Kevin Barrett: Beam weapons critics making 'a tactical mistake'

Blogads

Banner Exchange

Kevin Barrett: Beam weapons critics making 'a tactical mistake'

Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.

Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 1:15am.

beam weapons 911 truth barrett research

For weeks now we have been told by a vocal group on this forum that the so-called "Space Beams" research of Professor Judy Wood is 'disinformation' and damages the movement.
The argument has split Scholars for Truth down the middle and has resulted in an unprecedented volley of attacks on the integrity of James Fetzer, who has an open mind on these theories.

Steven Jones chose, wrongly in my view, to ally himself with this group and as a result has left the Scholars with his band of supporters to start a new rival group.
Those of us who stuck by the right of Judy Wood to propose this research have also been insulted and bullied by a vocal minority. Until now there was no voice to answer these shill accusers.

Now, in an interview on GCN on Saturday, Kevin Barrett and Sophia from 911 Mysteries have come to our defense. While it would be asking too much for an apolgy from those who have dragged our names through the mire, it would be good to know that Kevin Barrett's wish that the subject be treated with the seriousness it merits is respected.

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Barrett/0611/20061125_Sat_Barrett2.mp3

Kevin Barrett on Directed Energy Weapons aka "Space Beams"

"I would urge people to go take a look at this material".

''I think we don't really need any kind of unanimity from researchers''

''I don't think this is doing any permanent harm to the 9/11 movement ''

''I think people who are blowing it up into something really huge are either sort of panicking or just making a tactical mistake''

''...people who are really sort of allergic to the idea that some kind of unconventional technology might have been used. ''

''[the perpetrators] would have taken advantage of the most advanced technologies of deception and demolition, and in fact they would have arranged it in such a way that anyone who figured out exactly what happened and described it accurately would sound completely insane''

''So, I wouldn't rule out anything and I think we need to allow researchers to pursue their own path,''

''we need to criticize each other in a hopefully amicable manner''

update: Thursday, December 14

This blog has had over 200 comments, not all of them mine. That should be enough evidence of a lively interest in this subject , despite the stated view of many that to discuss it is damaging to the movement.

I would welcome clarification from Kevin and Sophia, but it is clear from their words that they do not support the theory but are interested in discussing it. That is all I have been arguing for, and it seems that by your actions in posting here many of you agree.

» Andrew Lowe Watson's blog | login to post comments | printer friendly version

» login to post comments | 2 points

OK boys here's some

OK boys here's some spades....

No! You're meant to tip the earh back into the hole yo'u're in and climb out, not go on digging!!!

Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 8:33am.

» login to post comments | 3 points

It appears the "tactical mistake" is Team Spacebeam's

They blew their cover and maybe the whole game.

Submitted by YT on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 9:35am.

» login to post comments | -1 points

-5 for thought crime

Improper thoughts?

Don't worry amigos. To think outside the 9/11 orthodoxy is ok.

Sometimes we are correct, and sometimes not.

Let's not limit our thought. No speed limit.

In time the dust will fall away, and the light will shine.

Peace & Love

Submitted by Wheelie Dan (not verified) on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 10:30am.

» login to post comments | 2 points

this is nothing to do with thoughtcrime

Judy Jetson and Uncle Fetzer are dishonest people who falsify ëvidence" to promote "theories" with the intention of discrediting the cause of 9/11 truth.

Think all you want about whatever you want. But when you open your mouth, accept that your words will be heard by others, analyzed for content, and if you are wrong about something you're going to hear about it. We don't throw anyone in jail for space beams, etc.--we just throw the book of insults at them. You can call it mean or childish but the fact is that it is a very effective way of neutralizing disinformation--in fact, it is exactly what the deniers try to do to us, except that it only works when you are right, otherwise it backfires.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Submitted by Real Truther on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 5:34pm.

» login to post comments | -1 points

-5 points for thoughtcrime

It's perfectly ok to think outside the accepted 9/11 paradigm, don't worry amigos.

All may freely ignore the straps of limiting dogma,
Don't be afraid of those who would throw stones at you, and continue to think for yourself.

No thought control, no speed limit.

Peace & Love

Submitted by Wheelie Dan (not verified) on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 10:44am.

» login to post comments | -1 points

+5 for thoughtcrime

in this jurisdiction, anyway.

Submitted by Inquirer (not verified) on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 5:12pm.

