World Crisis Radio - Live stream from Virginia 9/11 conference - 4-6pm Central

Some technical difficulties, but live from Arlington, World Crisis Radio is streaming part of the 9/11 Truth Seminar underway at George Mason University.

Live streams here:
http://rbnlive.com/listen.html

Maginot Line of the Left Gate-Keepers

Abrahamson mentioned this in his speech, let's hope that this is an omen considering what happened to the historical Maginot Line.

It's so cool to have a '911' community

Diggin' it Baby!

Lionel

He's live on the truth again.

((http://www.wor710.com/))

Carnagie was behind the cover-up.

True. Amy Goodman is no friend of justice. I am increasingly convinced that her sponsors are guilty, since Carnagie bought the archives of ALCOA. Once I figured out that she was not going to give credit to our points, I stopped checking the site alltogether. Her coverage of Loose Change was akin to the standard trick of releasing controversial news seconds before the end of the day on Friday. ...Like the mention of the $3.4T missing from the Pentagon on 9/10!

RBN live at DC 911 Con

Congrats to RBN for broadcasting this event live, all over the planet. All Truth networks need to do this at every 911 conference in the future. Local cable access TV shows also need to cover such events in their local areas, then repost on Google Video for free download worldwide. This is the only way to conduct a REAL press conference, unless the purpose is containment and censorship.

Pirate News TV, Comcast Channel 12, Charter Channel 6, Firday nights
Broadcast of all 24 hours from American Scholars Symposium
http://piratenews.org/911con.html
South Park 9/11 Remix with alternate ending
September 911 Surprise Hollywood award-winning miniseries
http://September911Surprise.com

Beams from space?

The Star Wars Beam Weapon
By
Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds
last updated, November 10, 2006

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

Jim Fetzer is interviewing Judy Wood right now about her new theory and it is really interesting. I would urge you all to go over to her newly updated site and check out these unusual ideas. BTW, Fetzer is extremely excited by this.....

As her theory goes, the WTC

As her theory goes, the WTC towers were not brought down with a normal controlled demolition. If they had been, she claims the crashing building mass would have damaged 'the bathtub' surrounding the WTC site. Instead, she describes how directed energy was beamed from above (outer-space), causing the upper portions of the towers to pulverize. She goes further to say that these same energy beams were used to pulverize other WTC buildings (such as the hole in WTC 6).

makes perfect sense

But what about the people in the towers who survived in pockets of the towers as they collapsed around them. The history channel just today had a thing about people who survived the collapses that were trapped in the elevators. Shouldn't they have been vaporized? Well that said, a lot of people were vaporized and no remains ever found.

It could have been a beam weapon sure, but if it was there's no way to verify that. I think people who bash our movement are always blabbering about falsifyability, and I don't think a beam weapon scenario is falsifiable. That said, maybe they had assistance from Aliens in cohorts with Satan, all organized by Terry Parker thought it would be funny to organize the whole thing. You just can never tell on these things.

It's just another loopy theory. I think it personally has something to do with those dumpster like objects described in 9/11 mysteries. I had thought maybe they used thermite to bore through the floors and pump in a themraberic mix but that's totally silly because the thermite would immediately set off the gas along with fires. Maybe they were normal dumpsters that the slick presentation in the flim made me think were important?

Beam weapon theory

Well, at first I thought that Judy Wood's idea was pretty kooky. But on her website

janedoe0911.tripod.com

she has some videos where you can see steel beams turning to dust before your eyes.

This also gets around the "how could they have planted all those explosives" issue.

Also, WTC7 and the towers appear to have been blown up differently - Wood makes the point that there was NO debris other than dust from most of the towers. Also, I didn't know about the hole burned into WTC6 before - something that jives with what's on 911studies.com -- see Jack White's photo studies.

Finally you know you're getting warm if people start threatening you. Zebuhr, Wood's student, looks like he may have been assassinated, plus the author on journal of 911 studies who started to research the 3rd plane theory was threatened.

I believe that there may be some there there.

You don't know what to think - but thermite, as fires, should have left more debris.

Wood's website is still being developed, and some of her photos aren't well labeled, but it's an intriguing idea.

Thermite=incendiary; Thermate=explosive

It is a kooky theory and one which needs about ten times more supporting data before people start compulsively blabbing about it everywhere they would formerly have blabbed about No Planery.

"Steel turning to dust" in that video looks like steel falling straight down, to me, leaving a cloud of dust behind.

