEN NUKE WEAPON - DT (views: 507)
CARE -- Tuesday, 26 September 2006, 12:50 a.m.

joyful

24-01-2008, 11:53 PM

How is space beams constructive? I agree with you let's see who is negatively affecting 9/11 truth here. Morgan Reynolds is a proven disinfo agent and so is mason free party.

Nonsense as a Weapon

An effective tool for reinforcing the loony conspiricism meme is the introduction of theories that that have no basis in evidence, such as the idea that no planes hit the towers. The association of these ideas with the careful research of investigators in the 9/11 Truth Movement stands to set back the cause of awakening the larger public to the facts of the attack.

A series of websites have promoting more or less obvious hoaxes since the attack. Examples are 911Review.org (See 9/11 Review REVIEWED), and Physics911.net. Both adopted as their centerpiece the idea that no jetliner crashed at the Pentagon -- an idea that may be single most elaborate and well-orchestrated hoax used to undermine the credibility of the 9-11 Truth Movement.

More traditional media such as videos and books have also been used to discourage rational inquiry into the crimes of 9/11/01 by associating alternatives to the official narrative with uncritical thinking and junk science.

The Morgan Reynolds Phenomenon

In mid-2005 a former Bush administration official, Morgan Reynolds, gained notoriety by publishing an essay that sandwiched grandiose ridicule of the accounts of the crashes of the four jetliners between imprecise summaries of evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Titled Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?, the article was widely promoted, for the most part, without any comment on its embedded no-jetliners message. Reynolds did not respond to the substance of the 911Research critique of his article: A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds' Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? , and went on to promote his flawed analysis of the plane crashes on venues like Coast to Coast and the Boulder Weekly. His Boulder Weekly interview is the subject of Boulder Weekly Trots Out Morgan Reynolds' Trojan Horse.

Even if Reynolds has only the best of intentions, his inclusion of easily debunked arguments against the jetliner crashes in his well-publicized article questioning the official account of the World Trade Center disaster makes it function as a Trojan Horse.

http://911review.com/disinfo/

dave52

25-01-2008, 12:00 AM

I'm not convinced that the towers were brought down conventionally, therefore I am willing to entertain the idea of some unconventional energy weapon. Constructive is discussing it. Offering counter arguments, sharing ideas.

Would you care to be construcive...?

Here's constructive - does the pay load weight of a plane determine it's ability to withstand g-force and wing-stress when performing strenuous menouvers...?

lookfar

25-01-2008, 12:03 AM

Guys can we just chill here please & cut out the personal insults (which I've had to delete), this is not necessary.

dave52

25-01-2008, 12:06 AM

Guys can we just chill here please & cut out the personal insults (which I've had to delete), this is not necessary.

It's cool - I just don't understand the antagonism. If there's a thread that I just think is rubbish - I stay out of it. It seems that some members feel the need to jump in and try to wind people up. It's a shame.

lookfar

25-01-2008, 12:12 AM

It's cool - I just don't understand the antagonism. If there's a thread that I just think is rubbish - I stay out of it. It seems that some members feel the need to jump in and try to wind people up. It's a shame.

Hi Dave :)

Yes it is a shame, I totally agree with you. The forum is not the place to be throwing around personal insults - it's clearly against the guidelines & will be dealt with accordingly.

dave52

25-01-2008, 12:15 AM

Hi Dave :)

Yes it is a shame, I totally agree with you. The forum is not the place to be throwing around personal insults - it's clearly against the guidelines & will be dealt with accordingly.

I appreciate that. And to be clear - I'm still undecided on the NPT thing, but I'm willing to view all ideas as openly as I can. I have noticed that the testosterone gets a little out of hand when it comes to NPT, TV Fakery and DEW, but it just can't be dismissed out of hand with childish insults.

lookfar

25-01-2008, 12:20 AM

It was me complaining about you and it is insolent and chutzpahtic of you to repeat it.

Oh guys can you please cut it out here. Do I need to be issuing more points, cos if you accrue enough your accounts will be inactive?! Let's just chill please.....:-)

john white

25-01-2008, 06:12 AM

I appreciate that. And to be clear - I'm still undecided on the NPT thing, but I'm willing to view all ideas as openly as I can. I have noticed that the testosterone gets a little out of hand when it comes to NPT, TV Fakery and DEW, but it just can't be dismissed out of hand with childish insults.

It doesnt has to be:

Its been dismissed in exacting detail, there is a no planes theory but there simply isnt going to be no planes truth, its not what the evidence says

No planes theory makes fine internet fodder, it can keep a forum section dancing endlessly. If thats what people do with this 9/11 section, thats what people do. But NPT passing basic scrutiny?

No.

The childish insults are a by product of the fact that the unraveling of the folly has not reduced the enthusiasm of the foolish, and generates frustration

Anyway, as angry as I personally can understand anyone being with MFP or Killtown, its not the way Joyful, and I'd rather you took membership of this site seriously enough to want to keep it, and either debate excellently to refute NPT, or present the real info on seperate threads so as to help this section represent the best of 9/11 truth

Then it can be serious about informing and motivating people to finally dissolve consensus trance around the 9/11 truth issue, see 9/11 for what it is, and start to get some proper consequences for those involved

And I mean that, becuase it matters :)

john white

25-01-2008, 06:14 AM

And no, 9/11 was not an attack with "scalar weapons"

masonfree party

25-01-2008, 11:34 AM

And no, 9/11 was not an attack with "scalar weapons"

but john...do you agree that the US military have them? Rumsfeld more or less admitted it in a recent interview which i will post later

here it is: http://youtube.com/watch?v=2IaMI-1Dmsw

weston white

25-01-2008, 03:20 PM

No it as actually Mecha-Streisand!!!!

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/ellison/86/mechastreisand.jpg
Actual image caught by an unknown reporter on the scene.

http://members.fortunecity.com/cartman101/mecha3.jpg
An artists rendering of the actual event as it occurred.

mr_pixie

25-01-2008, 07:29 PM

Its been dismissed in exacting detail, there is a no planes theory but there simply isnt going to be no planes truth, its not what the evidence says

You do yourself no favours John. So we shouldnt we talk about NP because you and others over at the gatekeeper site 9/11.CO.UK say there's no evidence, and the best evidence you lot have got to debunk the physics of websits like Morgon Reynols is to watch a Mr Lawson Video. surely we should be open minded enough to see there could over explanions that people have over looked or missed, why should we listen to you when you say NP is rubbish.

I would a foolish man if I thought the 9/11 Truth Movement wasnt infilltrated and had false information spead within the group to mislead and brainwash people.

john white

25-01-2008, 07:59 PM

Where am I supposed to be "doing myself favours"?

And you havnt read my post: of course you can talk about it, here you are talking about it

But talking about it doesnt stop it being a load of cobblers, and neither does protesting to me about that

do you agree that the US military have them? Rumsfeld more or less admitted it in a recent interview which i will post later

The reality of microwave weapons means nothing whatsoever like your trying to get it to mean MFP

astralburger

25-01-2008, 08:36 PM

Anyway, as angry as I personally can understand anyone being with MFP or Killtown, its not the way Joyful, and I'd rather you took membership of this site seriously enough to want to keep it, and either debate excellently to refute NPT, or present the real info on seperate threads so as to help this section represent the best of 9/11 truth

I'm glad that this is just your personal opinion and has no bearing on actual forum policy (especially since you are no longer an administrator here).

I'd just like to interject a quick point about controlled revolutions because in my estimation there are and always have been subversive change agents in any movement against the government, so to be suspicious of others regarding 911 truth is only natural and quite possibly healthy. This may lead to nasty debate every once in a while but if you read some of the documents regarding the constitutional convention, you'll see that debates -even in the highest of minds - can bring out the rawest in people (something sorely missed in civilized and sanitized society). I think that insults slung in such a manner should not necessarily be encouraged, however, I also think that they should be taken in context and not be taken with a heavy heart.

Conflict theory allows the weak-minded to watch the debate and the strong-willed to control it. There is a natural order in that.

dave52

26-01-2008, 02:47 AM

Its been dismissed in exacting detail, there is a no planes theory but there simply isnt going to be no planes truth, its not what the evidence says

You do, of course realise, that none of us actually have any evidence. What evidence there was was quickly destroyed or removed. This leaves us all in the same boat. All we can do is look at the same videos (most of which are from the MSM), and listen to the same witnesses (all of which could be bought and paid for by the PTB).

