ULTRA ALTERNATIVE 9/11 theory.

[dayzero]

>

[GoingToFast]

Judy D. Wood is NOT a joke, she is absolutely right in saying that Direct High Energy Weapons where used at 9-11, there where no "micro nukes" being used at 9-11 simply because they do not exist that is the real myth. And why is she being attacked so fiercely from all directions, simply because she is right. This is an excellent thread make it sticky.


dayzero, your link did not work but this does.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...CIA+Connection

[feeler]

Originally Posted by GoingToFast

Judy D. Wood is NOT a joke, she is absolutely right in saying that Direct High Energy Weapons where used at 9-11, there where no "micro nukes" being used at 9-11 simply because they do not exist that is the real myth. And why is she being attacked so fiercely from all directions, simply because she is right. This is an excellent thread make it sticky.


dayzero, your link did not work but this does.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...CIA+Connection

Good point GoingToFast.

Bill Deagle believes the use of “micro nukes” on 9/11 but in my opinion the evidence of such use is not compelling (e.g. no radiation burn/sickness was reported, no sensation of heat wave was reported by surrounding pedestrians, Judy Wood’s observation, etc.). So the verdict on that is still out.

On the other hand, the evidence (both visual and scientific) supporting the use of particle beam weapon on 9/11 was very solid. Serial, floor by floor explosions on the lower section were arranged to create the illusion of a “collapse.” But there was no evidence to support explosion of any type on the upper section of each tower. Then the BIG question is: What turned the upper section into dust? Dr. Judy Wood has the answer.

Dr. Wood points out to the mini pole shift (magnetic shift) detected at the time when the plane-holes were cut out on the façade of the towers, and at the time when the upper section of each tower was severed. After the recent major earthquakes in China and Japan, many researchers also started paying attention to the effects of HAARP. This particular aspect of the truth movement is gaining interest. -feeler

[ad.johnson]

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_...3-20%20NPG.jpg

Can you say Disintegrate?

Oops - looks like people haven't looked at all the data. Dr Wood has posted more information - isolating certain characteristics or fingerprints of the weapon. Particle beams don't seem to enter into it. Technology related to the Hutchison Effect does. Why isn't anyone talking about this on this thread?

http://www.drjudywood.com/artciles/JJ/

Also, few people are talking about other topics related to 9/11 which are talked of elsewhere:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/

I have seen Richard Hoagland talk about Hurricane Manipulation, but he hasn't talked about 9/11 in relation to this. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...............

[swordsmith]

I have also seen Richard Hoagland say in his last PC talk "Thank god for the people behind HAARP" and continue to say it is more or less saving the planet. What do you think of THIS Andrew?

Hard for me to think of Hoagland as a straight up guy after this, well, he is from NASA....

[stal]

imo not so far fetched. theres plenty of evidence for directed energy and holograms, just as there is evidence to support other thoeries. an ultra-alternative theory would be timeline convergence. but thats just crazy talk now isnt it?

[ghglenn]

I would suggest that there was more than one method utilized to take down the towers. If they wanted it to go off without a hitch, so to speak, they would have created a redundant fail-safe. Previous to 9/11, it was documented that "maintenance" was done on the building by outside contractors for more than a week. Explosives had to be used to sheer some of the steel with thermite...with the particle beam exciting the rest of the structure. I am not an expert on beam tech but I have a hard time imagining the structural steel sheering under a large beam shooting down from space. The densities of the various materials are so varied. Just my .02

[ad.johnson]

Originally Posted by swordsmith

I have also seen Richard Hoagland say in his last PC talk "Thank god for the people behind HAARP" and continue to say it is more or less saving the planet. What do you think of THIS Andrew?

Hard for me to think of Hoagland as a straight up guy after this, well, he is from NASA....

Hi,

I think we should all look at as much evidence as we can and draw our own conclusions. Here's a bit, anyway....

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audi...016%202008.mp3

I have been a little surprised at how few people are looking at the hard data that Dr Wood has assembled - especially those who normally talk about such topics.