» login to post comments | 6 points

Oh. My. God.

Why is this so difficult?

There is a major difference between hypothetical research and public advocacy. This is a campaign, folks, and the people who are in position to speak into a microphone are solemnly tasked with leading with the best evidence. (Barrett has endorsed research, but you don't hear him using his airtime to promote the flimsiest ideas. Instead, he behaves like a statesman or a diplomat -- very, very smart.) Anyone who refuses to do this is, by definition, an assassin. Period. This is a litmus test, Mr. Fetzer, et.al. Will you pass it?

At most, an interviewer will allow the interviewee to speak for five minutes. Only the most indisputable facts should be raised during that time, the ones that demonstrate that the official story is a lie -- and that the coverup proves that traitorous elements inside the U.S. colluded on 9/11. Even if a person is brought on to talk about wacky stuff -- or is baited to do so on air -- he/she needs to stick like tar to issues like NORAD, war games, the money trail, destruction of evidence, FBI finding no link to Osama and gagging whistleblowers, perjury, etc. Perhaps someone could write up a 2-5 minute talking points list.

You may think that Brownies brought down the Towers in conjunction with explosives, but we don't need both to prove that they didn't blow up due to fire and impact alone. That is all we need to demonstrate. The explosives hypothesis is the only one that has been respectably tested and peer-reviewed using physical evidence, and the one that is supported by testimony of basement explosions prior to impact. And it is useless to talk about anything with the Towers if you have no visuals on hand to support it. One can see the videos of CD and relate them to the Towers (and it can be very effective), but since there are no visuals to support the alternatives, it goes nowhere. Therefore, the CD hypothesis is all one needs to open that can. You can mention that there may be other technologies involved, if you must, and leave it at that.

Pay attention to political campaigns. Remember all the viable candidates who were brought down or discredited by a single ill-timed remark or sound bite gone wrong? Look at Bush -- he is being thrown under the bus by his own backers because he is such a liability, proving daily that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Submitted by LEH on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 10:20am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

You have a good point.

You have a good point. there is obviously a difference between focussing 100% of the time on unusual sounding possible hypotheses, even if , as Barrett says, their unusualness does not preclude them from being true, rather the reverse - between talking about these things all of the time and being aware that these possibilities exist,

I agree our main thrust should be the established facts of 911 complicity,

Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 2:22pm.

» login to post comments | 1 point

You have a good point.

You have a good point. There is obviously a difference between focussing 100% of the time on unusual sounding possible hypotheses, even if , as Barrett says, their unusualness does not preclude them from being true, rather the reverse - between talking about these things all of the time and being aware that these possibilities exist.

I agree our main thrust should be the established facts of 911 complicity,

Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 11:06am.

» login to post comments | 2 points

Damn, is that a good post, LEH!

That is precisely it: who grasps the difference between advocacy and hypothesis-obsessed solipsism? I think Dr. Barrett is clearly in the former camp.

Submitted by casseia on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 1:28pm.

» login to post comments | -2 points

Good point LEH - !

Submitted by imgstacke on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 11:05pm.

» login to post comments | 4 points

What are our weapons capabilities?

Do we have technology that far exceeds the knowledge or awareness of the American Public? .....You better believe it.

What is this technology and what exactly is it capable of?..... If you don't know now... chances are... they're not going to tell you.

How does the discussion of this advanced weaponry help the Truth Movement?.... It doesn't.... not at all!

Personally I think we need to condense our arguments..... we have compiled so much evidence and speculation.... on so many aspects of this event.

We need to have a top ten..... from there the evidence and arguments can branch out.... the people that we need to attract to this movement are those not willing or able to invest the time to go to the depths of the information that many of us have explored.

1.) Forknowledge and Lies about that Knowledge
2.) Building #7
3.) FBI, CIA, Military / Hijacker, Terrorist, Osama bin Laden Connections and Training
4.) Physics and the Phsical Properties of Steel and Fire Etc.
5.) Proven errors and omissions of the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST report.
6.) Cover-up and lack of investigation
7.) Characteristics of Controlled Demolition
8.) Norad and Military failures and relationship to the "Coincidence" of simultanious drills
9.) Evidence & Lies and with-holding of evidence of Pentagon Event
10.) Operation Northwoods, PNAC, Etc.

