Alternative 9/11 view on Directed Energy Weaponry

[ABCwarrior]

http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=76&part=1 (it's in 3 pieces online)

Or if you've got Sky it's repeated tomorrow at 6pm on 201, Thursday at 8pm

The second episode/part is due to be screened on Fridays Richplanet.TV.... Showcase Channel 201 at 8pm

It's an extensive interview with Dr Judy Woods and the first bit is fascinating, watch it if you've got the time, then we can start arguing Friday 9:01pm...

The truth is out there folks....!!

 

[spacecat]

she looks a bit of a nutter tbh

 

[joinerjohn]

Get it right ABC, it's Directed Free Energy Weaponry.

Hmm, I wonder if she'd care to direct some free energy where it's needed.

 

[ABCwarrior]

arf arf....just watch it folks...must agree she looks a bit odd, to the point that maybe she used to be a he...

The bit on the firemens Scott Packs(air cylinders) blowing and the street where every car was a complete burnt out shell yet a tree was standing unscathed, and the car parks several blocks away that had all the cars torched, 2 of same make had their engine bays totally melted out makes me wonder what the hell went on.

It's worth giving her a listen.

Just remember this quote:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

We're getting there slowly but surely, most people are stuck at 1, and don't care either way as long as the football goes on forever or soaps or celeb gossip, too distracted by the control mechanisms of collective fear created for us(losing our possessions/jobs/homes/the economy ... etc,

A lot of media, especially the likes of Fox news etc have presenters now who "interview"(the guests get shouted at, abused, ridiculed, and about 5% of the air time) anyone who challenges the official story and they're at stage 2...just short of throwing punches

And then there's us who've made it to 3- we don't exactly know the truth, that's for sure, but we do know that the official story cannot add up, ever, and the quest goes on...[/i]

 

[ladylola]

I did watch most of the programme on the telly and yes it was interesting.
She did a very good job of dismissing the controlled demolition argument, although some of the stuff she came out with seemed out of place.
I didn't , however, see any real evidence for this directed energy weapon that she claims was used.
Plus , of course, there are the flaws in the theory , biggest of which would be if the American government had developed this secret weapon why would they use it in such a manner? Having used it in this fashion they now can't use it against their enemies with out exposing the whole conspiracy. Better simply to ram a jet liner into a building and then use the secret weapon against the foe. After all the secret atom bomb that was developed sixty years ago was dropped where? New York , LA or Hiroshima?

 

[TheOriginalTonkaToy]

she looks a bit of a nutter tbh

There's a good reason for that

The only directed energy weapon used in the 9/11 attack was the directed kinetic energy of two massive planes hitting the towers at high velocity. This was augmented by the massive amounts of kerosene they carried.

Odd effects like cars burned out but trees standing unscathed aren't that unusual.in blast and fire scenes.

Conspiracy theorists would do well to try shaving with Occam's Razor

 

[ABCwarrior]

Yes, and adhere principles developed in the dark ages when the world was flat, witches were burned and every fool was controlled by religion alone(now it's religion and media, both still equally good at telling huge works of fiction)

Odd effects like cars burned out but trees standing unscathed aren't that unusual.in blast and fire scenes.

Back that ridiculous statement up with fact and I may believe it...

 

[ABCwarrior]

I reckon the whole thing was one huge psy-op. The planes or whatever they were) were necessary to do the damage to the American psyche but were not physically enough to ever bring down the buildngs, hence the use of DFEW's
Technology is a strange thing- do you all think that what they develop these days is instantly given out to the public domain?
By using a new technology over the top of a conventional reason/explanation they could mask it and hold on to it.
It could well be an "ace up the sleeve" type card/weapon to use in extreme cases such as this, where it was used as the moral basis for a long protracted invasion of several countries all related to resources theft.
I don't think it's comparable to the development of the A-bomb to end WWII, this has been used to start wars, and the US is a master at false flag operations to do this.

 

[TheOriginalTonkaToy]

Yes, and adhere principles developed in the dark ages when the world was flat, witches were burned and every fool was controlled by religion alone(now it's religion and media, both still equally good at telling huge works of fiction)

Odd effects like cars burned out but trees standing unscathed aren't that unusual.in blast and fire scenes.

Back that ridiculous statement up with fact and I may believe it...

Occams Razor has a knack of cutting through the nonsense and getting straight to the facts.

As for the odd effects of blast and fire, there are numerous documented incidents where people or objects close to a blast have survived with little or no damage whereas others have died or been severely damaged. Ditto fire. Look for your own evidence.