[GoingToFast]

Originally Posted by stal

imo not so far fetched. theres plenty of evidence for directed energy and holograms, just as there is evidence to support other thoeries. an ultra-alternative theory would be timeline convergence. but thats just crazy talk now isnt it?

The controlled-demolition of the Twin-towers and the two planes hitting the towers are two separate events at 9-11, proofing that there where Directed High Energy weapons used at the demolition does not automatically prof that the planes where holographs. It is my firm belief that the planes where real live and physical (no holographs) and that there where High Energy Weapons used at the controlled-demolition.

[Love/Light 13]

a particle beam weapon seems plausible to me.

A youtube clip was posted by someone trying to discredit Judy D. Wood. Why would anyone from the 9/11 Truth movement be working so passionately to discredit a fellow believer of the "inside job" theory, ie Ms. Wood? Clearly that guy is a disinfo agent trying to humiliate an unsuspecting Wood. Yellow journalism at it's best.

I believe that if truth about 9/111 were released, a transformative positive event would take place on this planet. In America, cops, firefighters, and soldiers would be infuriated, and finally dismantle the "old boys network" for good.

As sad as the truth may be, it must be made known to all...............

L/L 13

***************************

may WISDOM guide COMPASSION

"out of MANY, we are ONE"

[ad.johnson]

Originally Posted by GoingToFast

It is my firm belief that the planes where real live and physical (no holographs) and that there where High Energy Weapons used at the controlled-demolition.

By studying the evidence, you can move from a "belief" to a conclusion. It's simpler than you think....

1) Newton's 3rd law states "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

2) Is steel harder than aluminium wing struts?

3) What would happen if a BUILDING travelling 500 miles an hour hit a stationary plane? (What would come off worst)?

If you think carefully about these answers - taking what you know about metal, speed and their behaviour, you will conclude that a regular plane CANNOT possibly have caused the holes in the WTC towers. You don't need anyone or any other information to reach the correct conclusion about this particular issue.

You then go on from there and decide what might've happened (now that you have established an important thing that CANNOT have happened).

Part of the "journey onward" can involve watching "September Clues"

[Providence]

I haven't posted in a while, but this topic is intriguing. My question is, if some time of particle beam was used on the towers, then are we then to consider the pentagon and PA planes a distraction from the test? Who were all of those people calling on their cell phones as the planes went down? Can someone make a connection for me here?

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by ad.johnson

By studying the evidence, you can move from a "belief" to a conclusion. It's simpler than you think....

1) Newton's 3rd law states "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

2) Is steel harder than aluminium wing struts?

3) What would happen if a BUILDING travelling 500 miles an hour hit a stationary plane? (What would come off worst)?

Based on what you have provided anyone with high school level physics could conclude: compounding logical fallacies resulting in insufficient data to make any conclusion.

In short...

Not enough parameters for any equations concerning kinetic energy and mass.

No dimensions or thickness of steel plate in hollow steel sections.

No volume or description of aircraft fuel. No analysis of combustion or kinetic energy of blast.

Further, unknowingly you have provided two leading questions to which the answers are "Yes" and one claim all of which are irrelevant here. This is the structured of NLP, albeit poorly done.

Originally Posted by ad.johnson

If you think carefully about these answers - taking what you know about metal, speed and their behaviour, you will conclude that a regular plane CANNOT possibly have caused the holes in the WTC towers.

If you think carefully about the above questions they do not in fact have anything to do with the scenario in question.

Originally Posted by ad.johnson

You don't need anyone or any other information to reach the correct conclusion about this particular issue.

Evidently, the layman needs you however. And yes you need a mechanical engineer and a lot more information to draw any conclusion.

Originally Posted by ad.johnson

You then go on from there and decide what might've happened (now that you have established an important thing that CANNOT have happened).

Wrong and contradictory, you haven't established anything.

Originally Posted by ad.johnson

Part of the "journey onward" can involve watching "September Clues"

Then google "September Clues Debunked" to make your own mind up instead of someone telling you what the 'correct' conclusion is.