Therefore - it is as valid for someone to say that the buildings were constructed as huge fire-crackers waiting for their fuses to be lit, as it is for someone to say that planes were flown into them without setting off the pre-placed thermite demolition charges, as it is to say that the planes were not really there, and the towers were destroyed using space-baced directed energy weapons.

None of us know squat. So, if we want a thread about Scalar Weapons, it is perfectly valid for us to add our oppinions. If you have a problem with that - offer some valid insights, some good counter arguments backed up with interesting evidence. If that's too much to ask, stay out of the thread.

Rant.

masonfree party

26-01-2008, 11:41 AM

noticed this woman is working with Nico Haupt and has ties with Webster Tarpley.She's doing short films on DEWS and interviewing guys like John Cheshire ex Dupont on DEWS.Comes across like a new age fluffy bunny and just wondered if she has tried to make contact with judy wood about her work.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/paula-gl...pons/1968434018

masonfree party

26-01-2008, 12:31 PM

notice how she cuts off Morgan suddenly and then switches to Barrett and then talks about ICKE and shape shifting lizards near the end

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp98T8rOcPs&feature=related

maybe it would be a good idea to stick to 911 issues PAULA

king triad

28-01-2008, 02:08 PM

masonfree party

28-01-2008, 06:56 PM

believe it or not 19 arab guys from the hamburg alqaeda cell did 9/11...they were funded by the pakistani ISI..aided and abetted by the CIA, secret service and mossad...they were essentially a hit squad turned terrorist...

yeah and they managed to eject the black boxes before impact,slice through steel like butter and still made sure one of their passports didnt burn...keep reading the fairy tales dude!

the spackler

28-01-2008, 08:17 PM

With Regards To The Plains At The Pentagon And Shanksville:

Anyone That Believes These Jets Vapourized On Impact Leaving No Bodies, Seats, Black Boxes, Tail Or Wing Sections Is Fucking Retarded. I Dont Care If Those Jets Were Going 500 Miles Per Hour, There Still Would Have Been Alot Of Debris And The Black Boxes Would Have Remained Intact.

Pretty Amazing That Everything Was Completely Vapourized At Shanksville But They Were Still Able To Identify All Of The Passengers Through Dna Testing?

Does Anyone Really Believe That:
Blood And Tissue Samples Survived The Sweltering "plane Vapourizing" Heat Of The Crash But Not One Black Box Made It? Yeah Right....

I'm All For Miracles. Love Em. But On 9/11 We Have Way Too Many...

I Also Have A Question To Those Who Don't Believe The News Footage We Saw Was Doctored...

If It Wasn't Doctored, The Nose Out Footage Says Otherwise...

Where Did That Huge Cockpit Section End Up? If It Made It That Far Through The Building And Was Still Relatively Intact, They Would Have Found That Cockpit Four Blocks Away In The Middle Of A Street Somewhere...:d

This Whole Thing Was A Trauma Based Mind Control Fuck-over By Our Government...

boom

28-01-2008, 08:26 PM

Who claims they managed to eject the flight data recorders?

You do realise that not only the passport was found from the planes?

adimon

28-01-2008, 08:27 PM

I Also Have A Question To Those Who Don't Believe The News Footage We Saw Was Doctored...

If It Wasn't Doctored, The Nose Out Footage Says Otherwise...

Where Did That Huge Cockpit Section End Up? If It Made It That Far Through The Building And Was Still Relatively Intact, They Would Have Found That Cockpit Four Blocks Away In The Middle Of A Street Somewhere...:d

This Whole Thing Was A Trauma Based Mind Control Fuck-over By Our Government...

I think that the basic response is that it's not the nose in the 'nose-out' shots but other bits and pieces.

boom

28-01-2008, 08:28 PM

dedicate

28-01-2008, 08:50 PM

Hey boom.. Most of the people on this site are way beyond the questioning of the official story. They believe that the official story is a sham from start to end. Most everyone here has been studying the event intensively and for some time. If you have legitamate questions, well that is OK. But if you are trying to defend the official story, you probably wont get very far with it.

Just think about it... how do you id someone with a piece of flesh anyway? You need something to compare it to, or some data on that person in the first place. I think that if someone were to find my entire body, you could not id me using DNA evidence.

But that aside, finding that piece of flesh on the passengers of flight 77 would be quite difficult, as the official story states not any of the plane was found. Not even the indestructable black boxes. Or were they (the boxes) found? And they are not telling us? Or was the Pentagon even hit by a plane? Did they show any evidence that is was hit by a plane? Or should we just take their word for it?

commondreamer

30-01-2008, 05:10 AM

can't understand though why some leading 911 truthers are so quiet about it...superb work by andrew and judy...will go down in history if this gets out to the mainstream...good to see Ian Neal on nineeleven.co.uk promoting it

It is widely accepted that Judy Wood and Space beams Fetzer could be a straw man tactic to easily discredit the entire 911 truth movement. Their ideas sound more than just a little crazy to the average person. Even if there is some truth to it and the technology was available and used for scalar weapons on that day there is plenty more to focus on that is easily provable.

If one focuses on WTC 7 and the likelihood that this could have been anything other than a CD, then you have it all.

boom

30-01-2008, 10:23 AM

masonfree party

30-01-2008, 11:33 PM

zero point energy used on ground Zero?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is that why the called it ground zero....the elite basically taking the piss?

Zero point energy used for destructive purposes instead of free energy purposes....

This antigravitational power is obviously being witheld and harnessed for future destructive uses by forces seasoned in the art of mass murder, genocide and world conquest.

-James Neff

Levitation Physicist
John Hutchison Raided At
Gunpoint By Canadian Police
From Mark A. Solis <your_neighbor@geocities.com>
Webmaster for John Hutchison
Reporting From Shreveport, Louisiana
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/...8863/index.html
4-5-00

Word has been received this morning, Saturday, 18 March 2000, that John Hutchison has been raided at gunpoint by Canadian Police. John's apartment in New Westminster, British Columbia, was raided at 2 PM Friday, 17 March 2000, by gun-wielding police searching for firearms. An antique gun collection owned by Hutchison was confiscated in its entirety.

According to Hutchison, a phone call was received at about 2 PM Friday, stating that it was the police, and asking John to answer his door. Hutchison states that there were 8 to 10 individuals pointing weapons at him, only two or three of whom were in uniform. The rest were dressed in dark clothing.

Hutchison was handcuffed and placed on the outside steps while police searched the apartment. No warrant was claimed or shown at any time. Police stated only that there had been an anonymous complaint that firearms were being brought into the apartment.

Police also called in an "electrical inspector" to examine John's lab equipment. This is the famous "Hutchison apparatus" with which John produces the renowned "Hutchison Effect."

Additional individuals dressed in suits were brought in who took extensive photographs of the Hutchison apparatus. Hutchison indicates that these persons had an "official air" about them, and that they might be Government agents, especially given the confiscation of the original Hutchison lab, which took place while John was out of the country in 1990. None of these persons showed any identification. Those who have followed John's career of invention and innovation will recall that his first laboratory was forcibly seized by the Canadian Government on 24 February 1990 by the direct order of former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. The Government has retained the lab in spite of a court order by Judge Paris of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to return it.

A previous raid on John Hutchison's apartment involving his collection of antique firearms occurred in 1978, and processing took two years. The confiscated antiques were returned at the order of Judge Cronin. These events occurred under the administration of former PM Pierre Trudeau. Former PM Joe Clark, who took over in the 1980s following the Trudeau administration, wrote to Hutchison offering help and support.

The present raid follows close on the heels of a recent successful levitation performed 11 October 1999 which was videotaped by John. The effect was achieved after six days worth of attempts.

However, neighbours called local police to complain about Hutchison's experiment. It is unclear whether something in their apartment levitated, although there is no other way known at this time that they could have been aware of the levitation experiment that was in progress. The neighbours in question live across the street from Hutchison.

The sound of approaching sirens was recorded on the video soundtrack of Hutchison's camcorder during the experiment, and video of some emergency vehicles and personnel was obtained.

Further updates on the situation will be posted promptly on this website.