 

[Crickleymal]

I reckon the whole thing was one huge psy-op. The planes or whatever they were) were necessary to do the damage to the American psyche but were not physically enough to ever bring down the buildngs, hence the use of DFEW's
Technology is a strange thing- do you all think that what they develop these days is instantly given out to the public domain?
By using a new technology over the top of a conventional reason/explanation they could mask it and hold on to it.

Nope, can't believe any of that

where it was used as the moral basis for a long protracted invasion of several countries all related to resources theft.

Now that I can believe

 

[ladylola]

The one thing that hinders all the 9/11 conspiracy theories to me is the assumption that the towers HAD to be brought down in order to propergate the war that alledgedly the US wanted to start.Wouldn't an attack by terroists ramming a plane into three buildings have been enough?
The first world war was started by the assination of one man, and the second was started by alledged border guard disputes in the Danzig corridor. Exactly the same excuse was used by the Japannese when they invaded Manchuria in 1931 (if I recall correctly).

 

[wobs]

Just remember this quote:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

We're getting there slowly but surely, most people are stuck at 1, and don't care either way as long as the football goes on forever or soaps or celeb gossip, too distracted by the control mechanisms of collective fear created for us(losing our possessions/jobs/homes/the economy ... etc,

A lot of media, especially the likes of Fox news etc have presenters now who "interview"(the guests get shouted at, abused, ridiculed, and about 5% of the air time) anyone who challenges the official story and they're at stage 2...just short of throwing punches

And then there's us who've made it to 3- we don't exactly know the truth, that's for sure, but we do know that the official story cannot add up, ever, and the quest goes on...[/i]

Or the Ghandi quote which is simiilar:
"On several occasions I’ve found Truthers likening themselves to Mohandas Gandhi, specifically through the iconic phrase: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” In
the final analysis, this aphorism remains valid, but not in the way they had intended. In the beginning, the committed conspiracy theorists ignored the public entirely, content to talk among themselves. Then
there was the second wave of activists, typified by harassment and mocking of the “sheeple” who didn’t share their beliefs. And finally they took to the streets, brought their grievances to court, bought a few
television commercials, and in a few instances clamored for revolution. And then it was over.

The Truthers would have done better to follow another of Gandhi’s principles, namely “truth never damages a cause that is just.”"
http://www.911myths.com/tgitc_1_0_final.pdf
page 62.

The fact is that the Twoofers are in decline, and have been since 2006. Their demos and campaigns have dropped off in numbers, and they have brought no new ideas to the table for years.

 

[ABCwarrior]

Just read that entire paper Wobs
Ryan Mackey...he works for NASA, was on his way to a meeting at Boeing on 9/11. I expect nothing else from that kind of man who's also quoting/citing Christopher Hitchens and that utter c0ck Charlie Veitch. Working for the government and a huge corporation? That big old revolving door spinning fast, he must have been assigned the position of chief "debunker"?

I'm not sure what kind of paper this was, who it was for etc but if it was supposed to be formal it's a disgrace, and utterly insulting to anyone who doesn't believe everything they are told, full of his own personal insults and anger. It was nothing more than a bitter diatribe aimed at anyone who doesn't toe the officially line over what did happen, and his stance is no better than a die-hard "twoofer"

Why did he omit 7/7 from his bogus statistical analysis?

(I'm sure that flying 2 planes into these towers would have been more than enough of a reason for the wars we saw, could have put out the fires and patched them up nicely?
But I still don't believe the science that says why they "collapsed" the way they did, and especially not WTC7....)

What I did find very interesting within the paper was this:

"Experts consistently claim that 70% or more of face-to-face communication is not contained in the
words themselves. Over the Internet, most communication is typed, and the written word seems
inherently more formal. It also has an obvious flattening effect on discussion, by which I mean things
like sarcasm, figures of speech, analogies, and simple mistakes are either lost or misinterpreted with
distressing frequency. The closest typical Internet analogue to a group discussion is the discussion
forum, but even here discussions often become lectures, and disagreements tend toward debates. We
simply react to written communication differently"

This is very true of course, and why so much meaning gets lost etc, and why the likes of Joe-90 ends up getting a hard time!!!(I'll be next...!)

 

[ABCwarrior]

That second part was fascinating, wondered where it was going at about 20 mins in but a lot there to ponder, and look further for.

Here's a free downloadable book by Andrew Johnson/Judy woods that looks worth a look at:
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_71...rint/7277552_911_finding_the_truth_-_V20g.pdf

The Cold Fusion bit will be investigated, as will Tesla and Hutchinsons work....!

 

[Alarm]

This is very true of course, and why so much meaning gets lost etc, and why the likes of Joe-90 ends up getting a hard time!!!

Well thats one view/reason.
But there are far more factors than that simplistic explanation.