FALSE FLAG NEWS' exposes 9/11 "SPACE BEAM" disinformation being promoted at 911Blogger.com
False Flag News
Friday, November 17, 2006 Broadcast
Show download:
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Dan/0611/20061117_Fri_Dan.mp3
Partial transcript...
A: The Pentagon is boosting their war unit.
We know that through OPERATION MOCKING BIRD the CIA and intelligent agencies have collaborated, worked with and owned many of the editors and publishing houses and news paper outlets in this country.
We know that at the Bilderberg meeting top level people from NEWSWEEK, TIME -- the major media outlets go there and never tell their readers… People from THE NEW YORK TIMES -- all of them going to the Bilderberg and never reporting it. This is where the world’s elite meet and argue and set up the agenda for the way the world will be shaped.
We know that the media is owned by eight corporations. We know there is a direct collaboration that during the war in Kosovo, there were Pentagon psyops officials in the CNN rooms.
So this is just another overt message from the Pentagon saying “we will control your news.”
It’s not just Armstrong Williams being bought off. It’s not just people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Riely getting their talking points from the White House.
Now they are actually boosting their propaganda units.
We’ve been told before they’re going to be setting up phony blogs -- that they will be infiltrating the real blogs and disrupting the message boards.
Hey, they’re doing it on 911Blogger right now! A lot of these disinfo artists are saying that “a SPACE BEAM hit the towers! It was a SPACE BEAM!”
How is that interview gonna look? Imagine that!? On FOX NEWS you’ll have the people saying that “the fires caused the building to collapse.” And then on the other side you’ll have somebody saying “A SPACE BEAM made the towers collapse!” I mean, it’s just disgusting.
(More after jump...)
That’s how they want the debate to be set up!
So I mean we’re looking at disinformation within our own ranks. We’re looking at disinformation on the leftist ranks. All over the place. And the Pentagon is openly admitting to this.
And I’m sure some people will write me and say “IT REALLY WAS A SPACE BEAM! IT WAS THE MARTIANS! IT WAS A SPACE BEAM FROM ARLINGTON.” Ugh… it’s not even worth talking about.
- stallion4's blog
- Login to post comments
Summary of this disinfo theory
Summary of disinfo :
The bathtub that the World Trade Center was built upon did not get destroyed and flood Manhattan / so it must have been because a space beam disintegrated the steel before it hit the ground.
2 minute debunking:
If a space beam destroyed the steel before it hit the bathtub then there should be large visible evidence of missing steel instead of a massive pile of steel which took weeks to remove. If large parts of the steel were destroyed before it hit the ground it should be measurable and visibly noticeable, instead we have massive amounts of steel and core columns as we would expect:
"The initial debris estimate included 125,000 tons of glass,
250,000 tons of steel, 450,000 cubic yards of concrete,
12,000 miles of electrical cable, and 198 miles of ductwork."
Any such 'energy beam' would sap an entire electrical substation worse than prisoner electrocutions, but somehow this amount of energy could come from a portable item in space? no.
The information about the bathtub and mall not being destroyed is interesting, but the argument for a space beam weapon is completely unfounded and intentionally outlandish.
the bathtub...
Again, 9/11 Mysteries to the rescue. The bathtub was indeed damaged--it was necessary to go in after the fact and reinforce it becuase it was beginning to cave inwards from the pressure of the water it was holding back. This is all covered in the 9/11 Mysteries documentary. After the collapses, complete with the explosions that destroyed the underground (in the bathtub) parking areas, the debris piled up in the bathtub instead of spilling over into the neighboring streets. That debris contained tons and tons of steel, so what the hell are they talking about that the steel was destroyed before hitting the bathtub? That's exactly where it all fell into.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
I forgot to mention Alex Jones' cameo...
Alex Jones makes a special appearance on FALSE FLAG NEWS to give his thoughts on the latest "SPACE BEAM" disinfo. You don't want to miss this one, folks!
17:55 into the broadcast Alex Jones calls into FFN:
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Dan/0611/20061117_Fri_Dan.mp3
I also forgot to mention that the transcript above begins at approximately 11 minutes into the broadcast .
Latest '9/11 Truth'
Latest '9/11 Truth' Booklets: The real 9/11 Truth Blogmarks
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2069
classy
That was real classy the way Abramson tried to get Alex Jones to pick a fight with Dr. Fetzer.
Why sow such dissension?
Who does that serve?
Fetzer has a lot of splainin to do... I say let him have it!
Pretending that space beams are serious research is a very strong sign that Fetzer is disinfo, and giving him a pass on that is simply unacceptable.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Great Post stallion4
Big credit to DL Abrahamson for bringing this up and I'm glad that Alex Jones feels the same way !!!!
I am appalled that Jim Fetzer interviewed Judy Wood following her and space cadet Reynolds attack on the very fine Steven Jones.
Then to listen to him salivate about her and Reynolds cuckoo ideas was too much for me and I had to turn off...
I have listened to Jim Fetzer for such a long time that I do not believe he would voluntarily say half the things he did.
I hope he's OK and remember him saying that he was on his travels in Touson/Tucson or similar.
I hope he has not been subject to some MK Ultra with that call at the beginning the trigger or being threatened in someway and saying what he did under some form of Duress.
I hope Fetzer comes back to Earth soon... Wood and Reynolds can go f%$k an alien...
Good luck to all...
Yes, but...
Yes, the concrete and building contents were pulverized. In addition to being a mystery, it's also the reason 15,000 people are sick. It's a very bad thing. There are other much more prosaic hypothetical explanations than space beams, however -- why not advanced conventional explosives? Why even bother to look at an idea like space beams when there's no reason to think it wasn't explosives? I just don't get it, Andrew.
ignorant hissyfit
L'il Dan finds it "not worth talking about" because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and has no coherent rebuttal to make regarding the science involved.
It's fine if this research is beyond his limited understanding and he wishes to focus on other matters. But that's no excuse to throw a hissy fit and attack those who are engaging in advanced research.. In doing so, he has seemingly aligned himselves with the 9/11 perps and assassins of 9/11 scholar Michael Zebuhr. Perhaps he'd like to see every scholar who doesn't hew to his own limited understanding of reality murdered?
Consider ALL the evidence
Even if you decide the Bathtub damage was in line with that which would be caused from the collapse of the towers then the following points of evidence still require explanation:
1) Comparitive Seismic Signatures
2) Cars burnt on one side
3) Level of Pulverisation of material
4) Overall lack of material in the area where the towers collapsed.
5) Undamaged items in mall shops
I have yet to see coherent explanations for these.
Front page it!
Great blog, stallion4
I agree.
I hope when the community-moderation system is fully rolled out, we'll be able to collectively front-page things.
I would hope the front page
I would hope the front page moderation stays firmly in control of the blogger admins. Democracy is mob rule, and in a system that is easily exploitable, this would lead to disinfo littering the front page.
but don't get me wrong, my statement has nothing to do with stallion4's blog post. I personally gave it a 10 when it was first posted.
The way I've read it
something along these lines is what dz intends. Approving all the blogs sounds like a major pain in the ass for the moderators.
Why do you think disinfo would be frontpaged? The people I consider disinfo bloggers and posters are consistently rated low and their posts voted down.
Anti-intellectual know-nothings
How arrogantt and ignorant of Abrahamson.
Just because he happens to know so little about recent developments in laser, particle-beam and microwave weapons technology..
and is to frigging lazyt to do his homework ...
He belittles the research and findings of superior intellects,
Do you damn homework, Abrahamson ...
before you stop up your ears, put on your blindfold and close your puerile little mind.,
Just for starters .....
take a look at the "Calder Statue" from the front of WTC7
Before versus after.
That's a good place to start doing the reading you should have doing all along,....
Guess you think Kucinitch was a tin-foil hatter for doing an entire spech on the floor of the House, demanding oversight and control of scalar weapons and "weatther" weapons ?
Or maybe you think the establishment of a"Weather Modification" oversight committte in the US Senate (by Kay Bailey ..blah blah) is also just diversionary tin-foil hattery ?
That's ok Abrahamson.
We really appreciate your taking on the role of self-appointed censor, when it comes to fairly examining evidence of black weapons use on 9/11.
Otherwise, how could the discussion be effectively contained ?
And once people get used to a controlled and properly regulated discussion, that prudently excludes and excises this information, we can all get back to "mainstreaming 9/11" ...
Which is to say ,. co-opting, shoe-horning, and otherwise mangling an allowable "9/11 truth" into acceptable shape,t to suit the ignorance and prejudice and anti-intellectuallism already promoted by the corporate media and academia......
on the great unwashed who presumably are "not ready" to handle such difficult material.
How condescendingly protective of you, Dan.
Because Truth is not a popularity contest
And, some people here do not play by the rules.
I have seen many a balanced discussion descend into chaos because someone dared to challenge a popular belief.
Using a popularity meter to bump blogs to the front page would only help to reinforce the POPULAR ideas, while discouraging people to engage in critical thinking and consider opposing ideas.
But opposing ideas are very important. There was a period where the "pod" idea and the "flash" idea was very popular.
Under this system they would be bumped up, and reinforced, while critical analysis would be discouraged and dwindle away.
all it takes is 2-3
all it takes is 2-3 individuals with 10 bogus accounts and you have 30 votes.
"Moderating", regulating and contolling the limits
Yes.
That's really all it's about.
It's not about this or that or another specific topic or hypothesis.
It's not about "planes vs. no-lanes" or "no-Boeings", or thermate versus
It's about the social habits of insittutions adapting to a more structured and "responsibly" regulated framework of discussion; getting people used to the idea of what's allowed
Just think, for a second, about how rhetorical constructs (become memes) like "conspiracy theorist" or "tinf-foil hat" ... have come about in the first place as a very effective means of establishing "rational" limits on the range of respectable discussion with regard to subjects like the key political assassinations of the 60s, or the popular patriotic culture surrounding NASA is used as cover for classified billioin-dollar projets in space weaponry.
Instructive to review, historically, the methods employed in the media and academia to ensure that discussion is first contained, then channeled, side-tracked and ultimately marginalized completely.
I am baffled that DLA thinks it prudent (for the good of the movement) to marginalize Judy Wood or Morgan Reynolds;
simultaneously having no problem with some of the admittedly globalistt "New Age" theological affectations and affiliations of David Ray Griffin;
Or the reactions I have encountered among secular "Blue State" liberal Democrats in my locale, when they discover that candidate Bowman founded a new wing of the Catholic Church,
Or (Mormon) Steve Jones (the Mormons were regarded as marginal quacks and charlatans and cultists, through much f the 19th century) of whom the media never failed to credit for his research on the travels of Jesus in pre-Columbian America.