Just throwing this out there... there may be better reasoning..... but if we can narrow these down... we can better focus.....

The discussion is great.... but if someone could create a blog where we can compile evidence under 10 headings.... with sub-headings.... we can get our ideas together... give opinions as to why this info is important..... and create a system where the best liked additions are always at the top then if people want to dig a bit deeper.... they can move down the list to the lesser liked additions.

With this we can pin the appropriate evidence, speculation and thoughts on the appropriate people.... everything related to Dick Cheney or Condi Rice could be right under their heading

I have absolutely no technical savy or I would set this up.

There is just so much information out there..... we need to be able to front the best stuff and be able to explain to people its importance then be able to link that info to the next related item.

Let's build our own pyramid of information hierarchy..... What makes many of us different is that we can connect the dots.... we need to create a platform that helps others to more easily do the same.... in a timely manner.

From this we can more easily formulate a case if we were ever given the opportunity to prosecute these criminals... we can communicate with each other and be able to offer suggestions to improve prior posts...and sharpen our arguments and evidence..... we will be able to create a list of questions that need to be answered and designate those who need to answer those questions.

We have to focus our energy if we are going to take this to the next level....

we need a platform to do this.... we have the people.... we have the knowledge.... we have the resolve.... We just need to bring it all together.

When we get it together... with the evidence and the questions.... they will not be able to deny us an investigation.

Submitted by JJJames (not verified) on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 11:03am.

» login to post comments | -1 points

The only person making a

The only person making a “tactical mistake” around here is Kevin Barrett. I don’t know what the hell he’s doing there, but I do know Fetzer is practically his neighbour in Madison and that their good friends. So I would imagine that he’s having a hard time opposing his old friend for being a complete asshole, and so is caught between Iraq and a hard place. It’s completely ridiculous though, and a massive let down I hope he just gets with the program and helps phase out the disinfo, but someone’s probably going to have to throw cold water on him and slap his face before he snaps out of it. Fool.

Submitted by Dem Bruce Lee Styles on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 12:57pm.

» login to post comments | 4 points

And guys remember, at the

And guys remember, at the end of the day we don't need anyone but ourselves to win this, people like Barrett have had a lot of publicity, but it's the grassroots, it's the people power that has driven this movement, it is us!

Submitted by Dem Bruce Lee Styles on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 1:20pm.

» login to post comments | 3 points

right on, Dem

The guys who get all the publicity are just a tiny fraction of all truthers. Most people I talk to who admit to being skeptics have never heard of them anyway. People on the outside looking into a motley crew like the 9/11 truth movement will naturally be cautious about subscribing to any one person's views, and that is a good thing. They see all the hooplah and realize they should look into it and make up their own minds. The shills who think that by infiltrating the "Truth establishment" they will have control over the truth are sorely mistaken. They assume that what has worked with the mainstream media will work on this issue too. Ha! This movement is a rejection of the kind of personality based shit that passes for journalism in the MSM! The truth is coming out, period. That is not even remotely arguable--it will be widely known soon enough. When it comes time to write the post-mortem of the denial movement and the coverup, we will have an opportunity to show the world how and why they failed. Until then, we play this cat and mouse game. Behind the smoke and mirrors is the slow but inexorable "truthcreep" that is causing more and more consternation among the perps and their many apologists and supoprters. It is not something that can be stopped, just reacted to.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Submitted by Real Truther on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 5:01pm.

» login to post comments | 3 points

Wow

Every 2 months there is new crazy theory often promoted by the same people.

No planes -> Hologram -> Cgi -> Space weapons ->next BS

Explosions were heard, felt and seen by hundreds of ppl and we all saw it on videos. Demolition experts(in EU) are saying, that it´s C.D.

The Truth movement is loosing strength because of this B.S., but you dont realise that. It´s sad.

My mother(truther) just asked me if the space weapons are from the Greys and she wasn´t sarcastic. lol.

Submitted by ZeRRoX on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 1:47pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

I would really appreciate

I would really appreciate some clarification from Kevin Barrett on whether he supports the right of researchers like Judy Wood or Steven Jones to publish their work.

If I have in any way misrepresented him, then I offer my sincerest apologies.

Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 2:31pm.

» login to post comments | -4 points

Clearly he does

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Submitted by Inquirer (not verified) on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 5:18pm.

» login to post comments | 2 points

support of research is not

support of research is not the same as ruling out research...