Mark A. Solis <your_neighbor@geocities.com> Shreveport, LA USA Webmaster for John Hutchison

Comment:

To anyone who has seen the incredible footage revealing John Hutchison's amazing anti-gravity discovery from several years ago, this truly smacks of major conspiracy. Hutchison clearly stumbled upon one of the most tremendous secrets in physics, one which is likely well known (and has been for many years) to black ops government scientists and researchers who routinely conduct similar antigravitic experiments with craft in the deserts of the U.S., as documented by the many UFO researchers in the past 20 years who have dedicated themselves to watching Area 51 and Groom Lake. Making certain that someone outside of the military industrial establishment does not stumble onto this discovery is no doubt foremost in the activities of the secret government. This antigravitational power is obviously being witheld and harnessed for future destructive uses by forces seasoned in the art of mass murder, genocide and world conquest.

-James Neff

Comment

From Lea MacDonald <inventor@adan.kingston.net

Sadly, the story of John Hutchison's encounter with Canadian Police seems to becoming more the norm these days. Heavy-handed, arm-bending tactics, are being used on those people who would pursue, or conduct, a search for truth. Peaceful or not, it seems to make no difference.

From physics, to UFOs, and political agendas, researchers are now falling under significant scrutiny from their collective governments. Why?

I don't recall anyone forfeiting their right to peacefully and legally conduct research. Nor do I recall anyone stating, "I only want to know 'part' of the truth." And I certainly did not hear anyone appoint the government as the "Gatekeeper" of their paradigm no matter the direction their search for truth, takes. I'm just as sure that Mr Hutchison does not recall appointing them either.

I have been told that, "Far greater men than you or I, make these decisions." If keeping truth from people is a prerequisite for being "great," I do not wish to be great. I find no comfort in understanding the government can (under the guise of an anonymous tip) seize material not pertinent to the "original tip," or, that they cannot be compelled to return "that material" after inappropriate confiscation has been determined.

Of course, in the interests of personal safety, I feel compelled to "clarify" certain things. Before you read the following, place your tongue firmly against your cheek.

I can neither confirm nor deny that Mr Hutchison's levitation work is half of a two-part puzzle. I can neither confirm nor deny that the second part is propulsion. I can neither confirm nor deny that the drive is little bigger than a match box. I can neither confirm nor deny that I have a working prototype. I can neither confirm nor deny that it bends space/time. I can neither confirm nor deny that a byproduct of the coronal discharge is significant amounts of 03. I can neither confirm nor deny that I am in receipt of a Blue Fly, "Field Intelligence Packet." I can neither confirm nor deny any of this is true.

Hmm, after reading that, perhaps it is not tongue-in-cheek.

But I can neither confirm nor deny that.

A Rebuttal To James Neff's comments:

From: Jack
(name and email on file)

I think Bill Church, a former US Army Intelligence Agent and now an independent intelligence consultant for multinational corporations and several governments put it nicely. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are hardly the Stalinist KGB or the Gestapo or Pol Pot ... One should investigate what really happened first. I do not know what Stanton Friedman may or may not have said and I do not care [ note: this is in reference to something said offline, not part of the previous commentary. Ie, that I was not saying anything any more inflamatory than Stanton Freidman has almost daily, that is, to cry conspiracy ]. I am speaking from my own direct experience with the Powers that Be. What I can say is that we are in contact with powerful players in the UFO phenomenon, real progress is being made and there is no reason to upset people that their governments are out to do them ill. There are actually very good ecologically sound reasons for secrecy. Would you like Saddam Hussein, or Milsovec, or a few others you can think of to have powerful ET weapons technology off a public Web Page? Same goes for the release of zero point energy which makes nuclear energy seem like a small Chinese firecracker. Imagine some amateur making a zero point energy over unity machine in his garage. Sorceror's Apprentice, see Disney's Fantasia, not only there goes the neighborhood, but there goes the solar system, puff! Bye, bye we will be playing harps in Heaven or doing the other thing down there. If Hutchison has the real think he can blow away Vancouver by mistake - not meaning to. So the Mounties may have had a very excellent reason to intervene to save many hundreds of thousands of lives.

> > As the saying goes, 'Right now your government is doing things you think > only OTHER governments do."

What's new? The US Government is the worst government in the world, except for every other. (to paraphrase Winston Churchill on "Democracy"). We get the goverment we deserve. Life it complex, it's hard to know what to do next as anyone playing the stock market knows. In any case, we are in the process of having a major voice on what the governments will do about the UFO and ET CONTACT issue. So everyone keep cool. As FDR said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Trust me. :-)

Would You Buy A Used Flying Saucer From This Man?
(Photo and caption provided by "Jack")

Reply:

I'd sure like to see evidence of this progress, Jack. I really would. I only see more and more cover-up, evasion and skullduggery, year after year. Meanwhile innocent people like Betty Cash drop dead from exposure to experimental government craft without any recourse. I don't recall hearing anything about unexplained deaths around Mr. Hutchison. But it's like me to have a great deal more confidence in independent scientists like Mr. Hutchison, than in the Confederacy of Dunces -- whatever 'governing authority' that may be.

- James Neff

YouTube - Further Discussions on Zero Point Energy Close
2You need to upgrade your Flash Player2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7438627977642539647

WTC Destruction and the Hutchison Effect
Andrew Johnson
58 min 1 sec - 15 Jan 2008
www.drjudywood.com

masonfree party

01-02-2008, 08:34 PM

john boy...try reading the facts
http://forums.pueblochieftain.com/showthread.php?t=1659

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

By CB_Brooklyn

Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

There are three basic versions of the 9/11 events. Although differences and/or overlapping may occur, the following three versions generally describe what most people believe:

1. OGCT. This is known as the “Official Government Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspired with 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims to hijack airplanes, outwit the USA’s entire multi-trillion dollar defense system, and cause the Twin Towers to collapse. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the truth of 9/11.

2. APCT. I call this the “Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that, more or less, there were hijackings on 9/11, but the planes might have been taken under remote control to ensure they crashed as planned. Airplanes most likely crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville, but planes definitely did crash into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed from conventional explosives and thermite, and molten metal was found in the rubble. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the “wacko conspiracy theory” that the “truth movement” believes.

3. REAL. This, simply, is the REAL version, backed by actual evidence, Laws of Physics, and common sense: There were no hijackings, no plane crashes, the corporate media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane impacting the South Tower, and the WTC complex (not just the Towers and WTC 7) was destroyed with Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). The government and media steer clear of these.

Refer to the Lenin-credited quote above.

Is it possible the “truth movement” has been run by the 9/11 perpetrators since day one?

Is it possible that certain individuals have been planted to steer the “truth movement” away from the perpetrators? Is it possible these plants have affiliations with directed energy weapons (DEW)?

Is it even possible that some of these plants are “in on it” while others got suckered in? You be the judge.

***Former Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

Mineta was Vice President of Lockheed Martin, a sponsor of DEPS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta
http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/sponsors.html

Mineta ensured minimal interference with the DEW by grounding as many commercial airliners as possible during the timeframe of the towers’ destruction.

Mineta steered the “truth movement” toward hijackings and plane crashes by spreading the “Cheney stand down order” hoax.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archiv...2003-05-23.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...36852417384871

***Former BYU physics professor, Steven Jones, has done research at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...c/jones_cv.htm

Jones steered the “truth movement” toward thermite/conventional explosives/molten metal theories. Jones’ molten metal evidence has been shown to be fabricated.
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...91&Itemi d=60

Jones ridicules the directed energy weapon and TV-Fakery theories with statements such as ”These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.”
http://judicial-inc.biz/Steven_Jones_quits_911.htm

***Physicist Greg Jenkins’ has connections to the NSA and DEW:

"This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9705129 and by funding from the NSA."
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne...s/ybco_prl.pdf

Jenkins’ papers were listed in an annual report which also listed at least one manufacturer of directed energy weapons (Rockwell).
http://www.csr.umd.edu/csrpage/publi...nualreport.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...t-overview.htm

Jenkins steered the “truth movement” away from directed energy weapons by conducting an ambush interview of Dr Judy Wood. (However, a read of the transcript reveals Dr Wood won the debate hands down.)
http://drjudywood.com/articles/trans...ranscript.html

***Official at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Van Romero, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

Romero participated in events at DEPS before and after 9/11.
http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/DEMSconf03.html
http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/EduWksp00.html

Romero steered the “truth movement” toward standard controlled demolition by stating "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points"
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...ns/romero.html

Romero is a controlled demolitions expert. Scroll down a little and note the photo. Does Romero actually think this was caused by a “relatively small amount of explosives”?