Marginalization ?
Credibility ?
Public image ?
Allowable parameters of discussion ?
I hate to get down'n-dirty here, but Abrahamson opened the door to this, lugging in some baggage of inconsistency with him.
He appears to harbor a double-standard.
Why does he take the time and energy to single-out THESE specific individuals and issues, as leading to potential marginalization of "the movement"; while studiously ignoring the liabilities associated with some of his movement "heroes".
Dan would undoubtedly argue that we have to ssparate the "personal" from the "political".
That the beliefs, religious affiliations or openly admitted global political agendas proclaimed by "movement" heroes mean nothing, because they are "personal" and irrelevant to the political "success" of "9/11 truth"
This double standard has a kind of "cultic" quality to it.
In the sense that thinking habits and social practices of "personality cults"
will trump and prevail over the grueling, much more difficult labor of restoring one's capacity for independent critical judgment
Easier to follow leaders whom "we can trust", than do the work of educating and figuring it out for ourselves.
Dangerous habit to get into, I think.
It leads me to wonder if there might be more than meets the eye...
to this apparently random choice of annointed leaders versus marginaized dissidents.... ?
Is there an agenda here to bind the movement up with a kind of doublethink ?
These guys "good" ..
Those guys "bad"...
Never mind the details...
... just too complicated....
Look ... we have someone you can trust ...
Who can tell you just what to think..
Or at least what to say.
So you won't alienate anyone with your "truth".
you're wrong--it's not personal, it's their ideas that are flawe
Space beams, holograms, all that stuff is just silly. And if you come back with - well no plane at the pentagon is silly, then youll be wrong again. part of the disinfo plaguing this movement is this idea that we can't be sure of anything, so we should allow anything and everything to pass as credible research.
Nonsense! It's just muddying the waters. If you can't tell the difference between serious research, EVEN if it is done by someone with religious inclinations you find wacky, then you have no business participating in this type of inquiry. People's work stands on its own merits, not on their background. That's why it makes no difference whether or not Steve Jones is CIA, Los ALamos, or whatever. His work makes sense. Space Beams do not. TV fakery in the case of the WTC does not either.
People are free to discuss whatever they want, but don't complain that it is unfair when bogus ideas are ridiculed. That's what happens to bogus ideas. The fact that shills try to ridicule the legitimate issues raised by the truth movement does not obligate truthers to be sympathetic to things that get properly and fairly ridiculed for being, well, ridiculous.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
But
You consider Pakistan research bogus. You accuse people of being shills because they do not agree with you. You insult people and engage in flame wars that upset people and chase away quality people.
When you say that bogus ideas are ridiculed I wonder where YOU draw the line?
Not everyone who disagrees with you is part of an intentional disinformation campaign.
Your judgment has been questionable. No one questions your dedication, but you appear to be a self-appointed moderator who has shown very poor judgment in the past. You flame out at people you disagree with.
Priceless !! (all pause for a moment of rare candor)
re: How to "tell the difference between serious research ...."
and .... ?
=====================
"........If you can't tell the difference between serious research, EVEN if it is done by someone with religious inclinations you find wacky, then you have no business participating in this type of inquiry. People's work stands on its own merits, not on their background. That's why it makes no difference whether or not Steve Jones is CIA, Los ALamos, or whatever. His work makes sense. Space Beams do not. TV fakery in the case of the WTC does not either......."
--- Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
at http://www.911blogger.com/node/4547
====================================================
(But first..., let's ignore the hard evidence of transparent fakery by the media networks)
http://www.911hoax.com/default_Main_page.asp
http://thewebfairy.com/911/
http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/index.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/911/insane/index.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3RYv7xnnlU
Let's see...
Beam Weapons from the Star Wars Program and "no planes" at any of the 4 alleged sites. Touchdown! Thanks for the validation that we're on the right track.
Hey, if you really did think we were crazy, you wouldn't waste your time on us. Thanks, again, for the validation.
Recently discovered 9/11 footage proves space beam theory!!
Most UFOs Are Probably Man-Made (but great graphic, stallon4)!
Most "UFOs" are probably man-made. However, stallion4, that's a great graphic!
Google William Lyne and his books, "Pentagon Aliens," "Occult Ether Physics," and "Occult Science Dictatorship." In Bill's usage, "occult" only means "hidden."
Although I am NOT saying that Bill is correct in everthing that he says, what Bill does say is that ET-alien-made "UFOs" are a HOAX to hide the existence of solely man-made UFOs. His hypothesis is not as preposterous as it sounds. Check it out.
The Nazis had Tesla-tech, electrically-powered flying craft working during World War II. We brought some of these Nazi scientists to the U.S. after WW2 in Project Paperclip. I got to know one of the high-level guys who worked on this project after he retired from the CIA and before he died.
Directed energy weapons ("beam weapons" -- but not necessarily "space beams") may have been in used since at least the 1950s. Existing directed energy weaponry has been extensively covered in the mainstream media (that others & you appear to respect & fear so much). The only place where the existence of directed energy weaponry is not accepted as a proven fact is at 911 Blogger.
NONE of the above proves that directed energy weaponry was used to take down (and up) the WTC towers on 9/11. Wood & Reynolds may be WRONG! However, I notice that others & you are doing a great job & going to great lengths to make sure that lesser numbers of 911 Blogger readers will actually read the Wood & Reynolds article on 9/11 Beam Weapons. Yet you have few if any scientific reasons for asking 911 Blogger readers to ignore this article & research. By the way, the graphics in the W+R article are better. Have you seen them?
Without resorting to ridicule, personal attacks, and some variant to the effect that some possible 9/11 truths are not good for the 9/11 Truth Movement, would you please tell us the reasons that a vocal minority of others & you would prefer that 911 Blogger readers not read the 911 Beam Weapons article and judge for themselves? It's okay for you resort to science... if you can.
Super Animated GIFs
If the "Space Beam Weapon" is wrong, then there must be explanations for the 5 (and other) points of evidence that I listed from Judy's research.
Can anybody list alternative, coherent explanations here, or point me at an article which explains these things as well as or better than Judy's article? I enjoy reading chucklesome remarks, but what about proper explanations?
For example, someone has gone to a lot of trouble to make that GIF of the UFO - if they had spent that time reading and researching Beam Weapon technology (which even in publicly disclosed projects rather than black projects), they would quickly find they formed part of the Regan (now there's some irony) SDI program. Perhaps we should ask Bob Bowman?
We were told then "beam weapons are no real use". We were also told 19 hijackers stole planes and crashed them. There might be some lying going on here about beam weapons, just possibly.
Anyone bother to watch the Iraq Weapons video?
I watched the first half of it
Some of it was interesting (though maybe not in the way the filmmaker intended.. ) but overall I thought it was very poorly made and more to the point I don't see the relevance of this information to 9/11. I thought the choice of interviewees was very interesting - John Alexander indeed.
this image appears on Rick
this image appears on Rick Siegel's website now -> http://www.ricksiegel.com/web/index.php
http://www.ricksiegel.com/web/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=122
So we have here one of the top disinformation forums on the web, 911 blogger, and a self starred web/webcast personality DL Abrahamson of the False Flag News.
In a post today Abrahamson showed how little concern he has for any gathering of storm for the 911 peoples or movements. His taunting and obfuscation making font page for the brother site 911 blogger.
I didn't realize this was a 'brother site' of Abrahamson, did I miss something? J/K
Thanks for the tip
- adding that to the dossier of suspicous behavior on the part of Siegel.
Yeah I grabbed the image from LetsRoll's forum
where Siegel posted it on a SPACE BEAM thread over there.
Very strange that he would release a film proving bombs were planted in the twin towers (and Building 7), only to later jump on board the SPACE BEAM/Cartoon plane bandwagon.
After you lifted the graphic from Seigal did you have him banned
Well you lifted his graphic and posted it here with no credit glowing in it yourself, so where do you come from?
Now we see on his site that scholars banned him. I dont find it strande that this guy posts all kinds of things on his site. He is opening the place to all research and not closing his eyes or led by the mob or popular opinions. Now it seems that the scholars have kicked him out of the forum. Not for posts on the forum but on his own website..
Segal banned from Scholars Forum
So you steal from each other and ban each other for supporting open research?
NIce graphic
I disagree with you because I think it is fine to consider theories that sound wacky, if you can substantiate them.
One thing I will say -- it is more likely that the towers were zapped by aliens than that they fell in a gravity-driven collapse as explained in the NIST report.
Stallion4 Stole Graphic From Siegal
Stallion4, you stole that grahic from Rick Siegel
the story stolen from
war for truth
one you missed.
Sherlock...
You must have missed my post just above yours, where I stated over 4 days ago that I got the image from letsroll's board where I saw it posted on a SPACE BEAM thread.. I reposted the image's link on this thread.
The Godzilla graphic is kinda weak too, "Anonymous". Rick should have instead created a graphic of Fetzer drowning in a bathtub while holding onto one of Judy Wood's SPACE BEAMS ...lol
Fetzer and his SPACE BEAM sideshow...
are set to begin broadcasting on GCN starting this Monday 11-20-06 from 3pm to 5pm Central Time. GCN has this information prominently displayed on the front page of their website!
http://www.gcnlive.com/index.html
If you are appalled at Fetzer's recent promotion of SPACE BEAMS destroying the Twin Towers, please contact GCN to let them know how you feel. Explain to them that you plan on contacting their advertisers and 9/11 family member groups to inform them that GCN and Ted Anderson advocate the promotion of SPACE BEAMS killing off thousands of people on 9/11.
Contact info for GCN: http://www.gcnlive.com/Aboutus.htm
1- 877-996-4327
President / CEO - Ted Anderson Ext.101
orders@gcnlive.com
GCN Live call-in number: 1 800 259 9231
Also be sure to contact Alex Jones and let him how you feel:
Contact info:
http://infowars.com/contact/index.html
Send them links to Uncle Fetzer's recent SPACE BEAM SPECTACULAR so they can hear for themselves exactly who they'll be associated with if Ted Anderson allows Fetzer onto his network:
Non-Random Thoughts
Host: James Fetzer
Sat., November 11, 2006
w/ guest Judy Wood
Hour 1
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer/0611/20061111_Sat_Fetzer1.mp3
Hour 2
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer/0611/20061111_Sat_Fetzer2.mp3
Good idea
Also call in to this guy's show and demand some answers from him.