Oh, here it is:
http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

And google video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...LNsNTDCg&hl=en

Dr. JudyWood is #1 for how? You must learn why?...why?...why?
What did those towers represent?
What does the pentagon represent?
Twin Towers were the "Gate"-Pentagon is the "Star"
911 was an illuminati satanic ritual!!!
More important is WHY?

[Sideshow Shaman]

...been keeping an eye on this thread. So far the comments seem generally ok. A few things come to mind,

It is nice to see that some people can read the materials provided by Judy Wood and look at the evidence. It has always been amazing how the loudest voices of the 9/11 truth groups chose to ridicule her, considering how they were ridiculed by the general American public, on pretty much the same grounds. At first I thought the 9/11 truth community would be rather enlightened. And many individuals are, but the loudest voices seem stuck at a certain level of understanding.

There are really two aspects to the 9/11 truth phenom. Those that seek all knowlege and perhaps certainty of how it happened. And those concerned with disseminating basic knowledge directly to the public. The general trend is that she is ridiculed by the later.

A large amount of evidence is available to actually establish the truth of one particular theory or another, as well as names of those involved. In the end, or even the beginning, the exact details do not matter on a societal level. Once the 'inside job' nature of the events is clear, so is the solution.

Of course I do have some opinions and eyewitness info, which I do not generally disclose when interacting with the public. To begin with I would argue in favor of the idea that a high level explosive was used at the initiation of the North Tower implosion, near the top. Probably not a micro-nuke because of radiation readings, but something comparable. Any suggestions?

My reason for thinking that is that i felt a strong shockwave from that blast at a distance of about 3 miles. It is important to note that I was on a rooftop with a clear view and no obstructing windows. The presence of the shockwave was confirmed by another witness present. Pedestrians on the street would not have been in a position to feel it.

Oh, and I took pictures of the explosion at the top of the tower. It really is true that anyone with the ability to see what is in front of them can clearly see the basics of 9/11. For instance, those airplanes were incapable of bringing down the towers. FEMA even admitted that the jet fuel had burned away 5 minutes after impact. The explosive nature of the North Tower's demise is visually obvious. The explanations keep shifting, but at one point the government was saying that these explosions resulted from burning "office materals"!?

While I would not 'argue' in favor of the idea of energy weapons being used that day, it seems likely to me. It was a mix and match kind of operation, big explosions here, little ones there, fake phone calls where needed. Certainty an opportunity to field test new techniques and machines. Also, another eye witness I've known for a few years took a walk down the West Side Highway that morning, among other places. One thing he saw stood out to me. Some of the cars parked there had all the non-metal parts gone. He saw steel belted car tires without the rubber.

That's about it for special trivia I know. If anyone has questions about the North Tower explosion, I could elaborate.

and...
Yo! to CB
i've seen you around the web

[stal]

Originally Posted by GoingToFast

The controlled-demolition of the Twin-towers and the two planes hitting the towers are two separate events at 9-11, proofing that there where Directed High Energy weapons used at the demolition does not automatically prof that the planes where holographs. It is my firm belief that the planes where real live and physical (no holographs) and that there where High Energy Weapons used at the controlled-demolition.

fair enough. my mistake. this thread is about directed energy, not planes. i was trying to point out that there is evidence for and against every version of the story, some better than others of course. i'll go back to lurking now.

(The simplest explanation is usually correct)



Let them* rest in peace now.

Suggestion:
Live in the now or try to learn how.


*Them. - those of 911 and their families. Life goes on.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by dataeast

In short...

Not enough parameters for any equations concerning kinetic energy and mass.

No dimensions or thickness of steel plate in hollow steel sections.

No volume or description of aircraft fuel. No analysis of combustion or kinetic energy of blast.

In the absence of the above listed criteria, should we be convinced that the planes (and the plane crashes) that we saw were real?


John Lear already pointed out that the video/photos of the 9/11 planes are suspect due to the missing navigation lights (which we should have seen).