***Former Director of the Star Wars program, Robert Bowman, is about as close to directed energy weapons as one can get.

Bowman steered the “truth movement” toward hijackings, and NORAD standing down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5gio_iR2WE

Although he is in Jim Fetzer’s Scholars group, I have not heard him speaking about Dr Wood’s DEW evidence. I do remember, however, an interview where Bowman states that he “doesn’t fall for conspiracy theories” with regard to controlled demolition.

Bowman has a PhD in Nuclear Engineering. How can he possibly call this a conspiracy theory?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also of note is the following:

The government contracted with several sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society for the NIST (NCSTAR 1) Report:

Boeing - Gold Level Current/Founding Sponsor
Applied Research Associates (ARA) - Silver Level Founding Sponsor
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) - Silver Level Current Sponsor
http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/sponsors.html

Dr Judy Wood has discovered that ARA and SAIC are manufacturers of Directed Energy Weapons and have expertise in Psychological Operations (PSYOPS).
http://drjudywood.com/articles/ARA/ARA.html

Dr Wood also discovered two images on ARA’s website that are similar to the World Trade Center. She details this in her Appeal to NIST’s denial of her Request for Correction.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/apics/Appeal_03.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/apics/Appeal_04.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/...oodAppeal.html

The New York Times is a mainstream media source. Do they tell the truth of 9/11 or do they hide it? Why on earth would they help the “truth movement” by publishing evidence of explosives?

The New York Times steered the “truth movement” towards explosives demolitions by publishing the WTC Task Force Interviews.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...s_full_01.html

However, they redacted evidence for Directed Energy Weapons.
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02...nside-wtc.html

Who's Popular On Corporate Media? Who's Not?

*William Rodriguez - publicly speaks up against DEW / TV-Fakery
http://www.911researchers.com/node/555#comment-4089

*David Ray Griffin - pro Global Government (aka New World Order)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-TZypcH9eg

*Steven Jones - pro explosives-demolition, pro thermite, pro molten metal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayYXNo0i_Cs

*Kevin Barrett - supports Steven Jones
http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/KB/Barrett_Kevin.html

*Robert Bowman - expert on NORAD’s jet-scrambling procedures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5gio_iR2WE

*Judy Wood - never invited to discuss the DEW evidence, despite her filing of an actual court case
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

*Morgan Reynolds - never invited back after discussing TV-Fakery on FOX News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8

Reynolds also filed a court case
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...1=federal_case

*Jerry Leaphart - mainstream attorney never invited to discuss his clients’ (Wood/Reynolds) 9/11 legal actions

In an interview with Kevin Barrett, trial attorney Jerry Leaphart has said:

"What I can tell you and the listeners, Kevin, is this. There is more admissible evidence associated with the theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weapons than there is admissible evidence for any single other theory out there that has been promulgated."

MP3 Clip: http://drjudywood.com/media/070727_J...artRFC_Adm.mp3
Full Show: http://drjudywood.com/media/070727_J...aphartRFCs.mp3

============================================
============================================
============================================

The following is a timeline relating to promotion of the Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory by government plants and the media, and suppression of the REAL version by government plants and media. Also included is suppression of free energy research.

Continued here:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...51&Item id=60

masonfree party

05-02-2008, 06:16 PM

masonfree party

05-02-2008, 06:17 PM

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/03mar/masonserpentjb.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/03mar/masonserpent.html&h=472&w=300&sz=37&hl=en&start=48&um=1&tbnid=2n_rKPmMZMqtEM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=82&prev=/images%3Fq%3Droman%2Bpillar%2Bentwined%26start%3D4 0%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
Jachin & Boaz the Twin Towers/Twin Pillars

http://nomoregames.net/911/exploding_the_airliner_crash_myth/tire1.jpg < landing gear wheel
notice just in front of the planted wheel wreckage there is a masonic entwined column...obviously they get a kick out of leaving their calling card

Got this from a chap in Scotland - I think he could be onto something - what do you reckon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Andrew,

just been looking at Morgan and Rick's article on the missing planes. It has some interesting photos of the landing wheel which supposedly came from one of the jets - the bit that flew through the air and came down just next to/partly under some scaffolding. I'd never seen these photos before.

Two of the photos (below) show a strange object lying in the gutter in front of the landing wheel. Morgan describes it as a 'Greco-Roman pillar', but doesn't speculate on where it could have come from. My immediate thought was that it looks like the Roman fasces bundle. Could it have been planted as a direct clue to the Masonic symbolism which Michael Hoffman reckons is a routine part of what he calls the 'cryptocracy'?

Then I found a FEMA diagram showing where the only bits of the alleged planes landed. There was one engine and two landing wheels - one each supposedly from each plane and lying a considerable distance apart. Morgan doesn't indicate which one of these is the one in his photos.

MASONIC SCUM...WIPE THEM OFF THE PLANET!

masonfree party

05-02-2008, 06:47 PM

EDUCATE YOURSELF http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/03mar/masonserpentjb.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/03mar/masonserpent.html&h=472&w=300&sz=37&hl=en&start=48&um=1&tbnid=2n_rKPmMZMqtEM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=82&prev=/images%3Fq%3Droman%2Bpillar%2Bentwined%26start%3D4 0%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

weston white

05-02-2008, 10:38 PM

Looks just looks like an old fashioned light pole that got knocked over and pushed aside into the gutter, could be planted though, the engine had to have been planted, so why not a symbolic pillar as well.

lottie

05-02-2008, 10:51 PM

masonfree party

06-02-2008, 12:39 AM

remember 7/7 and the blood splattered blue doors?..the blue door is a symbol of freemasonry

john white

06-02-2008, 12:47 AM

How come the wheels were out for landing? was that shown in the pics of the planes flying into the buildings? and lets assume they wern't and they were neatly tucked away...are they made of rubber? why didnt they melt? how come molten steel girders were reported as the reason for the collapse yet the wheels from the planes remained intact (admittedly a little ripped)??? forgive me if this has already been discussed i dont delve into the 9/11 stuff much:o

The Wheels wernt "out for landing": but the undercarriage of a plane is designed to be enormously strong and made from high strength metal alloys, and therefore undercarrige parts, along with the inner mechanism of engines, is about the most durable part of any aircraft in a crash situation. This wreckage is debris that was ejected from the impact point in the towers to the streets of New York below. Also the speed with which the wheels would have continued to move exiting the building meant that "melting" was unlikely to take place: that requires a sustained heat, not the "flash" heat of an explosion.

And finally, seeing "masonic" significane in the debris picture is akin to seeing dragons in ones soup

john white

06-02-2008, 12:48 AM

lottie

06-02-2008, 12:49 AM

The Wheels wernt "out for landing": but the undercarriage of a plane is designed to be enormously strong and made from high strength metal alloys, and therefore undercarrige parts, along with the inner mechanism of engines, is about the most durable part of any aircraft in a crash situation. This wreckage is debris that was ejected from the impact point in the towers to the streets of New York below. Also the speed with which the wheels would have continued to move exiting the building meant that "melting" was unlikely to take place: that requires a sustained heat, not the "flash" heat of an explosion.

And finally, seeing "masonic" significane in the debris picture is akin to seeing dragons in ones soup

Ok thanks! :)

weston white

06-02-2008, 03:14 AM

Oh it is a wheel, I thought there was one with an engine under a scaffolding, I just assumed that was the same one, different angle.

That does make me wonder how is it that the wheel ejected from the crash though not the rest of its components nor the fuselage, that means the wheel and axle some how transported through the body of the craft (which presumably remained within the building or as the story goes and “disintegrated” or “dissolved”) and then landed softly onto the ground right next to a curb (along with the engine that also landed nearby a curb and under a scaffolding), without disturbing or damaging the scaffold frame or cracking the sidewalk, or bouncing about or rolling into something such as you would expect a hi speed moving wheel to actually do.

What are the odds of this, I mean when you actually do the math on the mass and momentum and angular descent, the odds of these objects landing so similar and presumably close to one another I would imagine become an impossibility, rather it would appear somebody pulled up in a truck equipped with a Low Boy and dropped them off at the curb and jammed.

john white

06-02-2008, 03:37 AM

What are the odds of this, I mean when you actually do the math on the mass and momentum and angular descent, the odds of these objects landing so similar and presumably close to one another I would imagine become an impossibility, rather it would appear somebody pulled up in a truck equipped with a Low Boy and dropped them off at the curb and jammed.

Odds are funny things... for one thing, it depends on whether anything of significance is really indicated by looking at a scene and saying "I see this and this and this": are we seeing what is there, or seeing our beliefs reflected back at us? Perhaps the odds of this happenign are effectively 1 to 1, being as this is what happened.