Finally got a chance to listen to this
Very nice work Dan and Alex!
Everyone here should listen to this
This is a fairly extensive and timely discussion about this little problem we've been dealing with. Everyone here should give it a listen - start at 17 minutes in and listen to the end. Thanks again stallion4 for bringing this to our attention and mega props to DL Abrahamson and Alex Jones.
Yes, All Should Listen - for Science that Beam Weapons Are WRONG
YT, I agree with you: "Everyone here should give it a listen..."
Near the end of Alex Jones' 'surprise' appearance on RBN's False Flage News, Dan Abramson & Alex Jones say that they have given us "the facts and the science" about why the 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis is WRONG!
When I heard Alex's statement that Dan & Alex had given us all of "the facts & science" that we would need to show why the 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis is WRONG, I was happy.
Although I had not heard any of the facts & the science during the show, I thought that I might have fallen asleep or somehow otherwise missed something. So, I listened again. Still nothing...
Everything that I heard & saw from Dan Abramson, Alex Jones, and from the vocal minority above is either ridicule, namecalling, personal attack, ad hominem, or some variant on the assertion that some possible 9/11 truths are not good for the 9/11 Truth Movement (in which case we ought to at least change our name -- to be honest about what we are doing).
YT, Stallion4, anybody! Based on what Dan & Alex said, or based on your own research, would you please give us, your devoted 911 Blogger readers, three (3) good scientific reasons why the 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis is WRONG!!! ???
Since Dan & Alex said that they had given us these reasons, I am relatively sure that this should be no problem for you (even if you don't know anything about this directed energy weaponry)...
By the way, I am NOT saying that Wood & Reynolds are correct in their 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis. All that I am saying is that I want someone (anyone!) in your well-organized, vocal minority to BEGIN to articulate the scientific reasons that Wood & Reynolds are WRONG!
Why shouldn't 911 Blogger readers be able to read & judge for themselves? Are freedom of speech and freedom of thought scary prospects for you? Tell me about it...
I've read that you're CIA.
Any truth to that?
Me, CIA? Not That I Know Of (LoL)...
No, but it's a common suspicion & rumor. I do have a fair number of CIA & other intel contacts in the U.S. & from around the world.
Beginning with the Vietnam War (to which I was strongly opposed), I have been studying the role of the CIA & other domestic & international intel agencies in world affairs and in key events -- such as 9/11. And I have developed a lot of contacts in 35+ years.
One good question about 9/11 and about international intel groups is: Why haven't the intel agencies & governments of nations who are opposed to the U.S. been saying more about what really happened on 9/11 (e.g., Russia & China)?
The answer appears to be that all of these G8+ intel agencies and/or the national Powers-That-Be knew some if not many of the details about what was to occur and what did occur (and/or participated in it), and that the Powers-That-Be in these G8+ nations are ALSO benefiting from what happened on & after 9/11. So, they're not about to talk about it!
I am a verifiabe, relatively well-known entity with the McClendon Group of the National Press Club. Steve Jones, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Jim Marrs & Webster Tarpley also know me, and we communicate semi-regularly. At first, some of them had the same question that you did. So, don't feel bad about asking. I'm glad you did.
Now that I have answered your question, please answer mine: What are three (3) good scientific reasons that the W+R 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis is WRONG!!!???
The argument
from ignorance does not proof make.
That is all you & the Fetzer's & Woods of the world have, if not A then must be B.
We dont have to "prove that beams from space did or didn't do anything".
Just the opposite, they have to prove with valid scientific methods their hypothesis.
They fail that test.
We are not the ones making the outrageous claims they are, thus THEY must be the ones to provide the outrageous proof.
It is the same phenomenon we see with Religious nutbags, as an Atheist I do not have to "prove god does not exist" I dont have to as I'm not the one making the ridiculous claim.
The complete and utter lack of any such evidence is more than enough for me.
The religiously deluded have NOTHING whatsoever but fairytales & lies with a very dangerous Meme that has brought them all together into a collective delusional psychosis.
As an Atheist I can only sit back in abject horror at the spectacle of Billions of stark raving lunatics running amuck around the planet killing each other over their differing psychotic delusions.
Meanwhile space beams are NOT proven because someone hasn't yet shown conclusive evidence of a few various unexplained anomalies.
If not A, does NOT automatically mean "Space Beams" the argument from ignorance is not a valid scientific hypothesis to anyone except religious lunatics & those trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes.
We dont need to prove them wrong, They must prove them Right...GET IT?
Thank God for Dan & False
Thank God for Dan & False Flag News! It also saddens me to say that I think Fetz's credibility now comes into question for me.
85% ignore, 15% debunk- a strategy for defeating infiltrators
When I am being called "disinfo" by somebody like Rick Siegel, I know I am on the right track!
Of course, like most of the cowards in the "space-beam-no-plane-micro-nuke-helicopters-did-it" crowd, he is too afraid to confront Alex Jones, so he takes a few weak swings at me.
Same with the rest of the shameless disruptors on this board who are too afraid to mention that Alex Jones called them government agents. So they just bash me. It's a cute little avoidance tactic, designed to bypass the fact that the "T-Rex of talk radio" just exposed their flimsy little operation.
Well, I expected the various members of "Sociopath Inc" to flood this blog and say that I am evil incarnate and hiding the truth...Their posts always make me smile. But seeing Rick Siegel write a hit piece had to be the finest compliment of the day!
Rick Siegel...Who first said it was helicopters that pulled the demolition charges...then it was a micro-nuke...now it's a space beam.
Rick Siegel...Who, at the LA Conference, looked me in the eye and told me "no plane stuff" was ridiculous...and then proceded to include it in lie-fest "911 Eyewitness". It was a GHOST PLANE with no wings!!! :-)
Rick Siegel...Who's fifth-rate "movie" is nothing more than a poison-the-well hodgepodge of lies designed to discredit the real 911 questions.
Rick Siegel, who moved to Spain rather than stay in the USA and fight like a man.
Why Alex Jones included this treacherous opportunist at the LA conference, I will never understand. I can only thank heavens that he was not included on the C-SPAN broadcast.
Siegel doesn't like the way I dress? As if I need fashion advice from his desperate old-man ponytail and blue-blocker shades which just scream "come into my van, I have special candy."
It's sad we have to stoop to the level of these people. The Friday night show was a spontaneous de-bunking, but for the most part, these vile individuals need to be ignored.
Every social and political movement has been infiltrated from the inside. The good news is, this group is no more than 15 provocateurs using mass-emailing lists to make themselves seem larger; They also use various fake screen-names on 911blogger to artificially inflate their numbers.
Just remember- many of these "no-planers" made their bones claiming no-plane hit the Pentagon (which then changed into a "small plane"); that all the phone-calls were faked (even those from the air-phone); and that no plane crashed in Shanksville (to shamelessly cover-up the shoot down).
My strategy is: ignore these people 85% of the time, but debunk them periodically. It's only healthy- I think of them like spies inside a military division- they must be identified and exposed, but the greater battle plan must demand most of our focus.
Keep our focus- because these people want us worried about their idiotic questions instead of waking up other Americans.
If anything these low-lives can be useful...these people can motivate us to focus only on the proven facts & history of false-flag terror.
-DL
Siegel was working on a
Siegel was working on a no-plane/tv-fakery movie last I heard. You could find a preview of it on the web if you wanted to find it. I only know about it because he put up big posters for it at the conference by 911truth.org in Chicago.
LOL
Siegel doesn't like the way I dress? As if I need fashion advice from his desperate old-man ponytail and blue-blocker shades which just scream "come into my van, I have special candy."
PWNED!!
Great show, DL. And thanks for telling Jones About Fetzer's recent SPACE BEAM SPECTACULAR! I hope he does what he can to keep him and his disinformation syndicate off GCN.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Disinfo times 2
Judy Wood has now given us TWO disinfo topics:
- beam weapons
- molten metal was aluminum, not thermite residue
The next time she opens her mouth, someone please stuff a sock into it.
Thank you Dan and Alex!
Abrahamson blows it "big time"!
The hardest part of scientific inquiry is the stage of speculation in coming up with alternative hypotheses as possible explanations for the phenomena under consideration. Here we are talking about the complete destruction of two 500,000-ton buildings and five other structures the demolition of which is seldom mentioned in public discourse. Judy and Morgan have discovered the WTC was constructed in an enormous "bathtub" to create a barrier to protect the site from overflow of water from the Hudson River, which would have flooded PATH TRAIN tunnels and subways throughout Manhattan. To avoid this catastrophe, it appears to have been indispensible to turn 4/5 of the towers to dust and demolish just 1/5 by more conventional means, such as those Steve Jones has advanced.
Critics seem to be deriving a lot of mileage from my having described this new research as "Fascinating!" What I meant by that--as I think anyone who listens to the program can discern--is that the importance of the bathtub and the completeness of the destruction of the World Trade Center, where it looks as though every building with a "WTC" designation was targeted for devastation, greatly expands the scope of the evidence regarding what has to be explained (in philosophical language, it broadens and redefines the explanandum for any potenial explanans, where the explanandum describes what is to be explained and the explanans offers the initial conditions and laws advanced to explain them). This is an enormous advance and is truly fascinating!
11 November 2006
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest on "Non-Random Thoughts" with host Jim Fetzer
Related: The Star Wars Beam Weapon
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam2.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html
http://rbnlive.com
You don't have to be a philosopher of science to understand that, in a scientific investigation of the events of 9/11, the range of alternative explanations that might possibly explain the explanandum must include not only (a) jet-plane-impacts/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse hypotheses and (b) classic controlled demolition from the bottom up hypotheses but (c) non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down hypotheses. It should be clear that these, in turn, can be refined in terms of (c-1) non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using thermate and other conventional explosives, (c-2) non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using mini-nukes, and (c-3) non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using directed energy weapons. All of these deserve consideration and, to the the best of my knowledge, none of (c-1) to (c-3) has been refuted at this stage of scientific inquiry.
During the course of her interview with me, Judy suggested that the source of the energy required might possibly have been based in space. This is not as fanciful as it might sound, insofar as the US has been pursuing "full spectrum dominance" (of air, sea, land and space!) for some period of time. The very idea of space-based weapons strikes many people as a stretch, if not absurd. But they are trotting out a lot of the same kinds of ridicule and sarcasm as apologists for the official governement's account have been advancing to attack those of use who are critics of what we have been told, which is supposed to be "completely ridiculous"! Just listen to O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes! If we don't consider the full range of possible alternative explanans, we may arrive at false conclusions by eliminating the true hypothesis from serious consideration because it seems farfetched or even absurd.