For your comparison:





-feeler

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by feeler

In the absence of the above listed criteria, should we be convinced that the planes (and the plane crashes) that we saw were real?

First, you should reframe the question originally posed (by ad.johnson) with relevant data before jumping to any conclusions.

Originally Posted by feeler

John Lear already pointed out that the video/photos of the 9/11 planes are suspect due to the missing navigation lights (which we should have seen).

They are not evident in these photos either, which are more appropriate due to the position of the sun (time of day).
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Chile...-ER/1410483/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-I...-ER/1400588/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-C...-ER/1400126/M/

Also, the photos for comparison where taken too late in the day to be compared with the video of the event.

Learn how the aperture, gain and shutter speed of CCD (video cameras) influence the moving images in video. The resolution of the video presented would not even capture lights under those conditions even if they were on.

Learn how aperture, shutter and film speed (ISO) influence photographs.

[ad.johnson]

Originally Posted by dataeast

Then google "September Clues Debunked" to make your own mind up instead of someone telling you what the 'correct' conclusion is.

Wow - you're working pretty hard with this! Well done! Validity of September Clues or lack thereof does not affect Newton's laws. Also, there is much other reason to question the planes at the WTC stories - check what the witnesses said (and had recorded for New York Times)

http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/...=134&Itemid=60

I don't like the word "Debunked" how about "An analysis of September Clues"? Wouldn't that be more balanced?

Who are you Dataeast? What is your real name? What do you do for a living? I'd be quite interested to know.

Have fun!

[trainedobserver]

What has happened to John Hutchison? I can't find anything current on him.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by dataeast

First, you should reframe the question originally posed (by ad.johnson) with relevant data before jumping to any conclusions.



They are not evident in these photos either, which are more appropriate due to the position of the sun (time of day).
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Chile...-ER/1410483/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-I...-ER/1400588/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-C...-ER/1400126/M/

Also, the photos for comparison where taken too late in the day to be compared with the video of the event.

Learn how the aperture, gain and shutter speed of CCD (video cameras) influence the moving images in video. The resolution of the video presented would not even capture lights under those conditions even if they were on.

Learn how aperture, shutter and film speed (ISO) influence photographs.

Typical message from the shills: "Don’t believe your lying eyes. Believe us!"

We aren't supposed to see... Too typical...


-feeler

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by feeler

Typical message from the shills: "Don’t believe your lying eyes. Believe us!"

We aren't supposed to see... Too typical...


-feeler

Your comparison was inappropriate.

Formulate an argument and refute mine, otherwise your argument doesn't hold water.

[ad.johnson]

Originally Posted by dataeast

Your comparison was inappropriate.

Formulate an argument and refute mine, otherwise your argument doesn't hold water.

Oops - I wonder if the anonymous and mysterious Dataeast in an unreal place (where is terra austalis - wouldn't you normally call it Australia?) if Dataeast has missed my post, or does he have no arguments for the points I raised? Can he comment on my 500 witness study? Or does he just like to "debunk" stuff (in other words says "it's wrong because I say so and everyone else is dumb or stupid for not agreeing with me"?)

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by ad.johnson

Oops - I wonder if the anonymous and mysterious Dataeast in an unreal place (where is terra austalis - wouldn't you normally call it Australia?) if Dataeast has missed my post, or does he have no arguments for the points I raised? Can he comment on my 500 witness study? Or does he just like to "debunk" stuff (in other words says "it's wrong because I say so and everyone else is dumb or stupid for not agreeing with me"?)

Who are you talking to?

You have completely surrendered your power over to me.

You demonstrate the very things you accuse me of.

As you have dismissed the evidence I presented, which is intrinsic if you are to understand how you have it wrong, there can be no debate of subsequent arguments which basis are dependent on those base assumptions.

I am under no obligation to respond to you, nor do I feel the need to "defend" my position. You are free to speculate as you will, but bear in mind that that is all that it'll be: speculation and innuendo without any evidence.

--"the anonymous and mysterious Dataeast"