Its not odd at all to find the most durable parts of the aircraft seperated from the surrounding elements. The collision with the tower infrastructure and subsequent explosion shredded the aluminium body of the aircraft, but not the alloys of the landing gear and engines: thats why landing gear and engine components are regularily surviving elements of crashes whilst fusuelages are blown into shreds

As for how the wheel came to be where it is: well why not? Its location is consistant with the angle of approach of the flights prior to hitting the towers. We cant be sure that it hasnt been moved prior to the photo, but given its weight thats unlikley: and the metal bar (probably a lamp post or maybe a decorated column, possibly removed from the building the scaffolding indicates is being worked on) could simply be something nearby placed alongside the wheel to give the photograph scale: photographers do that kind of thing a lot

Basically these "planted bits of Planes in NYC" conspiracy theories have no facts to support them, its pure specualtion, there are no inconsitancies in the evidential record of debris, and requires yet another cloak-and-dagger exercise to make it work. Its highly highly unlikely

Whereas all that actually had to happen was for the Planes to crash into the buildings and the debris (and its placement) took care of itself from there

dave52

07-02-2008, 04:13 PM

Actually I think it's Alex Grey, who painted 9/11 before the event as part of his Gaia artwork.

http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/7/2/12/f_AlexGreyGaim_e42725f.jpg

john white

07-02-2008, 07:31 PM

Actually I think it's Alex Grey, who painted 9/11 before the event as part of his Gaia artwork.

http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/7/2/12/f_AlexGreyGaim_e42725f.jpg

It certainly is and he certainly did: though I would'nt expect Pixie to know that :)

masonfree party

09-02-2008, 11:55 AM

John Hutchison was also meant to be on but due to a mix-up, had a conflicting call with someone else)

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/index.php?dir=911/&sort=date&order=desc

or

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Dr%20Judy%20Wood%20-%209-11%20and%20The%20Hutchison%20Effect%20-%20Morgan%20Reynolds%20-%20Dynamic%20Duo%20-%2007%20Feb%202008.mp3

mr_pixie

09-02-2008, 02:25 PM

Some very strange shit going on here!

Why are there holes is the windows but there seems to be no damage to the front of this building???

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/windows.jpg

mr_pixie

10-02-2008, 12:31 AM

cyince

12-02-2008, 12:31 AM

Ok. I listened to about 15 mins of the interview, and went to Judy Woods website to follow along. She is divorced from reality. She hasn't done any testing of any of her hypothesis. (I mean real tests, simple ones like burning paper, breaking commercial plate glass etc) I really don't know where to start with this. How can she make these claims with no knowledge of what she is talking about? She actually claims that there was no wind because there were leaves on the trees (then shows a tree with no leaves). Says the paper didn't catch fire (then shows pictures of paper on fire). How can anyone take her seriously? The round holes in glass, bent metal... it just gets worse and worse.

john white

12-02-2008, 05:16 AM

mr_pixie

15-02-2008, 04:28 PM

I would say that the large amount of broken windows (60%) constitutes damage. What is your explanation, or why does that not constitute damge in you eyes?

Just round holes is the Windows isnt that a bit strange? No other visable damage from the picture.

I wasnt talkin about the glass windows was talkin about the rest of the building the facard/face of the building. These are visual observations.

What is this picture of?

The picture of the boat with water droplets going up is a picture of a John Hutchison experiment. See Judys website (Below) for more info.

No, I have not. Does that preclude me from asking questions? I wasn`t asking questions specific to the radio interview either, I was asking about the pics you posted and your explanation.
Your well with your rights to ask questions in a fair way. But this thread was started with the Judy Wood radio link, maybe you should have another go and try and listen to this very interesting Radio interview from the start to the end. Keep an open mind.

You posted the links and then follow up information with no context. My question was very simple and requires no 'experteise'. I'm not sure how I'm being a dick. I don't really want to listen to the radio interview, but want to know what the pic you posted is of. As well, I asked why YOU think 60% of the windows being broken isn't damage. If anything you could accuse me of being lazy...not a dick.
I know the windows are damage, but was refering to the outside shell, conctrete etc..
Maybe Cynice you are behaving unreasonably here.

Ok. I listened to about 15 mins of the interview, and went to Judy Woods website to follow along. She is divorced from reality. She hasn't done any testing of any of her hypothesis. (I mean real tests, simple ones like burning paper, breaking commercial plate glass etc) I really don't know where to start with this. How can she make these claims with no knowledge of what she is talking about? She actually claims that there was no wind because there were leaves on the trees (then shows a tree with no leaves). Says the paper didn't catch fire (then shows pictures of paper on fire). How can anyone take her seriously? The round holes in glass, bent metal... it just gets worse and worse.

Brief Biographical Sketch for
Judy D. Wood, Ph.D.
Website: http://drjudywood.com/

Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.
Dr. Wood received her
• B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),
• M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and
• Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including
• Experimental Stress Analysis,
• Engineering Mechanics,
• Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
• Strength of Materials Testing
From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. Dr. Wood is currently writing a book with Morgan Reynolds based on the physical evidence for understanding and explaining the events on 9/11.
One of Dr. Wood's research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis. In recent years, Dr. Wood and her students have developed optical systems with various wavelengths and waveguides. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports.
Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told.

masonfree party

14-03-2008, 12:07 AM

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=60

9/11 and The Hutchison Effect – The Chips Have Fallen

Andrew Johnson

11 March 2008

It was approximately 1 year ago that I felt there was a need to document the circumstances surrounding the break up of the original Scholars for 9/11 Truth group, which became 9/11 Scholars and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. After the split, the 9/11 Scholars group was headed up by Prof. Jim Fetzer and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice was headed up by Prof. Steve Jones, who had already been connected to the Cold Fusion cover up and Los Alamos National Laboratories and who had been caught using faked or massaged data in his presentations.

At the time of the split, I was still puzzled by certain aspects of what happened, and others in the group that were corresponding with one another at that time still had misgivings about being involved in either camp. However, I felt that the evidence was clear about Prof Steve Jones - and that Jim Fetzer had been able to see problems with the way Steve Jones was acting and the way he was presenting data, therefore I had only minor reservations about being associated with Fetzer’s 9/11 Scholars group.

Jim Fetzer Commends Andrew Johnson

On Mar 24 2007, following the split in the Scholars Group, Jim Fetzer sent an e-mail to several people, including me, inviting them to join the Scholars Group’s “steering committee”. In this e-mail he said:

I have been impressed with your integrity and dedication and efforts to promote truth and exposed falsehoods about the events of 9/11. I need people like you to advise me in relation to the future of Scholars and to offer comments, criticism, and critique as appropriate.

This seemed like a good development, and when someone makes a statement such as this, one is more likely to consider the request seriously. I agreed to be on this committee. However, there was very little activity and the only question Jim Fetzer asked us during the time that I “served” on this committee was whether he should take action against Alex Floum over intellectual property issues. At that time, I suggested Jim not do this, because it was not really specifically related to the study, research or exposure of 9/11 issues and so did not seem worth expending any effort on.

The next discussion of any significance that I had with Jim Fetzer came in late September 2007, I had compiled a study of NYC “First Responder” witness accounts in an effort to find out how they described the impact of the second “plane” on WTC 2. Jim Fetzer invited me onto his radio show “The Dynamic Duo” to discuss this. On 02 Oct 2007, he sent me an e-mail saying:

Your summary is excellent. We can go thorough it--you can lay it out--and we can go from there. Examples of witness reports are very effective.

On 3rd October 2007, I spoke with Jim on his radio show. We had a good discussion about this study and some interesting questions were discussed and analysed. At the end of the broadcast, Jim Fetzer said:

Andrew Johnson, I can’t thank you enough for your excellent work – I’m really proud to have you as a member of Scholars, and I’m very grateful for all you’re doing. Keep up the good work.

So, from these messages and statements, it would seem that Jim Fetzer valued my opinion, my methods, study and conclusions.

The Hutchison Effect on Jim Fetzer

In late December and early January Dr. Judy Wood posted her study comparing the damage at the scene of the destruction of the WTC Complex with the effects observed in Hutchison’s experiments. Dr. Wood and I had also appeared Ambrose Lane’s show “We Ourselves” on Mon 14th Jan and Fri 18th Jan. (Links to audios of these interviews are here [1] [2]– please download and share. Links to videos of these interviews are on this website and Dr. Wood’s website.)