Cutting-steel using thermate and disintegration-of-steel via directed enegry weapons, of course, are different kinds of causal mechanisms, where we have visual evidence of disintegration at work, which may be found on Judy's site and is included in the 16-minute segment from my second lecture in Tucson, a link to which I have given above. Indeed, Judy appears to have done far more to develop her "proof of concept" than has Steve. Some of these research preliminaries are archived:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsAppendix1.html#Possibilities
Indeed, prototypes have been built and tested, beginning as long ago as 1991! Videos and links to other videos demonstrating the use of Ground Based Lasers (GBLs) may also be found at several links here:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html#possible
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsAppendix2.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsAppendix3.html
Appendix2, for example, includes this about Space Based Lasers (SBLs):
"Talon Gold achieved performance levels equivalent to that needed for the SBL. In 1991, the space-borne Relay Mirror Experiment (RME), relayed a low-power laser beam from a ground site to low-earth orbit and back down to a scoring target board at another location with greater pointing accuracy and beam stability than needed by SBL."
The specific weapons used to destroy the WTC could have been ground based or space based. Judy tends to believe that, whether it was the use of a mirror to reflect an energy beam from Earth or a space-based energy source, it came from above. (My own opinion is that WTC-7 may have played a crucial role here.) If someone suggests that this sounds "looney" or "far out" to them, then I would ask, "How do you know that she's wrong?" It would be scientifically irresponsible not to consider an hypothesis that poses such an intriguing alternative to account for demolishing the WTC, especially given all the evidence she has adduced.
Jones & Wood, Together Again? Unified Demoliton Hypotheses?
Jim Fetzer, very good! I support most if not all of what you say!
In addition Dr. Steve Jones' Thermite/Thermate & Convention/Exotic Explosive Hypothesis does NOT exclude the possibility of the W+R 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis (and vice versa). If we can, then we should develop a 9/11 Unified Demoliton Hypothesis (or as others & I have called it, a 9/11 Multi-Factorial Controlled Demolition Hypothesis -- [credit or blame to these "others" upon request... or confession] {LoL}).
If so, then Steve Jones & Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds & Jim Fetzer could be toghher again (if they so choose)...
At Total 9/11 Info, one idea about how to play the unity card is in "Towards a Unified Demolition Theory" at www.total911.info/2006/11/towards-unified-demolition-theorydrs.html. There may be other ideas on how to do so. If you have such ideas, then please post them here or in a separate blog.
An alternative would be to just acknowledge that "THERE IS UNITY IN OUR DIVERSITY." Let each & every one of us continue to have & exercise Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Activism, and Freedom of Research -- without ridicule, personal attack & namecalling. We can then form & participate in small or large groups as each of us sees sees fit.
If a small, vocal minority of SOME OF YOU would like to factionalize & fractionalize the 9/11 Truth Movement into those who have already found your Utimate 9/11 Truths and those who are still looking for additional possible 9/11 truths (that you don't like), then so be it.
If you would like to ostracize, shun & marginalize the Continuing 9/11 Truth Seekers, then try to do so, if you like. However, this does not sound like the type of 9/11 Truth Movement for which MOST others & I signed up. If you want to do this, then please change the name to be something other than the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Jim Fetzer's Open Letter to Steve Jones...
A full copy of Jim Fetzer's Open Letter to Steve Jones is at www.scholarsfor911truth.org/OpenLetterToJones.html (I just found).
Despite possible initial appearances, Jim's letter does not appear to preclude what I suggested above.
Given the above & other developments, I will also post and link a copy of the non-ideologically-based Proposal for Reorganization & Revitalization of ST911 and J911S that Steve, Jim, Morgan, Judy & I discussed & worked on at the time that Judy & Morgan resigned from ST911.
Although the parties rejected the above Proposal at the time, maybe it is time to reconsider some or all of the indidivual proposals in the semi-major Proposal described in part above.
Ultimately, what occurs will be OUR choice -- the choice of ALL of us -- not just Jim's, Judy's, Morgan's & Steve's.
In addition, if there is going to be any change in ST911 and/or J911S, then the organizational & decision-making mechanisms of each & both of these organizations may need to be minimally and legally definitized -- for the first time.
This sounds reasonable
A directed energy weapon would explain how explosives were planted -- they weren't. Assuming the technology and energy source exists, and such a weapon is capable of doing what we saw, this is the more plausible scenario. Huge assumptions of course, but not as huge as people here are saying.
What's the score?
People get points for ad hominem accusations without a shred of evidence? Others who make substantial comments are docked or are minimized? Is almost everyone on this thread either a mental mediocrity or a scientific illiterate or a disinfo agent? Where is the evidence that would show that Steve Jones is right? Where is the proof that Judy Wood is wrong? Do most of you thihk science is a popularity contest? Don't any of you have a modicum of scientific education? Shoot your mouths off all you want along with Abrahamson, who does not appear to have a clue when it comes to scientific reasoning. But that does not inhibit him from attacking serious students who are turning up new alternatives and emphasizing evidence, especially about the totality of the devastation to the WTC--not just WTC-1 and WTC-2, but WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and of course WTC-7! Look at Judy's web site. Study those photographs. The immensity of the destruction of the entire WTC complex requires explanation, not just what destroyed WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7! And the preservation of the "bathtub" from serious damage is astounding! Nothing I have found in Steve's Jones' work can explain it. Remember, if you cut the steel, then gravity is the force that brings the buildings down. But they came down faster than gravity could have performed that feat and with overwhelmingly less mass. Where is the proof that superthermate could have done anything remotely like this? We need to completely rethink the dimensions of the problem. I cannot see any way in which Jones has provide even the outline of an explanation that would be adequate to account for the devastation. Look at the evidence. Go to Judy's site. Study it. Look at the photographs. Think about it some more. What could possibly have been the cause that brought about these immense effects? What could have done all this?
re: What's the score?
Fetzer, you've shown your true colors. We know what the score is. We know what you are now. We know what Wood is. And we know what you're attempting to do.
Don't any of you have a
Don't any of you have a modicum of scientific education?
This coming from a guy who on national TV said that Barbara Olsen was probably alive? What part of your 'scientific education' led you to spout such crap? Was it your rigorous scientific study? No, it's because you have no filter whatsoever for what is a reasonable argument and what is total bunk. Your lack of such a filter for credible arguments is shown in many of your comments in the past from television and your radio show.
Study those photographs. What could have done all this?
"Space beams! It must have been the space beams! I mean.. all I've done is look at pictures and halfway prove that something like an energy weapon might be feasible, that should be enough to prove it to you stupid non-science idiots!"
You are an arrogant fool. This crap was debunked in the first post in this thread. The fact that you DON'T see the flaws in this theory is quite telling.
p.s. The bathtub was damaged, go watch 9/11 mysteries.
p.p.s. Which way are you leaning on the pod theory VS TV-fakery theory? I see you only link to the pod theory on st911.org at the moment. If your going to buy into bullshit theories why not go the full 9?
Look at the points that are being awarded here . . .
This point system appears to be a complete and total fraud.
Just listened to your interview with Judy. Fascinating!
I'll need to study it more, but sure would explain a lot of anomolies that would occur with tradition demolition theories.
I applaud you being openminded to discuss other viewpoints on what happened.
You'll also get a good taste of how hatefull and closeminded a lot of "truthers" are with theories they don't agree with and think should be "forbidden" to discuss in public.
You're right there Killtown.
You're right there Killtown. This blog is full of frightened people. How they ever got involved with the Truth movement . I'll never know, as they seem to want to protect the familiar from the unknown.
Right...
And you're the idiot who recently created a blog telling us all to put aside our differences and stop attacking each other. POT-KETTLE-BLACK!
Well screw that. ANYONE who's promoting SPACE BEAMS taking down the twin towers is promoting disinfo -period.
We've been waking up millions convincing them that bombs were planted in the twin towers and Building 7 .And now we have Jim Fetzer -- the self-appointed 9/11 truth "leader" -- promoting SPACE BEAMS. UNfuckingbelievable!
Please explain . . .
how the millions that have been woken up to the obvious fact that the buildings were destroyed by something more than airplanes bombs will ignore that and go back to sleep just because a few people are talking about directed energy weapons. Your premise seems way overblown, and could apply just as easily to another theory like thermate. If that is proven wrong, is the game over? Of course not.
What's to explain?
I as well as many others have woken up millions of people using undeniable evidence that there were *bombs* planted in at least three of the World Trade Center buildings. Such as:
Reports of bombs being found *inside* the buildings.
Witnesses saying they heard loud "booms" occurring in rapid succession BEFORE the buildings fell (including WTC7).
Audio recordings of these "Booms".
Visual recordings of explosions going off some 50 floors beneath the point of airplane impacts.
Firefighters and others who saw orange and red "flashes" shooting up and down and all around inside of the towers BEFORE they fell.
William Rodriguez's testimony (and others) who said bombs were going off in the basements just before and during the airplane impacts.
Reports of bomb sniffing dogs being removed from the WTC before the attack.
Power downs at the WTC and strange men going in and out of the buildings the weekend before the attack.
People working on the *steel* to supposedly replace "fire proofing" in the months leading up to the attack.
Reports of unusually high number of evacuations at the WTC buildings leading up to the attack.
And on and on and on...
The SPACE BEAM lunacy is being promoted here and other places to discredit all of this information proving that *bombs* were planted *inside* the buildings. This is being done in an effort to protect the 9/11 criminals. The people promoting it are helping the criminals.
Ok, I think I've explained that well enough for even a two year old to understand. Have a nice day.
Another question for the Spacebeamers
That's a good post, stallion4 -- there's a lot of testimony that strongly suggests that bombs were planted. So, if you were going to destroy the WTC buildings with space beams, why would you also plant bombs?
Duh...
Why have airplanes? They can't pulverize a building, either!
Have you ever heard of diversionary tactics?
Why do you think Jones' lastest propaganda video keeps repeating the word "collapse" as if to lul everyone into a trance.
Double DUH
The planes were used solely to blame Muslim Terrorist you idiot.
No way in hell they ever could have gotten into WTC buildings and planted explosives without inside help, especially WTC 7.
It is pretty obvious as it is that indeed 19 so called hijackers armed with box cutters did not commandeer 4 planes and hit 3 of 4 targets perfectly with zero response from our military and magically 5-7 are still alive...yada-yada.
But even the general dumb ass American would have a hard time believing X amount of Muslim terrorist gained enough free access to plant numerous explosives in 3 secure buildings so they needed a slightly plausible plan.
re: complete and total fraud.