If I support something, I put my self behind the something, in essence a form of approval.

If I rule out something, I am actively disapproving.

Barrett's quote does not imply support any new or controversial theory or hypothesis, but does imply support for accepted theories and hypothesis (going with what we've got).

He's speaking as politician would, not as a abstract scientist.

Things are never as complicated as some would like you to believe.

Submitted by imgstacke on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 11:14pm.

» login to post comments | 3 points

STOP

this space beam nonsense.

It is indeed a waste of time. The shills pushing it should be ignored here, or banned.

Submitted by Kevin O (not verified) on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 4:53pm.

» login to post comments | -2 points

Barrett's statements were newsworthy

Reporting them was not pushing "space beams."

Are you saying Andrew should be banned for reporting Barrett's statements?.

If you think he should be ignored, what you are doing here? Why are you wasting your time?

The word "shill" is meaningless. I think we should all agree to stop all accusations of "disinfo" or "shill."

Submitted by Inquirer (not verified) on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 5:23pm.

» login to post comments | 5 points

Competing Theories analyzed

“What distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? …scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts [i.e. like the scientific method] and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts [i.e. like the political method]. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.”
David Ray Griffin

Controlled Demolition has 11 features: all of which are shown to be present in the collapse of the twin towers:

• Sudden Onset
• Straight Down Collapse
• Free Fall Speed
• Total Collapse
• Sliced Steel (conveniently manageable pieces)
• Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials
• Dust Clouds
• Horizontal Ejections
• Demolition Rings
• Explosions
• Molten Steel

Eyewitness Evidence:
Prolific eyewitness testimony supports the conclusion that controlled demolition was used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. This includes testimony before, during, and after the collapse. Massive explosions were observed in the buildings before they were struck by planes. Live news footage, oral Histories, firefighter tapes, civilian survivors, and tape recordings all confirm these observations. Explosions are evidence of bombs.

Physical Evidence:
Melted Steel:
Was present for weeks after the disaster. Can "space beams" explain this reaction?
Steven Jones analyzed the molten metal and found evidence of thermate--A known controlled demolition material. Even if he didn't find this, molten metal is strong evidence of controlled demolition because normal fires are incapable of melting steel.

Ejection of materials:
Material from the building exploded in all directions, characteristic of explosive force within the towers.

Dust:
Independent analysis found very strange properties. This evidence supports the fact that controlled demolition was used. See Steven Jones' explanation of this independantly verified evidence here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9210704017463126290

Fact: No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has never not been a controlled demolition.

Let’s compare the theory that Space Beams destroyed the towers:

1. The towers fell straight down; they did not topple over. Not only this, the collapse was perfectly symmetrical--impossible to explain unless done with controlled demolition. If done with a space beam it would have to be done exactly above the towers. This can't account for point #3.
2. The towers exploded in all directions indicating an energy source from within the towers; causing material to powerfully strike other buildings with notable force. How can a space beam explain this?
3. The collapse started from the middle of the tower, not from the top which might be expected from a space beam.
4. If the beam approached from an angle it would have to account for point #2 and point #1; in other words the dust appears in all directions, not on one part of the building. The building collapse is perfectly symmetrical.
5. Any explanation must account for all of the 11 characteristics of demolition that are observed to be present.
6. The energy required for a space beam would be incredible; it would be dangerous to use. How much energy would be required to make a beam destroy 110 office towers in less than 11 seconds?
And it would have to be amazingly accurate; it would have to explain how the towers were destroyed in a perfectly symmetrical way.
7. In one of the towers the antenna fell first, indicating structural collapse—controlled demolition. Space beams can't explain this.
8. No such technology is known to exist—the burden is on the theorists to prove that any such technology exists.
9. It can't explain the molten metal for weeks after 9/11. This is a chemical reaction that can be explained by thermate.
10. It presumes there would be no visual reaction of the beam, or of the beam hitting the tower.
11. The so called "car evidence" is easily explained by the fact that the cars are under a bridge that is not damaged in any shape or form. Therefore, they must have been moved there.

Conclusion: space beams did not destroy the tower; controlled demolition did.

Point #2 is enough to disprove the “pet theories”
Point #5 also disproves the “pet theories” and shows why controlled demolition is a far better explanation

If a theory is contradicted by any of the evidence, it must be logically rejected. Therefore this theory must be rejected!