Dr. Judy Wood explained to me that Jim Fetzer was advised directly about this new study on approximately 20 Jan 2008. On 30 Jan 2008, I posted a press release about this study on PR Log and OpEdNews.

During this time, I received no communication at all from Jim Fetzer. Surprisingly, the first comment I heard from him came via Judy, in an e-mail, where he offered to “smooth” the Press Release I had written. Why did Fetzer not contact me directly, as author of the Press Release? Why had it taken him almost 2 weeks to contact Judy regarding the Hutchison Effect study? This situation was strange to me. Fetzer had previously complimented me, I was on the “steering committee”. Why had Fetzer not contacted me first? One might have thought that if he was unhappy that I had written the press release (as a matter of urgency, as I saw things), he might have even “chastised” me for not involving him in the process. However, I did not attach the press release to the “Scholars” group – but it obviously mentioned Dr. Wood.

Jim Fetzer and Ace Baker and Video Fakery

On 27th Feb 2008, Ace Baker appeared with Jim Fetzer on the Dynamic Duo. They discussed how Ace was sure that John Hutchison had faked his videos and how Ace was therefore greatly concerned that Dr. Judy Wood had associated herself with “a fraud”. The problem with Ace’s analysis then became the subject of an article I wrote, describing why his conclusions were ill-founded as they were based only on a limited set of evidence.

Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison on Dynamic Duo

On 28th February, Dr. Wood and John Hutchison appeared on the show with Jim Fetzer. Fetzer introduced John as follows:

JF: John I want to welcome you to the Dynamic Duo.

JH: Hello-o…

JF: John – could you tell us a little bit about yourself – ye know - your background and your education – especially your training in science and technical subjects?

Rather than, say, asking John how he started to perform his experiments, or perhaps what he thought of the intriguing data that Fetzer and Wood had just been discussing, Fetzer chooses to ask a question about John’s training and/or education. Why did Fetzer seem more interested in this than in the bizarre data and effects that had also been touched on, both on Fetzer’s previous show with Ace Baker and with Dr. Judy Wood only moments earlier? Regardless, John replied candidly, and cheerfully. Fetzer then asked about him going to High School and pointed out that John did not “matriculate to a university” or have a university degree. John agreed, without any reservation or hesitation. Fetzer, still not asking about the anomalous data or effects, then said “How have you made your living, John?” What was unclear to me was how this was relevant to the study of the WTC evidence - which was the subject of discussion at the time John came on. How exactly was Jim Fetzer’s line of questioning relevant to the Hutchison Effect evidence itself?

As I mentioned in the previous article, during the broadcast, Jim Fetzer seemed noticeably quiet and there were a number of longer silences as Judy waited for Jim Fetzer’s reaction. He made no points of science and did not specifically query or re-interpret any of the points of evidence in relation to the WTC that Dr. Wood presented.

When Jim Fetzer asked John Hutchison for an explanation of the Hutchison Effect, John Hutchison gave a summary describing how it may be caused by a poorly understood interaction between Radio Frequency (RF) fields, Electrostatic Fields.

Did Fetzer not consider it significant that the Hutchison Effect was actually named after John? If Prof Stephen Hawking had been on the program, because someone in the 9/11 Truth Movement had referenced Hawking Radiation for example, would Fetzer have asked about Hawking’s background in the same detail as he did of John Hutchison?

Dr Wood first learned of Hutchison's work in October 2006 and she has said that she felt she could not endorse it or deny it without additional information and/or studying. It took well over a year for her to feel confident enough about the science of John Hutchison's work, and to fully appreciate the striking parallels with what happened on 9/11. She reached that point, very carefully and methodically, by conducting research in that area of science.

Jim Fetzer, though has written a number of books and has studied and taught courses in the Philosophy of Science, is not an engineer, and not a scientist per se, and hasn't studied the science. However, he seems to have few reservations about the methods employed by Ace Baker to mimic and by inference discredit John Hutchison’s work. Is this a credible position for Jim Fetzer to adopt?

After the Dynamic Duo Show

It seemed to be that Jim Fetzer had drawn the same conclusion as Ace Baker – that John Hutchison was a fraud, and he seemed to think that Ace had essentially demonstrated this beyond reasonable doubt. To make sure I had read the situation correctly, I sent an e-mail to Jim Fetzer asking him 6 specific questions about what had been discussed in the broadcast with Ace Baker. His initial response did not answer my questions. In it, Fetzer said:

You have taken for granted that Hutchison's research is well-founded or at least sincere.

This was incorrect. I had known of John Hutchison’s work since around 1998 or 1999, having come across it in a book by UK Author Albert Budden and also having heard it discussed by Lockheed Martin Scientist Boyd Bushman and UK Defence Journalist Nick Cook on a programme called Billion Dollar Secret. I had audio recordings of John Hutchison on my own Website – from 2004 and 2005. So I had certainly not taken Hutchison’s research for granted! Fetzer stated this, even though I had previously advised him that I had researched into areas related to black projects, as well as free energy technology. If Jim Fetzer had looked at my Website in a little more detail, he would have found the research and presentations I had already posted there. I had included a segment about John Hutchison’s experiments and experience in a presentation I had originally put together in March 2004.

Fetzer’s message was overall, rather negative, leaving only a little leeway for his own error. For example he said:

I don't know enough to resolve it, but I'm very troubled. Hutchison's work does not look right to me. It appears to me to be fake, phony, and staged, something we might expert from some high school student who is contemptuous of authority--especially academic!--and is out to make fools of them.

Fetzer didn’t discuss any specific points of evidence, he merely offered feelings and opinions and seemed to suggest that because John had no academic background, his experiments and work were bogus. Fetzer completely ignored the evidence that the Hutchison Effect was real. This evidence included documents, metal samples and witness testimony. Neither Ace Baker or Jim Fetzer directly addressed any of this evidence. Why? Fetzer’s focus was primarily on the idea that videos of the Hutchison Effect could be faked easily (but even that point is debateable, as Ace had clearly gone to some trouble).

I sent an e-mail back to Jim Fetzer pointing out that he had not answered any of my 6 questions and I said:

For you to support fakery and subterfuge over diligent research and analysis now forces me to resign from the 911scholars group, regardless of what anyone else on this list chooses to do.

So I decided that because his emphasis was on the idea that it was likely a fake, because the fake video produced by Ace Baker looked too similar to the videos made of John’s experiments (which, in most cases, were not filmed by John anyway), I could no longer see how Fetzer was interested in looking at the evidence that this view was inadequate and incomplete.

Fetzer responded with a message saying:

I hope you understand that, in rejecting Hutchison (in the tentative and provisional fashion characteristic of science, where new evidence and new hypotheses might revive an old theory or impugn a new one), I am not rejecting Judy.

This was not what I had stated to him. I had stated to him that I could not support his conclusion, as he had not criticised Ace for putting out a fake story about buying coils on e-bay and then making a fake video to explain away the Hutchison Effect. Fetzer had ignored evidence.

Fetzer continued:

If there is something to Hutchison's "effects", it would mean that he has discovered laws of nature (anti-gravity, unusual forces, etc.) the existence of which has heretofore been unrecognized (unsuspected, unconfirmed).

This is correct – but the conclusion that Hutchison has, indeed, discovered anti-gravity can only be drawn once the evidence is evaluated. Fetzer ignored this evidence – as already mentioned above. Fetzer continued:

I most certainly do not "support fakery and subterfuge over diligent research and analysis" and I cannot imagine what has given you that impression.

I was given the impression in Fetzer’s earlier e-mail, in which he said:

I think Ace's point was that it is easy to simulate "Hutchison-like effects" and claim they are valid when they are not. That seems to me to be perfectly appropriate and I do not fault him for that.

Ace had produced a fake video and sent round a fake story about it. Fetzer “did not fault him” – if Fetzer didn’t support Ace’s approach to 9/11 research, then why did he say the opposite of this?

This same e-mail also contained a message Fetzer had sent to another person in our small group who had questioned Fetzer in a similar manner. To this other person, Fetzer wrote:

Andrew Johnson posed questions to me, which implied that, unless I disavowed Ace, he might have to consider withdrawing from Scholars.

Technically, this interpretation was not accurate. I had not suggested Fetzer “disavow Ace” for me to continue my association with the Scholars group – rather, I had said I could not support the group’s founder if he supported the methods that Ace had used. This was a subtle, but important difference – I said that I could not continue to be a member of the 911 Scholars group if its founder wasn’t significantly more critical of Ace’s approach – based as it was on a lack of evidence.