Just like you, Fetzer,. Go figure.
And now we see the final
And now we see the final alignment...
disgusting...
Photos like this
are what fuel this idea. I don't believe in this space beam stuff, but there is some weird shit going on in this photo. This car was a half-mile from ground zero.
What the **** is happening
What the **** is happening to this site when a photo of a burnt -out car gets -2 points?
Think, think, think. You've been given a brain , whoever you are. Use it!
I'm not angry, just frustrated. There is some reallly stupid stuff going on in this site. Do we want to be the 911 half-truth movement? That's what it looks like to newbies.
How does this car or other
How does this car or other burnt out cars prove space beams??? It doesn't. If you cared at all about seeking justice for what happened on 9/11 you wouldn't be fanaticizing about space beams being used to take down the twin towers. There's no evidence for it whatsoever. Bombs were planted in the buildings -period. Why would you jump from bombs to frigging "SPACE BEAMS". What the hell is wrong with you? Use your brain. The SPACE BEAM "theory" is being promoted (feverishly promoted) to help keep the 9/11 criminals from facing justice. Don't you see that?
But a car fire that was extinguished
could do that also, couldn't it? And Jones suggests that thermite is actually a BETTER explanation for pockmarks in the plastic or seals around doors. That doesn't mean it was thermite, it just suggests that we don't have to head for space beams as an explanation YET.
Evidence? Who needs evidence?
Most of the folks don't seem to want "hard evidence," only someone who throws around this term. If they really wanted to see hard evidence, they would require Steven Jones to show some sort of evidence, ANY evidence whatsoever, that thermite can pulverize a building. For that matter, where is his "proof of concept" that his magical thermite could even do this? How about his super-duper magical thermite? Let me know if this is what "Controlled Demolition Incorporated" uses to bring down buildings.
Is there a precedent for using thermite in controlled demolition? That's the type of evidence I'd like to see Jones show us. Where is his "proof of concept?"
Nope, most of the folks here don't want to see hard evidence as it contradicts their faith-based "science."
precedent
"Is there a precedent for using thermite in controlled demolition? That's the type of evidence I'd like to see Jones show us."
Is there a precedent for steel frame skyscrapers to collapse in freefall speed due to fire?
Thermate
is not what Jones purposes "pulverized" anything.
High Explosives are, as is clearly seen by the numerous squibs, the pulverized concrete and the 10s of 1000s of tiny fragments of human beings of which 100s were found ACROSS THE PHUCKING STREET several hundred feet away.
The Thermate was used in order to CUT the major core columns & probably certain outer columns.
The "proof" of Thermate being used you dumb-ass is the clear and irrefutable evidence of molten metal in the rubble for WEEKS, video evidence showing what shows all the characteristics of Thermate reaction plus traces of likely Thermate residue from test samples.
No faith involved.
so far, you still have proved nothing. Try again.
Instead of answering the question, you change the subject. OK, I'll ask the next question. Where is there proof of "molten metal in the rubble for WEEKS"? Rumors and "urban legions" don't count. We need "hard evidence."
It's not the photo.
It's the incredible (literally) leap from a photo to the idea of space beams, when more prosaic explanations are possible.
Demolishing 7 would be a crime.
You can't just blow up a building whenever you feel like it. 7 contributed to the environmental disaster that is killing people right now.
I think you know I respect your point of view, Andrew, and I respond to you in a way that I hope indicates I don't think you're a disinfo agent. I just honestly can't see what the intellectual appeal of this whole space beam thing is to you. And you think I've got it all wrong. That sounds like a stalemate to me, at least for the present.
Be sure to read Professor Jones' critique of Wood's work, which is embedded in his reply to Fetzer in the thread about Jones and Fetzer. One central point he makes is that it doesn't appear that Wood's hypothesis is falsifiable -- what experiments could be done that could show the hypothesis was wrong if it is in fact wrong?
It was moved there, just
It was moved there, just like all of these...
Tune in to FALSE FLAG NEWS...
Show begins in ten minutes... (9 p.m. EST)
False Flag News w/ DL Abrahamson Live Stream
http://rbnlive.com/listen.html
I'll post the mp3 after it's over for those who miss the live broadcast.
No one I know of ever
No one I know of ever complained about our tax money going to the Star Wars program during the Reagan years.
Ironically, years after, the mentioning of a high energy beam from a satellite will result in immediate ricicule.
I guess science hasn't advanced that much.
Did we have GPS (to locate which end of the street I am in) during the Reagan years?
Jon Gold just called in.
Good stuff, Jon!!
HA!
How did you know it was me?
___________________________________
"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."
Some sources...
Shreddin' With Dick
___________________________________
"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."
When this came out...
I posted this...
"Sir, here's one entitled, "Operation 9/11." Would you like that shredded?" Cheney whips his head around and replies, "Of course I want that shredded. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
___________________________________
"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."
Because...
I'd recognise that sexy voice anywhere... LOL
You got me...
___________________________________
"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."
FFNEWS MP3 for Monday NOV. 20th
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Dan/0611/20061120_Mon_Dan.mp3
Another excellent show by Mr DL Abrahamson, although I must disagree with him and say that it wasn't "fourth dimensional shape shifting reptiles" that blew up the towers... it was my three thousand pound pet purple dragon I have locked up in my basement that did it! IT'S TRUE! IT'S TRUE! JUST TRY TO PROVE THAT MY THREE THOUSAND POUND PET PURPLE DRAGON DIDN'T BREATH FIRE ON THE TOWERS AND MELT THEM. I DARE YA TO, DL, GO AHEAD I DARE YA!!
Btw, Mr. Jon Gold calls in @ 33:17 to share his thoughts about the recent SPACE BEAM controversy.
This is most unpersuasive
Directed energy weapons are not fantasy, not even science fiction. You do not know if what Dr. Wood is suggesting is impossible. The problem is that she does not know if it is now possible, and that it may not be falsifiable without total access to classified information that we will never have.
You just don't get it do you...
you just don't get it. WOW
It is impossible to wake a
It is impossible to wake a man who is feigning sleep...
Space beams...LMAO..could have taken out anything in Iraq
Could have used them to take out Hussein, or Fidel Castro or anyone they chose...come on...space beams?...The U.S. , a police state with space beams...We can win the war on terror...be the ultimate terrorist nation.....cuz..We have space beams! Just like the Russians with the doomsday machine.
Ok I am being sooo sarcastic on this...Why keep making Nuclear weapons when you can destroy Nuclear facilities with.. space beams?...SHEESH!
911 Blogger or Fox News - "We Ridicule - You Decide!"...
At least Faux News maintains the pretense of being "Fair and Balanced." One of their slogan is: "We report - You decide."
At 911 Blogger, a vocal minority of some of you have skipped the pretense of being "Fair & Balanced."
A vocal minority of some of you have also skipped the pretense of "reporting" and allowing others to "report" on their 9/11 possible truths and hypotheses -- and evidence for such.
No, why bother with all that? Just as in Alice in Wonderland, for a small minority of some of you, the verdict comes before the trial (and certainly not based on facts and not based on evidence).
After the verdict before the trial, the the slogan at 911 Blogger then effectively becomes "We ridicule - You decide." How long will we have to wait before your chants of "Off with her head!"?
A vocal minority of some of you say that you are afraid of what Bill O'Reilly or others at Fox News will say about the new 9/11 hypotheses and the new 9/11 evidence. So, you say that you are just trying to prevent such ideas from getting to Fox News where they can be ridiculed mercilessly.
If so, and if you are truly objective about such posible 9/11 truths, then why are you doing the job of Fox News for them? In addition, if you want to continue to do the job of Fox News, why don't you apply for a job there and get paid for doing what you are doing here for free? In the interim, please continue to audition your Fox News writing skills here at 9/11 Blogger. In the medium to long term, however, O'Reilly needs you!
P.S. You may know when you are really ready for Fox News when you can successfully shut down consideration of any & all possible 9/11 truths & new evidence in one (1) single confrontation with a "newbie" -- like Dwight... If you profess such concern for the "newbies," then why do you verbally abuse the "newbies"?
"Off with His Head!"
"Off with His Head!"
what is kinda funny
is you keep saying the "vocal minority" are those of us that are in full agreement that Explosives were used to take WTC buildings down when in fact the vocal minority are those like YOU.
This is classic dis info tactics trying to plant the seed that if you dont believe in what I'm saying you are in the tiny minority.
The Mainstream media uses this exact tactic every single day.
I'm quite sure that only idiots fall for this tactic anymore.
Sadly there are many idiots in the USA today.
Reality is that a very tiny minority of dis-info agents, most likely just a few dozen are responsible for all this BS, while MILLIONS are clearly on board with the provable hypothesis of Controlled Demolition.
steel and high frequency electricity! start at 4min.
DL's 3rd show exposing SPACE BEAM disinfo...
Here's an mp3:
False Flag News
Host: DL Abrahamson
Time: Monday-Friday, 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm EST.
Wed., November 22, 2006:
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Dan/0611/20061122_Wed_Dan.mp3
Good stuff, DL. Loved the show. I especially love the way you handled "Troy" who called in. He's the type of person that all this SPACE BEAM crap is directed at for the most part. Any SPACE BEAMers who think they're not helping the 9/11 criminals by promoting such theories need to listen to this show to help you learn the error of your ways...
Dan Abrahamson Is OUR Bill O'Reilly!
Stallion4 is right. You should DEFINITELY listen to Dan Abrahamson's latest show on SPACE BEAMS!
Dan Abrahamson is OUR Bill O'Reilly. If we are ever going to take over the mainstream media, then there is no one better equipped to do so than DAN ABRAHAMSON!!!
Before Bill O'Reilly retires or gets booted from Fox News, Dan Abrahamson should approach Fox as a replacement for O'Reilly. Abrahamson has many of the same qualities and characteristics as O'Reilly -- especially on ridiculing SPACE BEAMS! Dan does not let people confuse him with the facts. I like that!
On his terror drills, Abrahamson resembles Sean Hannity by sprinkling a few real facts in his rants. But the rants are good! That's what sells in the mainstream media -- especially on Fox News. Fox should be our first target, since Abrahamson and 911 Blogger are beginning to resemble Fox so much!
What about Rush Limbaugh and his "Ditto Heads." Yes, there is also fertile ground to be plowed with "Rush to Judgment" Limbaugh. The Ditto Heads at 911 Blogger have now begun to chant IN UNISON...