Yes, all theories must be considered, and then abandoned when they are easily disproved!

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Submitted by Arabesque on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 7:32pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

I am not a scientist, and I

I am not a scientist, and I had said would not discuss Directed Energy Weapons again. However, your thoughtful and well-written post , sadly a rarity in this 'debate', demands a respectful response,

I repeat that I am not the person most qualified to write this, I would agree with Kevin Barrett that everyone should read Dr Wood's lengthy and well-presented study. It contains most of the answers to your questions.

If you give me half an hour, I will reply in detail.

Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 7:52pm.

» login to post comments | 5 points

No qualifications are needed to think for yourself

If you are not "qualified" to answer my questions, then why are you "qualified" to believe the space beam theory?

Everyone is qualified to think for themselves and use logic to determine their conclusions.

Food for thought.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Submitted by Arabesque on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 9:20pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

I am sorry , but when I see that long and detailed reply

has been 'buried ', not being a total dumbass , I shall not waste any more energy on this . Good night.

Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 10:06pm.

» login to post comments | -3 points

Competing theories reanalyzed

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Fact: No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has never not been a controlled demolition.

Fact 1: No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has ever been anything but a controlled demolition.
Fact 2: No 110 story build has ever been demolished from the top down (untraditional) vs. from the bottom up (traditional/WTC7). I would venture to guess that no building has ever been demolished from the top down period.

Let’s compare the theory that Space Beams destroyed the towers:
... against the theory that controlled demolition destroyed the towers. Yes, let's.

If you're going to be technical, the collapses were not perfectly symmetrical. WTC1 feel straight down but the top of WTC2 tilted off to one side-- not symmetrical. Additionally, please site the source for the claim that a directed energy weapon would have to be directly above the towers.

2. The towers exploded in all directions indicating an energy source from within the towers; causing material to powerfully strike other buildings with notable force. How can a space beam explain this?

We have a slice out of the Banker's trust building and WTC7 still stood, undamaged. Unless of course you believe WTC7 fell as a result of WTC1/2 damage and not from classic bottom up demolition.

3. The collapse started from the middle of the tower, not from the top which might be expected from a space beam.

Please watch the collapse footage again. WTC1 is from the top while WTC2 is from the 'middle' or more accurately, from the top third or so.

4. If the beam approached from an angle it would have to account for point #2 and point #1; in other words the dust appears in all directions, not on one part of the building. The building collapse is perfectly symmetrical.

You've already claimed above that a beam must be directly above the towers, and while I await your source for this claim, I will let this statement rest. Additionally, we've already covered our perfectly symmetrical collapse point. WTC1 and WTC2 collapse were different-- watch the top of WTC2 fall to one side.

5. Any explanation must account for all of the 11 characteristics of demolition that are observed to be present.

This is not logical. Rephrased as any controlled demolition explanation must account for all the 11 characteristics of demolition that are observed to be present.

6. The energy required for a space beam would be incredible; it would be dangerous to use. How much energy would be required to make a beam destroy 110 office towers in less than 11 seconds? And it would have to be amazingly accurate; it would have to explain how the tower was destroyed in a perfectly symmetrical way.

Good question, but how much energy would be required to demolish a 110 building in less than 11 seconds? Unless you are questioning if the towers were in fact completely demolished, requiring a quantitative energy amount seems silly-- the towers were demolished completely with some large energy requirement, and neither CD and DEW can accurately state the amount of energy used. Additionally, would using a directed energy weapon be dangerous enough to require all military flights to be grounded while in use, as Judy Wood has pointed out? Again, I will leave you 'perfectly symmetrical' statement alone, until you come back with a better understanding of symmetry.

7. In one of the towers the antenna fell first, indicating structural collapse—controlled demolition. Space beams can't explain this.

Damn, this is just getting worse. The antenna fell first in the only tower which had an antenna, WTC1.

8. No such technology is known to exist—the burden is on the theorists to prove that any such technology exists.

Big time straw man and no hinting about it. Unless you're denying that the government privately researches technologies which the public isn't aware of, then just because the public doesn't know about directed energy weapon use, doesn't mean the technology doesn't exist. Furthermore, it was the friggin' Reagan era when Star Wars research was first proposed... Long time for them to get on the game. We don't have to prove any such technology exists, we just have to prove that the technologies that you propose were employed on 9/11 cannot be, based on resulting aftermath evidence.