Jim Fetzer responding to Judy Wood

Jim Fetzer responsds to Judy Wood's theory of beams from satellites:

"I think we're finding out what happened on 9/11. I'm just blown away by your work! This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11!"

Do people think Fetzer is displying:

1. Responsble intelligent scientific reasoning
2. An error in judgement
3. Purposeful disinformation?

A caller mentions to Fetzer

that talking about energy beams from space is not a good thing for the movement right now, which is to awaken people.
In response, Fetzer says:

"The point Judy makes about the bathtub is stunning, so simple, obvious and powerful. It puts severe limitations on how this could have been done. "

Caller says refutes Wood's allegation that explosives alone would create too much of a seismic event, which would cause the "tub" protecting the area from flooding from the river waters. He says that the explosion of concrete into fine dust would create less of an impact of rubble falling to the ground. He says if Fetzer were to go on Fox News with this material, he would sound like a nut.

Fetzer says: "...it's..dificult to explain what happened."

"[Fox] is not likely to have me back anytime soon."
"You made your point clearly, and thank you for calling. Well done."

Fetzer really does not address the valid concerns. I really question how much critical thinking Fetzer displays on this issue.

i just clicked on Fox News a

i just clicked on Fox News a moment ago and they were talking about how Chavez has been issuing visas to "al qaeda" terrorists. quite an accusation to make just days after Chavez again states the obvious in saying 9/11 was a self inflicted wound. no connection there right? they also made a point to mention Chavez views on 9/11. i believe they used the words "a Bush engineered" attack.

Wait...

Didn't we issue visas to "Al-Qaeda" first?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

not in Fox News world.......

not in Fox News world.......

Al CIAda

Notice how they didn't name the Al CIAda leader in Iraq on TV. I'm getting sick of these fucking liars. Look people in the eyes and say, "You know the war on terror is bogus, don't you?"

Beams from space!!?? No

Beams from space!!??

No planes, holograms and beams from space. I'll go one further. Bin Laden DID carry out 911 -- using a mind control ray from deep in his cave. And icke was right after all. Bush is a shape-shifting lizard.

With friends like these, who needs popular mechanics?

Please, Please, Please...

Buzz this story...
"9/11 Truth Remains the Critical Issue"
http://www.buzzflash.net/topstories.php
(Registration required)

9/11 Conference at UC Berekely today

I just got home from a 9/11 Conference at UC Berkeley with Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, Peter Phillips from Project Censored and others. It was an all day event. Turnout about 400. Steven Jones is working on finishing and getting published his findings on the evidence from the analysis of the samples of WTC dust samples and samples from the materials found on the WTC Steel samples. All evidence points to at this point is consistent with the thermite/thermate hypothesis. Hopefully it was or will be soon broadcast on Guns and Butter radio show.

http://www.liftingthefog.org/program.html

Few, if any, really know 'CDI'

The amazing thing is that nearly zero real reasearch has been done on the *basic* technical requirements for demolishing these buildings. Just picture GWB, with his shit-eatin grin, and it's not that damned hard to begin to think like a trained killer! :)

...There were what, 60-something televised videos of the prior work of CDI? I ask because this was mainstream, (regional affiliate Network TV,) info right up to 1991. -Gone! -No further research required?

Second point. I can't think of anyone other than Hoffman who actually attempted to do ANY math. Why? ...Did Jim debunk the process, by deliberately offering us tainted results? Are there no architects, or free-lance structural engineers interested in the $1M. prize to solve 9/11?

Look at the Twin Towers as One box. This is a fundemental starting-point, since they were perfectly symmetrical edifices. The predominant material is concrete, not steel, as we consider the problem of moving molecular matter. Furthermore, this entire process was outlined in great technical detail, often verbally narrated by the actual forensics experts, in these same videos!!

"Space-beams" may well fit into the dictum, but by which path might they have drawn these conclusions? At the top of the 'program', job #1 was doubtless stated: "Look, we want it to look like the plane brings the building down!" Which means, NO OTHER SOUNDS SHOULD BE HEARD! And, of course any first day acoustician realizes this would have been a very, very, very hard thing to do all by itself. Sound leaks.

In tweaking a P.A. system, we can observe a very interesting phenomena as the microphone feeds-back. It 'squeals' into the upper register, at frequencies specifically dictated by the physical constraints of this box. The 'feedback-eliminator' readily illustrates which precise frequencies are being attenuated, and you can also find these fundementals by simply measuring the space.