SPACE BEAMS!!! ......... SPACE BEAMS!!! ......... SPACE BEAMS!!! ......... Rush Limbaugh will be proud.
This was brilliant! Neither Bill O'Reilly nor Sean Hannity nor Rush Limbaugh could have done it better!
I really liked how DAN THE MAN WITH A PLAN trashed that disinfo shill Judy Wood's bathtub evidence and analysis. Wood painstakingly lays out the evidence that the bathtub was not BROKEN or BREACHED. This would have allowed the Hudson River to flow into New York City and flood the subways and Wall Street, with tens of BILLIONS of dollars in damage and untold loss of life.
How does Dan the Man with a Plan spin this? Dan says AND PROVES that the bathtub WAS "damaged." This was just brilliant! Everyone then thinks that the disinfo agent was WRONG about what she is saying.
Abrahamson even quotes Professor Steven E. Jones, who knows enough not to act as if he knows what Wood is talking about. But Jones is no match for Abrahamson when it comes to demagogery.
However, I am curious. How do you destroy TWO 500,000 ton buildings inside the bathtub and NOT breach the bathtub and flood New York City? If those buildings weren't destroyed by SPACE BEAMS!!!, then why didn't they hit the ground and breach the bathtub? Why was there so LITTLE structural steel in the Grouind Zero debris pile? Never mind. I have already made up my mind. PLEASE don't confuse me with the facts. (It was thermite, right?)
There is no better evidence that we are breaking through into the mainstream media than for the mainstream media to cover what we say! We are powerful! It is due to the strength of our superior intellect that the mainstream media is now beginning to cover our leaders so much more.
We should trust the mainstream media to decide who our talking heads and leaders should be! That's why what the mainstream media covers is ALWAYS "news" at 911 Blogger. Why should we decide what "news" is when we have the mainstream media to decide these important questions for us?
Because they are so much alike, Dan Abrahamson is OUR Bill O'Reilly! Because the mainstream media does not criticize him too much, Steven Jones is OUR new 9/11 TV talking head! And 911 Blogger is OUR New York Times and Washington Post all rolled into one! What more could we ask for on the cover up?
Would someone please tell me
why in hell Space Beams are the only alleged means for pulverizing the building contents and concrete worthy of examination? The idea that the buildings were reduced to ultra-fine debris that could flow away from GZ in order to protect the "bath tub" is an interesting one, but when you try to use it exclusively as an argument against thermite/thermate and/or conventional explosives, you undermine your own credibility.
Also, it's really pathetic to see the cabal responsible for "truthling," "Orwellian truthling," "planehugger," "butterplane," and "slush your drivel," get all bent out of shape by "Space Beams." Hypocritical much?
Who cares about "truth" ... Let's be popular.
Quoting some insights from Morgan Reynolds:
=======================
If you discover something new, a theory with facts and logic to support it, it does not matter. You can only release your new product if we approve and we can sell it easily to the public. Even if you can prove it, do not alarm the public. Capice?
What kind of truth movement is this? None whatsoever. It’s a false flag operation, Bush-Cheney lite: same technique, same mindset, and in a few cases the same paymaster. The game is to halt discovery and promotion of 9/11 truth while the perps play out the clock.
Pointing to Scholar Kevin Barrett and others who talk about faked cell phone calls on TV, Dan Abrahamson asks, “Does their speculation get us any closer toward building a nationwide political movement and arresting the 9-11 plotters? Or is it a divisive strawman that will isolate us from the mainstream media and average Americans?”
I like clarity and Abrahamson’s got it: the truth might decrease political success, prove divisive, isolate us from the media and average Americans, maybe even give us bunions. The familiar political solution? Lie, cheat and steal. Smile and kiss babies while doing so. And you thought the truth movement believed truth was our best friend and that the truth will set us free.
In effect, the reason people are supposed to shut up about the findings that no 767s crashed into WTC towers is to get face time on the Tucker Carlson show. Yes, we are supposed to play nice so the controlled media will have Jim Fetzer, Steven Jones, Michael Berger, Kevin Barrett and such on television. Fact: the television propaganda machine was in on the 9/11crimes, for God’s sake. Proving their complicity through TV-fakery or any variant of the no-plane-theory would expose the media as accessories to mass murder and one day will put them squarely in defendants’ chairs. Truth suppression is not about what the public can stomach but what the media can stomach. One day the media will be exposed for the naked criminals they are.
Did 9/11 skeptics get this far because of the media? No, the reasons we’ve gotten this far are dedicated and smart researchers, the internet and alternative media who did not sell out! Why should we change the game plan when we’ve got the perps on the run? Stupid. We do not need the media. We should not compromise with evil-doers. Selling out is the last thing we should do.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=unity_card
Was this a reply to my post?
The questions I asked were: why are the space beamers implying that pulverization of concrete in and of itself in any way implies the need for exotic weaponry AND why are space beamers offended by the use of the term "space beams" when they are known for all sorts of derisive epithets themselves?
This is central to the argument
for space beams, it seems to me. Why else would you make the (il)logical leap to a technology whose existence is only inferred without explicitly evaluating and rejecting technology we know exists?
Great Rick Seigal Animation
Siegal just did a new graphic! Only a mother would love.
The Mind of ?????
Amazing what comes out of that brain! Just like Bill O'Reilly, filled with snakes LOL!
What does that caption on the bottom mean?
where I found the graphic
Why do you refer to yourself
Why do you refer to yourself in the third person Rick? Identity crisis?
That article was linked to about a week ago
and I read it. A couple of things: it came out very shortly after 9/11, well before the thermite/thermate hypothesis had been proposed. Two, it mentions PLASMOIDS. Everyone should be sure to read down to the part where plasmoids are discussed. I for one cannot wait for the next Fox interview in which a "representative" of 9/11 Truth gets to mention BOTH space beams and plasmoids.
No offense, Andy Jackie Chan Watson.
Now it was lightning?
Dude, drop it. If anyone is making anything look ridiculous it is you making yourself look ridiculous. Because contrary to your neocon logic, people are not believing for one second that this space beam crap is anything but a truly pathetic ploy to try to discredit conventional controlled demolition explanations. Unorthodox? Yes, but only because of the need to disguise the demolition of the towers as being caused by plane impacts. Building 7 was a classic demolition and so received nary a whisper from the MSM, or from... YOU.
I'm tired of the different shills and their different approaches to attempting to derail the truth movement. I wonder what part of "it's over" you're having trouble grasping? You're only making it worse for yourself and the other involved parties by not simply calling it quits and begging for leniency. Here's a tip--ultimately, the last best defense is always Ï was deceived!"
So just get busy on your plea bargain, find a few people above you in the conspiracy to turn in, and practice your best Condi Rice imitation... "Nobody could have imagined that we were pushing bullshit nonsense in order to discredit the increasingly airtight case for controlled demolition of the twin towers and building 7! Or if they could, they sure didn't tell Andrew Lloyd Weber!"
So really, stop. You have a million femto-seconds... don't say we're not patient!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
What makes you think they
What makes you think they haven't already plotted out their escape routes? But for now, they MUST continue to follow their orders, it is their task, to do anything different would mark them as a liability and as such, their mysterious deaths would be more fodder to be used by the remaining disinformation agents.
They are merely pawns. Compartmentalized and easily replaced.
There are a few that would have important information, very few. And these few will be sacrificed at the hint of defection.
Give it up
Your only contribution to this site any time recently has been to support the efforts of the Reynolds-Wood-Fetzer disinfo strategy, both directly and indirectly. Your efforts are the subject of this very blog. Weren't you leaving?
"Do you think I am not serious?"
I think you're seriously full of shit.
"Who looks like the shill?"
You.
If I made deals with devils
and was naive enough to imagine you to be a man of your word, I might be tempted to consider your offer. However, I don't and I'm not so you just go on shilling your spacebeams to your little black heart's content - we can all see very clearly what you are and I won't waste a second of time more than I have to on your ilk.
DITTO, YT!
This guy is as full of shit as they come.
Res Ipsa Loquitur!
Apology for what?
You're full of shite. Unless this wasn't you who wrote this:
"Building Seven is the key. It's all we need. The rest of the story will unravel in due course. Everyone should stick to Building Seven and Bush at Booker. That includes me"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2807#comment-68636
Now you're supporting the promotion of SPACE BEAMS and NO PLANES @ the WTC? You're talking out both sides of your mouth and cannot be trusted.
The SPACE BEAM / NO PLANE disinfo has been debunked - up one side and down the other - all over this website and you know it.
highly relevant research????????????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Fetzer and Wood have been exposed as disinfo. And any other MFers who try to pull a stunt like they did will also be exposed. And anyone promoting exposed disinfo agents such as Fetzer and Wood will also be exposed. Get used to it.
We can look up Morgan Reynolds, too
No one's saying you don't exist.
Save your disgust for the
Save your disgust for the War Crimes Trial...
One cannot wait for the next Fox interview where
One cannot wait for the next Fox interview where Jones is asked,
"Name one skyscraper in history that was pulverized with thermite."
That will make a laughing stock out the entire "truth" movement.
Ooops. Sorry. I don't know what happened!
I did not intend that to be posted 3 times, only once. Sorry!
Yes, I know.
Why else is Jones working so hard to silence this research. Actually, Jones' actions serve as confirmation that this is indeed on the right track.
Look at how hard folks are working to hush this! If it were an insane idea, nobody would care.
If I said the buildings went poof because someone's wrist watch made contact with aliens from outer space, no one would care. The fact that so much human energy is being spent on this is producing a ripe smell of... (I think you can guess).
Andrew, thanks for bringing some sanity here!
Meet Steve Jones' lawyer, Alex Floum (and his biggest clients)
Alex Floum and the Schinner Law Group:
http://www.schinner.com/
From the "Schinner Law Group Philosophy":
Above all "Loyalty to Clients"
http://www.schinner.com/html/the_schinner_law_group_-_pract.html
Clients: http://www.schinner.com/html/the_schinner_law_group_-_clien.html
Major client: http://www.fuelselltechnologies.com/
San Francisco, CA (November 10, 2005) — FST Energy, Inc. (www.fstenergy.com), a hydrogen storage, transport, and distribution company, today announced receipt of a multi-year grant by the U.S. Department of Energy to develop methods that safely store and release hydrogen for commercial use. Expensive precautions and special handling have so far stifled hydrogen’s widespread use as a fuel. Solving this storage and delivery problem will help propel the fuel cell market, one expected to grow to $13.6 billion by 2010 as petroleum costs and international energy consumption increase.