9. It can't explain the molten metal for weeks after 9/11. This is a chemical reaction that can be explained by thermate.

And this thermate reaction is occuring for weeks and weeks non stop, and that can explain the molten metal? Claims of the molten metal have been called into question-- red herring.

10. It presumes there would be no visual reaction of the beam, or of the beam hitting the tower.

You need a lesson electromagnetic magnetic spectrum, but I'll be nice. Do me a favor though, will ya? Go get some leftovers and toss them in the microwave oven for 5 minutes, and stare into the microwave oven the whole time, watching the time click down. Did you see any microwaves? Your food is now hot, but did you have any visual evidence of the microwaves hitting your food? No? Well keep repeating...

11. The so called "car evidence" is easily explained by the fact that the cars are under a bridge that is not damaged in any shape or form. Therefore, they must have been moved there.

Ok, your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. If the cars 'must have been moved there' then that still doesn't explain what damaged them in the extremely unique fashion in which they were damaged. Just read through Woods and Reynolds paper and you'll see pictures of police cars with the passenger door toasted but the rear door shiny and new. Those cars are toasted and they are the sore thumb in your CD argument-- you've got NO explanation for them and you took a major sidestep in addressing them. If you've got any doubt on those toasted cars, go read Killtown's interview with Patrica Ondrovic 9/11 rescue worker

Conclusion: space beams did not destroy the tower; controlled demolition did.

Conclusion: we don't know what destroyed the towers, but there were both totally destroyed.

If a theory is contradicted by any of the evidence, it must be logically rejected. Therefore this theory must be rejected!

Yes, you're talking about DEWs, right? No? Than please do explain the toasted cars. I hope you can account for all the cars which Judy has so kindly posted pictures of. Also might want to start pondering the selective damage to WTC5/6 and the last picture from Bill Baggett of WTC3.

Yes, all theories must be considered, and then abandoned when they are easily disproved!

Good, glad you agree. Please link to the source where Jones has presented evidence prove thermite use and WTC and please link to the source where Jones has verified his thermite 'evidence' is not from WTC cleanup procedures.

"We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

You are a controlled movement now, and when you don't think for yourself, you let them create your reality.

In this entire thread, the point Kevin made in his recent radio show which hit be the most has been completly lost: "Given that this was obviously an inside job from the very top of the US command structure, even though it was probably highly compartmentalized and didn't involve a huge number of people, it would have taken advantage of the most advancement technologies of deception and demolition, and in fact they would have arranged it in such a way that anyone who figured out exactly what happened and described it accurately would sound completely insane." - Kevin Barrett

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 8:03pm.

» login to post comments | 4 points

Competing Theories

Your intentionally deceptive arguments don’t really prove anything. They certainly don’t disprove my points. You don’t even criticize many of my points, you just offer observations that don’t affect my argument.

1. No debate here. I didn’t say I knew where the beams came from. I’m using a hypothetical to show why the theory can’t explain what is observed. Do you know what direction the beam came from?

2. Straw-man. Watch the video evidence; the material flew in all directions. Period.

3. No debate here. I only meant the collapse didn’t start at the very top (i.e. the top floor). This is my sole point.

4. You misinterpreted my claim. I am simply showing another hypothetical to show why if the beam approached from an angle it can’t explain observed phenomenon. Do you know where the beam approached from? I didn’t think so. If so I’d like to know.

5. Scientific method: explain all of the evidence. This is the very basis of logic. Any theory has to explain all the points that confirm controlled demolition.

6. Maybe. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m saying it’s unlikely. Controlled demolition is far more practical and likely. This is not central to my argument.

7. No debate here. What does your point prove? I know the antenna was on WTC 1—I just didn’t mention it.

8. Sure it’s a straw-man. And I can say time travel is possible. If you want to prove it to me, you’ll have to convince me it exists. What’s important is the contradicting evidence which shows that space beams were not used.

9. Red Herring? Evidence is evidence. Something has to explain why the molten steel was seen for a month after 9/11. If it can’t explain it the theory is incomplete. Thermate was found and can explain it. End of story.

10. The tower wasn’t being melted it was being blown up. Blown up in all directions—basic physics shows that there was a substantial energy source from within the towers. This proves why the Space Beam theories have no merit.