But, when we take a 'Lower than audible' tone and force it into a feedback-loop, it builds into a roaring sound that ultimately manifests itself in the low audible range, right before it either blows a huge woofer, or the amp. The audience truly fears for their lives, (not just for their hearing.) To attenuate this phenomena, just below that level, MUST have been a serious vehicle of consideration to all the engineers aboard this crew. It's simply an unavoidable front-end conclusion, and it never diminishes throughout the modeling of their prerequisite 'timed-array.'

So let's say we find a native acoustical 'null' at 31.745hz. Halve it, and you get 15.8725hz., which is clearly inaudible. Now, if you cascade your munitions in relational floor-groupings, you might find that 12 groups, consisting of 9.7666 floors each, creates the perfect symetrical 'vortex', once attenuated at the prerequsite base-carrier frequency of 15.8725Hz.

Perched atop this great invisible waveform, we may find that the cubic volume responds perfectly at base 12., corresponding to the 9'11.2" floor 'interval' and of course the 1/2200th second blast-wave, -or whatever...

This, my friends, is the only way to approach the math involved, and Jim nearly discovered it by working from the cloud-form, backwards. So, while this 'space-beam' sounds utterly implausible to some, it actually fits the HAARP model perfectly. Still, that's not what we did here. Look at the 60-cycle humm. Look at the electric risers. Look at the double-grounded sprinkler system!

I willing to listen

but I don't understand what you're talking about. And I found Fetzer super obnoxious during the Judy wood interview. Just needs to let her talk and give additive comments, not ooo and aah over everything she says. It just sounded like two people rambling science terms who couldn't really use any specificity of language. I've thought Jim Hoffman is the most articulate, logical, and lucid thinkers in the movement before, but especially now we need that guy to do something. I'd love him to use his background with math and computers to attempt to create computer models of what happened that day that at the very least offer a proof that planes/fires could not have caused those towers to collapse as they did.

We know what these buildings were made of and we know the laws of physics. One should be able to prove one way or the other that what happened on 9/11 was possible or impossible. Sure we in the truth movement say those collapses were impossible, but someone should offer a definitive proof. We don't need thermite or beam weapon theories to prove that under no circumstances could the alleged events cause those buildings collapse. Prove that and the inside job status of 9/11 can no longer be disputed and people will be forced to reexamine what they think is true. It would bring it into the realm of much more serious scientific inquiry. There is difficult exhaustive, theoretical and mathematical work that needs to be done by a group of highly skilled, scientific and knowledgeable people. By scientists. Not by conspiracy theorists. There is plenty of conspiracy here now would someone please do the real work?

Outrage at London sting by US spies

Undercover American agents are staging secret 'sting' operations in Britain against criminal and terrorist suspects they want to extradite to the US. In a recent operation, agents from America's Department of Homeland Security set up a suspect by posing as dealers wanting to illegally sell night-vision goggles for export to Iran. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/121106sting.htm

Judy Wood

I wouldn't trust her for a second. Steven Jones has been doing painstaking work on the Thermate hypothesis and Wood and Reynolds concoct fantasies and try to present them as science.

More and more I trust Fetzer less and less.

Fetzer said on his radio

Fetzer said on his radio show this weekend if he gets back on Fox news he is going to bring up Wood's energy beam theory. I do not like Fetzer's behavior. He is like hot and cold water and I don't trust him at all.

Fetzer and Fox

That's all we need is Fetzer to start talking about ray beams. I have a feeling that will happen too. If it does, I'm through with Fetzer and have to assume he's fake opposition and founded the Scholars to hurt the cause.

Here's what's happening...

The controlled demolition is a fact. The collapses of the WTC Buildings exhibited all the characteristics of a controlled demolition. The official theory cannot account for one of them. The was confirmed by NIST who did not address the structural behavior after the moment the buildings were poised for collapse. There's really no sense arguing about this anymore.

So now we have to go to phase two - the muddying of the waters. Here's were Reynolds and Wood come in with their Star Wars fantasies. I'm not a real JFK buff but I'm know they did the same thing with all the theories about Cuba, Russia the mafia etc.

Exactly, hdog--it's a sign of our success!

The truth is that the online scene is just one small corner of the world of 9/11 truth, and much too much is made of it. Of course it's going to be infiltrated and used to discredit those working to raise awareness of the obvious controlled demolitions and lack of plane at the Pentagon. Did anyone believe this was NOT going to happen?