Meet the "team" over at "fuelselltechnologies.com"
http://www.fstenergy.com/
Senior Staff:
The FST team is comprised of both experienced management professionals and top scientific talent.
Mike Wilson, CEO – founder of successful VC funded technology start-ups in software, services, expert in Govt. funding and contract procurement for Fortune 500.
Scott Redmond, Founder/VP Product Development - developed product for F500 & U.S. Govt. agencies resulting in 40 products launched, 5 issued patents, 45 pending patents.
Dr. Wayne Britton, CTO – Director California Technical Center, ITS Caleb Brett, President/Founder CPM Laboratories, VP - Chemical Services.
Dr. Nick Tran, Director, Catalytic Chemistries – Research Chemist, Naval Research Lab specializing in Plasma/organic/inorganic synthesis, thermodynamic/kinetic/catalytic materials development.
Dr. Vitalij Percharsky, Director, Hydride Chemistries – an expert in mechano-chemical transformations of aluminohydrides. Professor and Sr. Scientist, Institute for Physical Research & Technology.
Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, IP Counsel: Senior staff are highly skilled in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications, patent searches, analysis of patentability and infringement issues, patent licensing, and patent-related litigation in a diverse spectrum of technologies. Daily, they obtain patent protection for their clients' inventions, which range from sophisticated, high technology products and processes to everyday consumer items. They practice in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and, through a global network of associated intellectual property firms, they prepare, file and prosecute patent applications in virtually every country of the world. As one of the few firms in the Nation specializing in high technology intellectual property law, BSTZ brings unsurpassed expertise to their clients and the protection of their identities, ideas and inventions. Our attorneys possess qualifications that extend beyond an in-depth understanding of the law; they have also earned advanced engineering or scientific degrees, and many were employed in industry prior to beginning their law careers. With expertise spanning across all facets of IP and technology law, many members of the Firm were also patent and trademark examiners with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Throughout the years, they have built a varied and diverse practice that ranges from securing US Patent 6,000,000 for Palm Computing, to protecting the trademarks and domain names of high-profile celebrities.
Additional staff includes scientists, chemists and engineers from private and public institutions under exclusive contract to the Company.
===========================
.......... multi-million dollar government contracts with DoE for R&D...
.......... inside track on patents and licensing of government approved and subsidized energy technologies
No conflict of interest here ...
Move on folks .... nothing to see here.....
You sound like a conspiracy
You sound like a conspiracy theorist...
It's not just thermite
Thermite is invoked as an explanation of the molten steel that was discovered in the rubble piles and also seen dripping out of the south tower. We are not "the thermite people". We are the people who believe that thermite was very possibly if not probably involved in the carefully orchestrated (and I use the word with meaning) demolition of the twin towers. These, not building 7, were going to be the focus of the days events.'All eyes and cameras would be on them, and the media would dutifully play and replay their collapses. The point here is that they were not conventional demolitions. They exploded, they did not implode. It was decided at some point by some people that the story was going to be that after being struck by the auto-piloted (with or without passengers and crew) beacon seeking Boeings--er, I mean after the evil muslim terrist hijacked and SLAMMED them into the buildings, the resulting really really hot JET FUEL fires weakened the structures so that the tops began collapsing, destroying the unsuspecting undamaged bottom portions as they fell. Pretty neat story, except that it is a physical impossibility.
To produce the deisred effect, the towers were wired with explosives beforehand. The explosives could not be allowed to be seen by the cameras, so they were both placed only on the interior core columns (which held most of the weight anyway) and the basement, and they were timed to go off simultaneously with the airplane crashes and with the eventual collapses so as to mask their sound and other effects.
It is quite possible that one role of thermite was to eat away at the perimeter columns, to cause them to fail all at once when the core was blown at the level of the impact zone. This would explain the molten iron seen dripping out of the south tower shortly before it collapsed. The thermite might also have been used on the thicker core columns in order to weaken them so that smaller explosive charges could be used, ones that would not be as obvious when they went off to initiate things. Once the collapse initiated bigger explosions could be detonated with little risk of detection amidst the clouds of dust and smoke.
Of course one problem the explosions caused was the outward force whjch sent portions of the perimeter structure flying sideways with enough momentum to reach and embeed themselves in nearby buildings--most strikingly in the case of the American Express building.
I don't see where space beams play a role in any of this. Enough explosive power could have been placed in the towers with conventional military grade explosives to do all the damage we observed. All of this could probably have been set up by a team working on one of the floors (we know several were vacant) that gave them access to the cores. The argument is not whether or not the technology exists to use space beams, it is that it is much too convoluted an explanation when the evidence so clearly points in another direction.
I appreciate your compliments ALW but I'm afraid I must take them with a grain of salt, because you don't seem to me to be honestly presenting your views.
d
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
replies
With respect, this is all surmise. You have no more proof of explosives than I have of beam weapons
Au contraire, mon frère. We have witnesses to them. They either saw, heard, and/or felt them. We also have a witness who saw and heard a lot of suspicious activity involving reels of cable (det-cord?) drilling, and other things consistent with demolition prep. We also have a neighboring building that was very clearly brought down with conventional demolition methods. This is more than enough evidence to indict the owner of the buildings for suspicion of arson, given he was the clearest and most direct beneficiary of these mysterious collapses. If we had a halfway decent government, this would have already happened and we would by now be listening to closing arguments in the trial of the century. Delaying these legal actions (possibly waiting for the prime suspect to croak) is just another way of saying öops, I guess we were incompetent again, now we'll never know for sure."
No. It does NOT explain the points I referred to in my post, which I have now posted at leat six times on 911blogger.
Ï've already explained this" is classic shill-talk. You could have saved everyone a lot of trouble, including yourself, by simply explaining in your own words why I am wrong. In other words, why it is impossible that explosives could have been used to pulverize the concrete, etc. Toasted cars just ain't very convincing, neither is using lo-quality versions of videos many of us have seen in hi-res, a la the "spire turned to dust" nonsense that Judy Jetson's work seems to rely on so heavily, just like the noplaners rely on the lo-res video frames of the plane entering the south tower as evidence of "TV fakery".
On the contrary , I find it a very simple explanation. I agree that the proof is nil but the plausibility is high, IMHO.
I'm going to take this opportunity to speculate a little bit on why space beam (or land-based beams) are being introduced into the 9/11 debate. I don't doubt for a second that experimental destructive technology has been used recently, but not in New York. I suspect it has been used in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, where lots of weird effects have been observed after Anglo/American/Israeli offensive actions. One of the benefits of any war to warmongers is the ability to showcase their new products in a real-world situation. No doubt that this has been the case with so many expendable muslim guinea pigs out there to fry. By making space beams a part of the 9/11 debate, you are maybe getting a lot of naturally skeptical folks to dismiss them outright instead of understanding the game of misdirection afoot. Why? Maybe because while it is clear that 9/11 is being exposed and they have no choice but to admit some wrongdoing, the perps are trying to use it to salvage what they can. If people knew everything that has happened as part of the Anglo/American/Israeli crusade in the midle east, including the full extent of the use of experimental weaponry on civilian targets, the war crimes tribunals will be guaranteed. Am I close? I think I am...
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Media = Perps, Why Care What "They" Think?
If people knew everything that has happened as part of the Anglo/American/Israeli crusade in the midle east, including the full extent of the use of experimental weaponry on civilian targets, the war crimes tribunals will be guaranteed. Am I close? I think I am...
Yes. Good Point.
If the War Crimes Tribunals in that case would be guaranteed, why are you so averse to getting the information out? Or even discussing it?
Afeared of having some O 'Reilly or Manjob call us "nuts?" As if they don't already. As if anything could change that!?
Have you internalized their shaming? Don't you get that the shame affect is a psyop operation itself? Aren't you confident of our own position? Don't you think we have *enough,* overwhelmingly enough, evidence?
The main issue should be to get over the brainwashing - call them on it. The main thing blocking our way, toward getting the truth out , is the mental conditioning of the population. Can we address *that* instead of bowing to it? Not if we ouselves are subject to it.
Why so afraid of what the Media will say? Or how they'll frame us? (I guess the Media really *is* a terrorist organization?)
It looks obvious to you that people who speak about unconventional weaponry being used, even in an auxillary capacity, to destroy the Trade Towers are out to sabotage the 9/11 "Truth" Movement , and are not in good faith. As you accused AL Watson, and everyone else with his position, above.
Have you ever thought that *you* might be mentally conditioned to be afraid of what "people" might think and that is affecting your logical abilities? Your dispassion?
If you care what "they" think, you've lost before you've started. "They" will never let Justice be served. Especially when "they" are the corporate owed Media who has blocked and stalled the 9/11 reality information from Day One and who were active accomplices.
"No more Mr. Nice Guy" indeed.
But how about Mr. Religiously Tolerant Guy? Professor Jones' interest in the idea that Christ may have visited the Americas is obviously a direct offshoot of his identity as a Mormon, or member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This is a possibility they entertain as part of their religious tradition. Get over it -- it's pretty benign compared to some and it looks really bigoted to make such a big deal out of it. To disingenuously imply that he somehow equates that work with his research on thermate is particularly lame. You're picking up some bad habits from your new friends, Andrew, and you're a much better guy than that.
well I have to admit
that to me that is a big strike against Dr.Jones in my book also.
It is clearly a delusional cognition not worthy of serious debate and surprising someone so intelligent can fall prey to such lunacy.
However his work on 9/11 is stellar so I must look past this glitch in his personality.
Just like I look past the fact that many of our greatest artist & scientist were virtually insane.
VanGogh & Newton come to mind as 2 examples.
Fair enough.
I simply don't care about his religious beliefs -- for whatever reason, human beings seem to be able to perform amazing feats of rational and critical thinking, while reserving parts of their minds for beliefs that are based on something else altogether.
The irony in my defending his right to be a Mormon for me is that LDS is definitely not on the cutting edge of a just understanding of gender roles (translation= there are a lot of sexist pigs roaming free in Utah.) Nonetheless, I am more than happy to agree to disagree with him on matters like this (and I have NO IDEA what his personal beliefs are in regards to gender roles) as long as he keeps cranking out the serious science.
I'll take a look at the paper.
What I was trying to convey to you, however, was that out here in the American West where there are a lot of Mormons, a lot of people would listen to that theory and evidence for it without blinking an eye. And it does cross over into article of faith territory, although I hear what you're saying about this paper being scientific in nature rather than religious. So in short, a paper about "Jesus crossing the Atlantic in the Kon-Tiki," as you so colorfully put it, would probably get a BETTER reception on Fox and with its audience than the whole thermate thang.