11. What damaged the cars? Probably thermate from the controlled demolition. Why don’t we analyze them and end the debate. Until then, a space beam is just speculation without much to back it up.

Thermite used for cleanup procedures? Now I know you were probably paid to write this. Read Steven Jones’ WTC paper—he discusses this point there. Thermate is extremely dangerous and is never used for cleanup.

I am not compelled by any of your arguments, and they don’t really answer any of my points.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Submitted by Arabesque on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 9:03pm.

» login to post comments | -2 points

Competing evidence

The crux of the argument against traditional CD thermite/RDX hypothesis which Woods and Reynolds have constructed does not rest of the proven existence of DEWs. Woods and Reynolds and examined ALL the evidence, gone back and looked at the WTC site on 9/11 AS A WHOLE. They have picked up important puzzle pieces which are unexplained by the traditional CD thermite/RDX hypothesis. These include, the toasted cars, the destruction patterns on WTC6/5, the picture from Baggett of WTC3, the unique fact that the bathtub remained undamaged, the height of the rubble pile (WTC7 pile vs WTC1 pile alone is interesting).

If a theory is contradicted by any of the evidence, it must be logically rejected. Therefore this theory must be rejected!

But ofcourse, this is exactly what the work of Woods and Reynolds has done to the thermite/RDX hypothesis!
Can thermite account for the unique damage seen on multiple police cars and fire trucks, along with many other cars?
Can thermite explain how the towers managed to collapse without damaging the bathtub, based the Woods/Reynolds analysis of impact forces, i.e. Kingdom vs. WTC1.
Can thermite explain why the height of the rubble piles when observing WTC7 pile against 'The Pile'? After all, 'The Pile' is 2 110 story buildings, so why does WTC7 pile look so big compared to it?
Can thermite explain the destruction patterns at WTC5/6? Can thermite explain why there is a friggin' hole missing from the center of WTC6 with, by comparison, minimal debris at the bottom? Can thermite explain the brown residue trailing from the perimeter columns of WTC2, or the warping of WTC3?? Both of these aforementioned phenomena can be observed in Bill Baggett's last photograph.

Woods and Reynolds have highlighted various problems with the thermite/RDX theory and these problems remain wether you choose to accept their proposed alternative of DEWs. These problems with thermite/RDX are the evidence which is contradicting the theory you won't reject.

Thermate was found and can explain it. End of story.

Again, please site your source. We've all been waiting for some independent analysis of these claims by Jones.

The tower wasn’t being melted it was being blown up.

No one said anything about melting except for you.

basic physics shows that there was a substantial energy source from within the towers.

Where are your phyics, please show? The only basic physic I can see which disproves the OTGC collapse story, is the billard ball example. Can you please show me the basic physics Jones has worked out to disprove the OTGC?

What damaged the cars?

That'd be the damaged cars on FDR drive. If you haven't taken the time to examine Wood's paper, and see the pictures of the toasted cars then it isn't really worth discussing. Have you seen Wood's paper, and taken the time to examine the toasted cars for yourself?

Now I know you were probably paid to write this.

Low blow. Is this an honest addendum to your argument or are just trying to be a last action hero?

Everyone is qualified to think for themselves and use logic to determine their conclusions.

I am somewhat encouraged to see this comment from you and appreciate that you respect everyone's unique ability to use their one minds. The above is my 'Food for thought', but you will still have to decide whether to swallow or spit-- and something tells me your a spitter ;-)

Best regards.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 9:51pm.

» login to post comments | 3 points

The Probable versus the Impossible

Can thermate explain all of these things? It’s possible. I am open to other types of explosives in the towers as long as they are supported by the evidence.

Can energy beams explain symmetrical collapse* and massive spreading of debris in all directions? Nope. Only an internal source can explain this.

Contradictory evidence = invalid theory.

*below the plane impact zones.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Submitted by Arabesque on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 10:13pm.

» login to post comments | -3 points

Microwaves?

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson on Wed, 12/13/2006 - 12:13am.

Recent Headlines

Recent Media

Action Items

Blogads

Banner Exchange

User login

9/11 Inquiry Sites

9/11 Regional Sites

9/11 Related Sites

9/11 International Sites

9/11 Memorial Sites

News and Blogs

RSS Feeds

Web Stuff

Kevin Barrett: Beam weapons critics making 'a tactical mistake'