The trick is not to be distracted, not to be discouraged, just because a few online attention hogs turn out to be disinfo shills. If all goes according to the conspirators' plans, we will all devolve into something out of the Lord of the Flies, all tribal with our different theories, etc. and anyone looking in from the outside will say--no way I'm getting involved in that. But of course it's a matter of perception, and someone is going to feel very differently if their first exposure to 9/11 truth is a glimpse into the circus of online shill shows than if they meet and talk to a rational, normal, and well dressed person on the street who warns them in advance of these diversionary tactics.

Good truthers need to be careful not to come across as having anything to do with any of the absurd theories being put out by shills, and be quick to drop any and all references to anyone who they determine to be dishonest brokers. Explain to people that the key issues are the obvious deficiencies in the official accounts of the THREE buildings that collapsed--and make sure you understand the case. Building 7, molten steel, rapid collapses, multiple explosions, and pulverized concrete are all prime physical evidence, regardless of what anyone says.

Circumstancially, talk about Silverstein, Bush family security, the missing trillions reported on 9/10/01, the dancing Israelis, PNAC, the Zelikow commission and its many problems and omissions, and Sibel Edmonds' gag order.

Most of all, make a note of approaches that resonate with people and do your best to make the strongest case possible to whomever it is you're talking to at the time.

Don't doubt for a second that all the drama in evidence lately is in fact a great sign--it means the campaign of disinfo is being stepped up, because they know we're making inroads with regular folks who could care less who Jim Fetzer is.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as David Ray Griffin doesn't start talking about lizard people, we have all the spokespeople we need. This is the home stretch--we either score, or get tagged out. Now is the time to hit top gear, get out there and hammer our points home.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Fetzer

Unfrotunately, I don't trust Fetzer and I think Fetzer runs hot and cold in his beahvior and does some things harmful to 9/11 Truth. Notably he holds a high position of prominence in the movement as the self-appointed Co-Chairman of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

I think that it would be interesting to see what the scientists in this group think of Fetzer's media performances and embracement of Judy Wood's space energy theory. Fetzer has had several major media appearances where he doesn't even mention a word about Building 7. I wonder what the other member of ST911 think about that.

I wonder how much opportunity Fetzer has to derail the 9/11 movement because of his current self-appointed position as Co-Chairman of Scholars for 9/11 Truth? Should we consider Fetzer a real and viable threat because of his holding a position of power in the movement?

Or does it not matter? The reason I think it matters is because so often when network TV interviews a representative of 9/11 truth, they ofen call on Fetzer to appear.

Maybe I am wrong to bring this up. But I do think it is a matter of media strategy for the 9/11 truth movement.

Fetzer responds to Judy Woods on his radio show

Jim Fetzer responsds to Judy Wood's theory of beams from satellites:

"I think we're finding out what happened on 9/11. I'm just blown away by your work! This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11!"

Do people think Fetzer is displying:

1. Responsble intelligent scientific reasoning
2. An error in judgement
3. Purposeful disinformation?

A caller mentions to Fetzer

A caller mentions to Fetzer this weekend that talking about energy beams from space is not a good thing for the movement right now, which is to awaken people.

In response, Fetzer says:"The point Judy makes about the bathtub is stunning, so simple, obvious and powerful. It puts severe limitations on how this could have been done. "

Caller then refutes Wood's allegation that explosives alone would create too much of a seismic event, which would cause the "tub" protecting the area from flooding from the river waters. He says that the explosion of concrete into fine dust would create less of an impact of rubble falling to the ground. He says if Fetzer were to go on Fox News with this material, he would sound like a nut.

Fetzer says: "...it's..dificult to explain what happened."

"[Fox] is not likely to have me back anytime soon."
"You made your point clearly, and thank you for calling. Well done."

Fetzer really does not address the valid concerns. He sidestepped the question. I really question how much critical thinking Fetzer displays on this issue.

That caller was me...

Fetzer is a bit puzzling to me. I listened to his show last week having Steven Jones on, and he seems to enthusiastically endorse everything Jones says. Then he has on Judy Wood, who has vindictively attacked Jones and his motives, and Fetzer enthusiastically endorses her work as well.

I wanted to ask Jim and Judy about her attacks on Jones, but they usually don't give callers long enough to bring up too many things, and I thought my point about the space beams talk hurting the movement was more important for Jim and everyone else to hear.