You have to give the Mormons credit for being one of the more interesting new Christian sects to come down the line in the last couple of hundred years. And I say that as a non-Christian.
re: connecting dots, examining motives ... $$$$$$$$
"Conspiracy theorist" .... ?
Oh yes ..... I plead guilty to that charge.
I've lived long enough to see it validated, over and over again,
In my own life experience, I've seen COINTELPRO methods at work to subvert, mislead, contain and destroy spontaneous movements .... again and again and again.
The 60s and early 70s were a giant lab test for that kind of stuff.
Against the anti-war movement, we heard the big lie trotted out repeatedly by establishment media hand-picked "leaders":
They said: "Vietnam was all a big mistake !!! Bring the boys home now. It was all just a well-intentioned honest mistake.."
In retrospect, the anti-war movement of the 60s and early 70s was a big fat bloody "red herring", twisted, manipulated and engineered as a diversion from the real discussion that should have been taking place over the coup de etat that murdered a President and seized full power.
But as long as radical ferment could be siphoned and channeled and controlled into the regulated and controlled version of a "mass movement", you could be sure that no one would be allowed to ask the important questions about power and gangsterism in American political life. We were all supposed to subordinate our "parochial concerns" (over political assassinations and covert ops) and "conspiracy theories", to the "larger interests of the movement" .....
so we wouldn't "alienate" all those respected media and political institutions (NY Times, Washington Post,, Democratic Party) with our "wild and crazy theories".
That is the very essence of a limited hangout:
One more lie, to displace the now discredited and exposed lies, that were so previously effective.
It was in the crucible of the "radical 60s" that these corporate-foundation-funded NGO types (especially on the CIA-run "left") got their start.
And it was mostly done with MONEY....
So ... yes ..... I plead guilty to being a "conspiracy theorist" .... in spades ...
Sure, we can always allow for "failure and incompetence" or "honest mistakes" , when it comes to evaluating political strategems, organizational manipulation and dubious recruitment methods.
But when I'm in doubt about motives, I have a simple rule: Follow the money.
It usually strips away all the illusion and iintellectual pretension masking the agenda
It leaves the true motives and objectives starkly profiled.
My God !!!!
I had no idea that Steve Jones had a high-powered, influential, prestigious law firm behind him !!!!
He could have put up a major fight against BYU !!
He could have been a transformative figure for the 9/11 movement ..... embedding it within a larger NATIONAL struggle for academic freedom intellectual integrity.
Instead, he let his high-powered lawyer negotiate a sell-out.
He split the difference.
That's standard operating procedure in the rotten corrupted venues of bizness, courts and government.
And..... oh ... by the way ....
Whatever happened to that champion of free speech and "9/11 truth" Phil Berg ?
You know ... the former Attorney General of Pennsylvania, gubernatorial candidate and presumably infuential figure in the Democratic Party ?
The one who made sure that no "protest signs" were displayed openly in the plaza of that Alexandria courthouse where the Moussaui side-show was staged.
Haven't heard much from him lately, have we ?
In my paranoid "conspiracy theorist" universe, I would have thought that a guy like Berg would be hot to nail BYU in court, for daring to attempt a POL.ITICAL suppression of a "conspriracy theory" by an established academic like Jones.
So did our own favorite lawyer Floum take over in the "Constitiutional law" department as well ?
Since Floum's legal expertise seems limited to patent law, Internet domain names, lucrative government R&D contracts, and intellectual property rights.
Sure feels great for the 9/11 truth movement to have all these legal big-shots in our corner.
With all this legal "expertise", we should be winning our struggle for truth and justice easily.
We can just leave it all up to the "experts" ... since they know so much better ... how the real world works ..
negotiating across polished board-room tables in high-rise government and corporate office buildings ...
where the range of allowable truths and "reality for the masses" is administered.
"I've seen COINTELPRO methods at work to subvert, mislead..."
"I've seen COINTELPRO methods at work to subvert, mislead, contain and destroy spontaneous movements .... again and again and again."
Oh, I bet you have,
nice catch YT
she probably authored the textbook!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Experience with "real" COINTELPRO
Harvard was a nest of it; as documented extensively by Ramparts, New Left Notes, Berkely Barb, LA Free Press and all the media that was "mainstream" to me back then.
You might want to go back and study the Congress for Cultural Freedom and its recruitment at Harvard, Columbia
(Yale, of course was already known to be minor league training camp for CIA)) ...
Ford Foundation money was always accepted as the norm underwriting most Alinksy-ite "community organizing". Especially the media-manufactured celebrity of groups like the Young Lords or AIM.
Ford now underwrites Pacifica's "Democracy Now".
Rockefeller Foundation money too, for "black cultural nationalism", Chicano and Puerto Rican "organizing",
Using COINTELPRO to contain and suppress popular exposure to scientific and technological secrets is an entire industry, with a long and expensive history.
They couldn't maintain a mlitary-industrial complex otherwise.
It's all contingent on the secrecy agreements signed by weapons developers and "scientists" just like Steve Jones or Bob Bowman.
They place those signed secrecy ageements on a much higher moral plane, than the relatively marginal priority assigned to "9/11 truth"; you can count on that.
Careers, retirement pensions and consultancy contracts ride high on the ability to keep your mouth shut.
Otherwise they would be blowing the whistle on a host of crimes.
But then,...
that would violate their agreements, wouldn't it ?
They can rationalize this see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, think-no-evil doubletink ....
as
...... "I signed a legally enforcable contract.."
... "I have to be a loyal and patriotic American.."
... "I didn't want to impugn the character of my fellow millitary-industrial colleagues or betray their trust ... or put them in an embarassing position..."
(the latter was actually argued openly by Bob Bowman on the Alex Jones show, as he nervously dodged an open endorsement of MIHOP).
"We musn't embarass our professional colleagues, or alienate them, or betray the common secrets that we have all sworn to protect, upon pain of civil or criminal liability...."
...by confronting the cowardice and complicity of their peers ...
And the crimes of their employers ... their sponsors..
their masters.
Yes ... I have complete sympathy for the position that guys like Steve Jones or Jim Hoffman have placed themselves in , with respect to contractual agreements they have already signed, years ago, to protect the technological or simulative capabilities of the 9/11 perps.
So why do they come forward, with such intrepid determination, to provide some responsible intellectual leadership and expertise with respect to the use of unconventional weaponry at Ground Zero... ?
Why even get involved ...?
Let alone put oneself forward as a certified and credentialed "expert", qualified to legitimize some "conspiracy theories" about thermite. while equally eager to correct us and ensure that we all stay on the straight and narrow path of "ordinary" coventional explosives ...
Truly .. who could reasonably ask for more "truth" from them ?
I'm well aware
Harvard was a nest of it; as documented extensively by Ramparts, New Left Notes, Berkely Barb, LA Free Press and all the media that was "mainstream" to me back then.
I know all about Harvard's history with COINTELPRO, and much of its current events with same, but thanks for pointing it out. Harvard is also far from monolithic in that a lot of shenanigans seem to happen under the noses of a lot of good people.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Jones and Floum: Teaching us how to lose ......
Can't you see that, if Jones were serious about putting up a real fight, he would have turned his dismissal by BYU into a NATIONAL POLITICAL STRUGGLE.
He had the profile to do it, because the media PROMOTED him as the officially-designated spokesman for "9/11 controlled demolition".
He had a major libel action to use as a weapon against WorldNetDaily when they fabricated quotations allegedly calling for violent overthrow of the government.
But he did nothing.
Why pass up GOLDEN opportunities to take the fight into a public arena where real victories could be achieved POLITICALLY ... to protect the flanks of whistle-blowers and honest dissidents in academica and the scientific "professional" community ?
Why take the cash payoff from BYU instead ?
Why teach us how to negotiate surrender ?
Why program the movement for defeat ?
I don't even need to consider Jones' desperate effort to shut down discussion of unconventional weapons use by the perps
(not only on 9/11 but in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon as well ).
Jones' designated role is pretty obvious from the POLITICAL and social import of his actions ....
or screaming LACK of action to fight back.
Especially when that fight might had a good chance of winning real victories for the movement, and boosting the morale of so many out there who don't have the luxury of an institutional safety net and "professional status" like Jones.
Who is he getting his legal direction from ?
THAT'S what you should be looking at.
Because that's who is pulling his strings and writing his script for him.
This is just one more gambit in the long, continuous COINTELPRO effort to siphon and corral the "9/11 truth movement" into yet another "cultic" labyrinth game of mind control.
Where yet one more god-like "expert" authority figure can shut down whole realms of research, and dictate the precise limited hangout to be marketed for mass consumption.
It's also typical of the COINTELPRO conditioning process, softening up the target audience for yet more defeat, demoralization and surrender.
Are you so ready to accept arbitarily imposed limits on the research and information that opens the door to the true scope and scale of the technological power that these bastards have to dominate us ?
They have these weapons and have now demonstrated a willingness to use them,, at home AND abroad.
People in the Middle East know it.
Evidiently Jones (or perhaps his controller Floum) are determined to see that Americans don't think or talk about this stuff ... until it's too late to do anything about it.
Jim Fetzer's disinfo side show continues at GCN
28 November 2006
Recent research on 9/11 will be subject of discussion by
Jim Fetzer on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com,
29 November 2006
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest of Jim Fetzer
discussing her research on 9/11 on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com,
30 November 2006
Interview: Morgan Reynolds will be the guest of Jim
Fetzer discussing his research on 9/11 on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com,
If you're disgusted by the suspicious behavior of self-appointed 9/11 truth "leader" Jim Fetzer, contact GCN and tell them how you feel:
GCN
Ted Anderson
1- 877-996-4327 / Ext.101
Live call-in number: 1-800-259-9231
Also be sure to contact Alex Jones to share your concern with him about the direction Jim Fetzer is attempting to take the entire 9/11 truth movement:
http://infowars.com/contact/index.html
So let me get this straight...
Fetzer is having on two of the most divisive/controversial people within the movement in the span of two days as well as a show devoted to their "research?"
$*#@)*+#!!!
__________________________________
"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."
Yes it's sickening, isn't it...
My guess is Fetzer knows he won't have a show at GCN very much longer, so he's doing as much damage as possible before the show gets cancelled.
He did the same thing at RBN earlier this month when he had Judy Wood on his very last show to discuss SPACE BEAMS taking down the twin towers.
You have no idea...
How angry I am right now.
___________________________________
"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."
Click
Click Here
___________________________________
"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."