Jim Fetzer Answers Key Questions!

I further clarified my feelings and position that I wished to resign from the Scholars group in follow-up e-mails to Fetzer. Fetzer’s support of Ace’s approach was confirmed in the next e-mail I received from him, in which he had chosen to answer the questions I posed, thus:

1) Do you think it is a good way to assess the validity of a study by making a fake video, after initially giving out a false story about that video? i.e. Ace Baker said he had obtained Tesla Coils from e-bay to attempt experiments related to the Hutchison Effect, then he posted a video saying he'd reproduced it. In reality, he put out a false story and sent a later e-mail suggesting we should have detected this and commented. What are your views on this, coming as it did from a respected researcher?

Come on! He's pointing out how easy it is to fake this stuff. There was nothing wrong in his doing what he did. You should be more open-minded.

Fetzer says there was nothing wrong with what Ace had done – he had made a fake video, but initially lied saying he had used Tesla coils to produce the effect. Fetzer saw nothing wrong with this.

2) Ace, on his blog, has declared John as a fraud and that his videos are 100% fake. How much do you agree with his conclusions? What do you think of the considerable amounts of other documentary evidence that John has been visited by Los Alamos National Labs (which Steve Jones has been connected with)?

For reasons I have explained already, I also think Hutchison is a fraud. But I stand behind Judy's research, which I extoll as extremely important.

Again, Fetzer was agreeing with Ace – and ignoring the documentary and physical evidence that Hutchison was not a fraud. Fetzer seemed to be saying “everything else apart from this Hutchison stuff that Judy had posted was good.” So Fetzer was disregarding my view – someone he invited onto the committee. More importantly, he was disregarding the significantly more qualified view of Dr. Wood. Instead, he decided that Ace was “on the money” – simply because Ace was an “expert in Digital Processing” (but with unknown qualifications) and Ace had produced a video which mimicked some (not all) of the characteristics of Hutchison’s experiments. Why was Fetzer saying this?

3) I have been checking Ace's blog and one of the file names he used was "judy-wood-falls-on-her-sword.html" (see http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/03/judy-wood-falls-on-her-sword.html) Do you have any thoughts on the fact that he has used this particular filename? Why do you think he has done this?

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. He thinks Judy has made a blunder. You think she and Hutchison are "right on". I agree with Ace.

Fetzer doesn’t specifically answer my question here – but he still agrees with Ace – who says Judy has made “a blunder”. In any case, I thought this debate was primarily about the Hutchison Effect, not Judy Wood – why didn’t Fetzer make this distinction himself?

4) One would think that Ace might have made a single video to point out the possibility of video fakery, but I think he has now made 4 or 5 different ones, and seemingly he's gone to quite a bit of trouble to do this. Do you have any thoughts on the reasons behind this?

This stuff is very easy to fake. Why don't you at least admit as much. What in the world justifies you in thinking Hutchison is on the up and up?

This answer from Fetzer is very surprising and again he completely ignores the other documentary and physical evidence, as well as witness testimony and many videos shot by different film companies. I had already pointed this all out to Fetzer. Dr. Wood and I had already discussed this 6 weeks previously on Ambrose Lane’s radio program. Why did Fetzer ignore all of this, and what I’d previously said?

Also, making a fake video proves nothing in of itself – this is precisely why other evidence must be evaluated before drawing conclusions!

5) Do you think that Ace has managed to reproduce any or all of the effects that John Hutchison has? (I noted on your show that Ace discussed the Red Bull Can experiment and described the can flexing and bending throughout the length of it, yet his faked video did not duplicate this phenomenon - therefore Ace had noted these anomalies, but had not reproduced them.)

They are close enough to raise serious doubts in most minds--indeed, in every serious scientific mind, in my opinion. I know we disagree. OK?

Again, Fetzer just thinks “close enough” is “good enough”. He suggests “every serious scientific mind would have serious doubts, in his opinion”. I myself have been described as having a “scientific mind”, but because I have evaluated the evidence I have little or no doubt that the Hutchison Effect is real.

6) Ace says he is sure the Hutchison Effect is not real, but he can't explain the evidence that Judy has collected. Why would he attack Judy for giving an explanation that involves a well-documented, almost 30-year old phenomenon?

Appealing to the Hutchison effect to explain Judy's work is to appeal to a mystery to explain an enigma. There is no explanatory benefit here.

This statement by Fetzer is almost meaningless and is based on no evidence – only his own opinion. The comparison of the WTC evidence and Hutchison Effect evidence is obvious to those who see the photographs side by side. Fetzer, at this point, ignores this evidence too.

Jim, some chips seem to have fallen here and I, as a fellow member of 911 Scholars am keen to get your views on "where they now lay". I need to work out if I can continue to be aligned with the 911 Scholars group, or whether it's founder would support the idea that guests on his show can, without criticism, use "debunking tactics" to attempt to discredit perhaps the most diligent research that the group might be associated with. The answer to this question is especially important to me now that that researcher has definitely used deception as part of his approach.

There was nothing wrong with what Ace has done. I applaud him for showing how easy it is to fake this stuff. You haven't shown it is genuine, but, for reasons I do not understand, are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker!

Again, Fetzer re-asserts his support for Ace promulgating a bogus story and making fake videos. He says he “does not understand why” I am “swallowing” the Hutchison Effect “hook line and sinker”. Again, Fetzer completely overlooks or disregards all the evidence presented here. Is Fetzer trying to make me feel stupid? This seemed to be the approach he would now adopt, but in the next e-mail, Fetzer expressed concern that I would “offer a very unflattering portrait” of him, as I had mentioned I was going to compose this article. The reader must decide whether Fetzer’s view on this is fair or accurate – all I can do is present all of the evidence for review. My intent is simple: to analyse the evidence, draw conclusions and find the truth. I am not at all comfortable with how this matter has unfolded.

A “War of Credentials” and The Logic Quiz

Following this exchange, Fetzer then decided he would start to debate my methods of reasoning, based on his own “35 years teaching students how to think responsibly”. He also stated that this appeared “to be a lesson that you [Andrew] need to learn”. I had sent several messages to Fetzer where I stated I claimed no credibility for myself, only that I collected evidence, analysed it and posted conclusions. Fetzer suggested I “seem to believe that all opinions are equally good!” I never said this. Those reading this article and my website will quickly gain an impression of how credible the information and analysis is, so you might like to consider this as you read on below – and you might also like to consider carefully Fetzer’s earlier messages to me, documented near the beginning of this article. Here, he seemed to be comfortable that my analyses were credible.

In Fetzer’s next e-mail, he decided to test me on aspects of methods of reasoning and logic, based on his knowledge of the Philosophy of Science. I decided I would accept his challenge even though I questioned (for myself) his motives - for 2 reasons. Firstly, why didn’t he set me such a “quiz” in order to gain entry to the Scholars group? Surely it would’ve been better to ensure that members thought “logically” and “responsibly” before disputes over evidence arose? Secondly, what did these questions – such as “What is the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning?” have to do with WTC or Hutchison Effect evidence specifically?

I have to confess, that at this point, I no longer took the debate seriously. In such instances, I defer to my sense of humour to carry the matter forward – as I have found this method is far more useful and it can occasionally precipitate useful information, which is harder to obtain using the anger/accusation/ridicule approach. Fetzer, however, had started to use the “ridicule” approach. In the message referenced above, he wrote:

Creating a fabricated video to demonstrate that a video can be fabricated is not deceitful but appropriate. It is actually a form of replication. Ace did that to show how easily it can be done. You are holding that against him? Really, Andrew, you can't be that dumb!

Again, Fetzer ignores the aspect of Ace putting out a fake story and then he suggests I am “dumb” for not agreeing with him. Is this evidence, or an attempt at debunking and ridicule? Other elements of this message contained a similar comment.

In my response to Fetzer, I pointed out his earlier praise for my NYC Witness Study. Why was he now suggesting I was “dumb” for disagreeing with him?

“Total Evidence” and “Special Pleading”

I found some of the questions in the “Logic Quiz” that Fetzer had set for me were quite tricky – I had never studied the theory of logic. In researching answers to the questions Fetzer had set for me, I came up with some interesting terms, and I sent him my “answers” in another e-mail. For fun, I set Fetzer some questions related to software and programming (but he declined to answer them).