I also wanted to point out how Judy's web page on the space beams (which she refers to as a "paper", although it hardly deserves that distinction, like the difference between a movie and film) hardly has anything I would call proof that a space beam was used. Yes, there are oddities in some of the pictures, but there is no critical, coherent analysis of the pictures. It's more like: "Ohh, doesn't that look weird", or "See this one strange looking column over here". She needs to really develop her argument and analysis before this thing should be taken seriously.

In fact, I would almost argue that in order to prove the existence of this type of weapon, you would need a prototype in your hands, or detailed specs on how to build one. I have done a little bit of reasearch on the web, and as best I can tell, all of the material available on directed energy weapons is theoretical. As I pointed out in my call, those pictures at the end of her website could be anything, including spotlights they use to attract attention at car dealerships and such. You certainly can't tell just from looking at them and those pictures hardly qualify as proof of space beam weapons.

Anyways, I wasn't trying to attack Fetzer or anything like that. Most if not all of the time I see or hear him, he seems genuinely interested in finding the truth. I just hope that if he gets another chance on Fox or any other MSM, that he doesn't bring up the space beams.

Fetzer said on his radio

Fetzer said on his radio show this weekend if he gets back on Fox news he is going to bring up Wood's energy beam theory.

Fetzer

Fetzer said on his radio show this weekend if he gets back on Fox news he is going to bring up Wood's energy beam theory.

Fetzer Has Just Expanded His Radio Broadcasting

Jim Fetzer at the end of this weekend's edition of his 2 hour weekly internet radio show "Non-Random Thoughts" on the RBN network announced the folowing:
1. Fetzer will no longer be broadcasting weekly on the RBN network, thus ending his "Non-Random" Thoughts radio show.
2. Fetzer has been offered a two-hour per day, five day per week radio program on Genesis Communications Network, he will doing it Tues thru Thur, and Kevin Barrett will host it on Mondays and Fridays. 3-5p Central Time.

Unless I am mistaken, it appears that Fetzer's voice is getting bigger in the 9/11 Truth movement. His first expected guest on his next show, which will begin 11/29/06, will be, none other than *Judy Woods* again!

I think this is a bad develpement for 9/11 truth, but maybe I am wrong.....

my bad

my bad

It's too easy

Sure, her argument is paper thin, but I certainly wouldn't rule out the process. It's simply too intriguing to resist!

The only question is what the heck are you going to do with a spot-beam at 2-5GHz? Doesn't this *necessitate* twin, very very high-power satellites to be in sync?

Any frequency beamed at a spot, paired with the same frequency *in reverse phase* plus an additional frequency, leaves only the additional tone. You can test this effect with two stereo systems in your living room. You will seek to achieve that precise low tone where you will hear absolutely no sound at all. Soon, your ears will begin to heat up and you will not be able to continue the test for more than 2 seconds. The early detonation was 10 seconds early on one or both of the towers. So, what was the composition of the basement bomb that merely destroyed the contents of one portion of one deck-level? And what caused all of the lobby glass to shatter like a Maxell ad?

I think that most all the

I think that most all the evidence can be explained by thermite, thermate, plus or minus other explosives and incindiaries. Why we would start talking about energy beams from satellites is beyond me. The only argument I understand for this regarding the need to not create a huge impact of debris so as to not break the "bathtub" surrounding lower manhatten and prevent flooding, seems to be a very weak argument. The explosions created dust which does not create a lot of force when it falls to the ground.

The scholarliness of her website on this hypothesis: I give a D-.

This is crap, and for Fetzer to be saying that this is the most important scientific finding in the history of 9/11 research really makes me want to see Fetzer impeached from any position of leadership in this movement. IMHO.

Fetzer is a Debator

He gives credence to what people bring to him, I've been listening for a while to his show and disagree mightily with his stance on the Clintons, and if I were him wouldn't have associated with Thorn.

But Fetzer's his own man and if you don't want him to bring up the 'beams from space', then email him. He's responded to my e-mails, he's accessible and he doesn't dismiss anything out of hand.

Maybe FOX is smarter in selecting him than we think, though quite honestly when Jim dropped that Mineta bomb the whole movement got a shot in the arm.

I doubt very much, given what he's brought up on FOX appearances, that anything as theoretical as the 'beams' will be championed on Hannity and Colmes by Mr. Fetzer.

As for those thinking about 'demoting' him, STEP UP TO THE FUCKING PLATE YOURSELF.