Fetzer asked:

What is the requirement of total evidence?

It seems that this consideration applies to this very case of the Hutchison Effect (HE), Ace Baker’s “evidence” and the WTC Evidence. In researching the definition of “total evidence”, I found this link: “One crucial respect in which inductive arguments differ from deductive arguments is in their vulnerability to new evidence”. I would suggest this applies precisely in this case. I also found this link, where it is suggested that “the confirmation function must use all the available evidence and not an arbitrary subset” So, I responded to Fetzer’s question about “total evidence” thus:

It is that ALL the evidence is evaluated! Perfect! Yes! HE and WTC do have a total evidence requirement and Dr. Wood in her study is MUCH closer to it than Ace Baker, so even by your own knowledge and teachings, you are not adhering to the standards of logic you teach. What Ace Baker has done (and you have supported him) is use an *arbitrary subset of evidence*! A perfect expression! Thanks!

Another question Fetzer posed was:

What is special pleading?

I found a definition at this link: “The informal fallacy of special pleading is committed whenever an argument includes some double standard. For example, if someone criticizes science for not producing all of the answers to life but excuses their religion for not having all of the answers about life, they are engaged in form of special pleading.” I therefore responded to Fetzer thus:

Ah - this is also a good one. It's when an argument includes double standards. This applies very well here. Ace Baker produced a fake video, in his search for the truth. He is engaging in "special pleading" - by claiming he has mimicked a real process, therefore the real process must be fake - he has ignored "total evidence" and adopted a double standard.

In the same e-mail, I made several other points which, based on the research I did to try and answer the questions he posed, were significant in debating the way Fetzer and Baker had treated this whole business.

Fetzer Responds

In trying to answer the Logic Quiz, I felt I had least got some things right, even though it was, for me, a 2-hour “crash course” in Philosophy and Logic Theory (subjects I have never formally studied at any level). I eagerly awaited his response…

I am sorry, Andrew, but your standards of credibility and mine simply do not coincide. I suppose that having a Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science and having devoted my professional life to logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning have given me a different perspective than your own.

Again Fetzer does not debate specific points of evidence and he also ignores my answers to the “quiz”, which, I contend, expose how weakly he has applied his own standards of thinking to this case. Fetzer then went on to make another bold statement:

I find it fascinating that you infer that, because Ace Baker and John P. Costella and I disagree with you, we must be suppressing, distorting, or otherwise fabricating evidence!

Whilst I had suggested Fetzer was trying to cover up the Hutchison Effect’s relation to the destruction of the WTC, I never accused him of fabricating evidence. Neither had I accused Ace Baker of fabricating evidence. Ace himself admitted faking a video – so I wasn’t accusing him of anything other than what he had already admitted doing! Fetzer also said:

Make sure that you observe in this article or yours that I stand behind Judy's research but not Hutchison's. And be sure to explain our reasons for thinking as we do. That called playing fair by laying our cards on the table as well as your own.

So, here is all the evidence – all the cards, and all the chips for the reader to consider.

Fetzer sent a short follow up e-mail, where he responded to my note that I thought the quiz he’d set had been “fun, fun, fun”.

Since I mentioned there were three differences between inductive and deductive reasoning and you (wrongly) mention a common misconception, I presume you already know you are wrong on that one. I'd love to offer you a tutorial, but you are not a very promising student. In any case, thanks for your good work of the past. All my best!

So again, Fetzer makes disparaging remarks, rather than replying to the specific points I’d made about the evidence and the way he had analysed and criticised it – or rather, the way that he and Ace Baker seemed to have agreed that ignoring evidence completely was the best policy in this case.

By this point, of course, I knew what Fetzer was doing – and so again, I deferred to my sense of humour and responded thus (in reference to my earlier “fun, fun, fun” comment):

Can't you at least "mark" my attempts at "special pleadings" and "total evidence" [answers] - go on, please!!?!

Or "has the Daddy Taken the T-bird away, then?"

Fetzer didn’t seem to see the humorous side here, and responded thus:

I had no idea I was dealing with a child! Thanks for clarifying that!

I had perhaps “taunted” Fetzer somewhat, during the exchange of e-mails, but I had not insulted his intelligence nor had I made disparaging remarks – I tried hard to stick to points of evidence, both regarding the Hutchison Effect and the WTC and his own analysis of these things. He responded without addressing the evidence and he suggested I was either “dumb” or “childish”. Is this an effective way to debate the truth of an issue?

Summary and Conclusions

Here are some observations. Prof Jim Fetzer, is an author or editor of multiple books, and he repeats this fact at regular intervals.

Fetzer said he was impressed with my “sticking to the truth” but completely ignored my analysis of the Hutchison Effect evidence and he never sent any comments up until Ace Baker had been on his show.

Fetzer claims he is more credible, due to his PhD and experience, yet he gives more credibility to Ace Baker’s analysis regarding the Hutchison effect rather than that of Dr. Wood. He never disclosed Ace’s qualifications – yet he takes Ace’s view as more credible than Dr. Wood’s and my own – even though he asked Dr. Wood and myself, but not Ace Baker, to be on the Steering Committee.

Fetzer does not take exception to the fact that Ace Baker put out a false story about his video.

Fetzer takes no account of the other evidence regarding John Hutchison – and has not commented on the other documents, metal samples etc.

Fetzer takes no account of the fact that John Hutchison has submitted a sworn affidavit for the court, which in effect means that if he is lying, he could potentially go to prison.

In the broadcast with Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison, there were a number of long silences where Fetzer had an opportunity to question points of evidence, analysis or science. At no time did he do this in any meaningful way.

Fetzer does not consider it significant that the Hutchison Effect was actually named after John.

Some people will, even though all this evidence has been presented, think Fetzer either just has a “big ego” or that he is just being stubborn or stupid. The key question is, why has he been so consistent in this behaviour with regard to the Hutchison Effect and the WTC destruction? I think that the answer is because he knows that the Hutchison Effect is extremely important in this area of research and he has been “given the job” of distracting people from the evidence and turning attention away from it. He cannot, however, simply do this by “trashing Dr. Judy Wood” overtly, as this would be too obvious. He can, however, attempt to “trash” others who are involved in this affair when they are unimportant in the overall scheme.

I think this all goes to show, again, that we now stand at a juncture in human history and it seems to be revolving around revealing secrets and exposing falsehoods. Some people, however, are helping to keep the truth covered up – and by continually challenging them, questioning them and reviewing the evidence, we can work out who those people are.

I hope that this work has served to document the truth about Jim Fetzer and the Hutchison Effect and that the reader will draw their own conclusions as to what has really been happening here.

dave52

14-03-2008, 02:08 AM

john white

14-03-2008, 05:32 AM

That's a freaking long post.

I think Fetzer is excellent. He definately embraces the No-Plane-Theory and TV Fakery. Like me - he is probably unsure what to make of the Hutchison Effect. I like the idea of DEW, but listening to Hutchison and Judy Wood, it all sounds a little...er... unconvincing. I suspect he's keeping his options open - and I can't blame him for that.

I have noticed recently that the 9/11 movement has become a bit of a slanging match. And the base result of this tends to be "you don't agree with me - therefore you must be a gatekeeper". That's just pants. If people are unsure of a theory - they should be allowed to play things with kid gloves.

I do not think Fetzer is part of the conspiracy.

Ah but your not Andrew Johnson's best mate, are you? Its a laugh, but hardly suprising that the "no Planes" clique continues to split itself: it is after all what characters like Fetzer, and Wood, have consistantly attempted to do with 9/11 Truth as a whole: or like Killtown: or come to mention it, Andrew Johnson

Can't blame MFP for it though, after all its just his nature to be a sponge for the material Johnson feeds him until hes convinced himself theres agents hiding round every corner, and in every shadow that is not Johnsonia

Can we see this for what it is yet?

Mind you thats not to endorse Fetzer: far from it. And for those who listend the JFK research community warned us what he was like and what he would do, and proved to be 100% correct. Truth aint what hes interested in, no matter how good the language in some of his speeches. Andrew Johnson's problem is that the facts about Fetzer dont do anything about Johnson simply being dead wrong with everything hes trying so very hard to push out there. Such blatent showboating is far too obvious

mr_pixie

14-03-2008, 01:04 PM

I dont think Jim Fetzer is an agent.

john white

14-03-2008, 07:34 PM

I dont think Jim Fetzer is an agent.

So you think Andrew Johnson is WRONG? Nice clear answer please Stephen