Alternative 9/11 view on Directed Energy Weaponry

[ABCwarrior]

 

[wobs]

Non-existant technology really have a hard time of it don't they. There they are, busy not existing, when some twoofer comes along and wraps a whole theory around them without even saying please.

There are no energy weapons (space based or otherwise) that can do such things.

 

[wobs]

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 **** 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"?

He works for NASA.... and?

Veitch: A quick Google of him coincidentally brings the following link:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/the_truther_timeline.html
Which also shows that the twoof movement is in decline as I have already pointed out. Thank you for that. Of course, twoofers hate Veitch. He admitted he was wrong which that takes courage.

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"

So I'm sure you'll have no bother showing how wrong anything it asserts is, along with evidence to back up your claims.

It is not a formal report as such, but more of a over arching review of the movement. I found interesting, as someone who has read many articles for both sides.

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

Why include it? Its hardly a big conspiracy in terms of popularity compared with many other CTs. He simply used a sample of different theories to compare 9/11 with.

I'm sure you'll have no bother providing evidence to show it is bogus.

(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....)

So you admit that there was no need for any kind of CD. Well done.

But the collapse of WTC1&2&7 did occur according to well known principles connected with fire. There are plenty of photos showing deformation prior to collapse, of floors within the two towers in a state of collapse prior to the main collapse(s), and WTC7 was well predicted.

Your belief is optional of course.

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...!)

LOL.

 

[ladylola]

There are no energy weapons (space based or otherwise) that can do such things.

Yes but why stop that getting in the way of a ripping yarn

 

[ABCwarrior]

The term "twoofer" is pretty childish lets face it, down to name calling at the playground level. You claim that there has been no new evidence brought to the table since 2006? I thought that Andrew Johnson and Judy Woods were doing exactly that. Have you watched the recent programmes I linked to?
She wants nothing to do with CD assumptions and guesswork, and I'd say that she is probably far more qualified than either you or I to do the analysis from what restricted records/evidence there is to work with.

To dismiss DFEW's outright harks back to flat earth mentality

But the collapse of WTC1&2&7 did occur according to well known principles connected with fire. There are plenty of photos showing deformation prior to collapse, of floors within the two towers in a state of collapse prior to the main collapse(s)

I seriously would like to see them, if you have any links or stuff please put them up- but this doesn't explain the pathetic seismic record of these two colossal buildings collapsing, and the non existant one from building 7.

and WTC7 was well predicted.

Yes, everyone knew that was coming down, it was so obvious really with a couple of wee fires smouldering away, the BBC even knew it was down before it dropped....

So what of these burned out car parks several blocks away, cars with their engine bays obliterated that could not have possibly been burned in a conventional way by what was going down in the WTC complex? (radiation/conduction/convection?)

My 67 yr old mum has ordered her book, she even thinks the official story is a crock!

 

[TheOriginalTonkaToy]

Non-existant technology really have a hard time of it don't they. There they are, busy not existing, when some twoofer comes along and wraps a whole theory around them without even saying please.

There are no energy weapons (space based or otherwise) that can do such things.

Conspiracy theorists keep the tinfoil industry solvent but debating with them is pointless - after all, its all one massive coverup isn't it

 

[wobs]

The term "twoofer" is pretty childish lets face it, down to name calling at the playground level.

Standard name

You claim that there has been no new evidence brought to the table since 2006? I thought that Andrew Johnson and Judy Woods were doing exactly that.

Her own website is mostly from 2005-2006, with a bit in 2007. She is simply recycling her own ideas.

Have you watched the recent programmes I linked to?

No. Video online is something I am seldom able to watch.

She wants nothing to do with CD assumptions and guesswork, and I'd say that she is probably far more qualified than either you or I to do the analysis from what restricted records/evidence there is to work with.

No, she is crazy, and to say she cherry picks and twists information such as interpretting photos to suit her needs is an understatement. While we can laugh at people for a while owing to their determination to make a fool of themselves in public, these people make the wolrd a worse place. Pseudo-science benefits no one other than those few who profit from it.

Claiming the use of non-existant technology and using mis-information to do something that a more conventional theory explains is classic twoofer tactics.

To dismiss DFEW's outright harks back to flat earth mentality

Projection

I seriously would like to see them, if you have any links or stuff please put them up- but this doesn't explain the pathetic seismic record of these two colossal buildings collapsing, and the non existant one from building 7.

I already have in the other thread (page 14 and 16 of the thread)
Why don't you ask the people who actually recorded the seismic records for their take on it? Where is your evidence that they are "pathetic"?

Signs of structural damage from fire:

And:
""The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)"
http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html

and WTC7 was well predicted.

Yes, everyone knew that was coming down, it was so obvious really with a couple of wee fires smouldering away, the BBC even knew it was down before it dropped....

The BBC made a mistake in a breaking news story. Not the first and not the last time it has/will happen.

How many times do you need quotes from fire crews that were there regarding WTC7? They are in the last thread. They put a transit up and could see WTC7 was doomed. There is even a youtube vid showing a fireman explaining it on the day if ou care to look.

So what of these burned out car parks several blocks away, cars with their engine bays obliterated that could not have possibly been burned in a conventional way by what was going down in the WTC complex? (radiation/conduction/convection?)

Burnt out vehicles? Who'd of thought? I bet you're wondering where that source of fire came from huh? And several blocks away? The debris field was wide (it was an uncontrolled collapse afterall), but also, there were many vehicles moved after the event to help clear the area of debris.

If you care to put up any evidence to support any of your claims feel free. Until then they are just wild claims.

 

[ABCwarrior]

Why don't you watch the programmes, then we can continue this endless(like the War on Terror!) debate? I've read all your links at least do the same!(does 'ull have broadband yet?!!?)
The burnt out cars I refer to were in car parks and the whole area was scorched, wasn't them placing burnt out wrecks there for convenience, and they were several blocks well away from the WTC complex and any debris fields.
Those photos you claim showing the sag/deformation of the trusses are nonsense with regards to proving the towers pancaked- there's still no way a tower that high could collapse in that ridiculously short time with the "pancake" effect, and leave so little behind.

The BBC made a mistake in a breaking news story. Not the first and not the last time it has/will happen.

Not acceptable, Like I've said before this was not in the heat of the WTC 1+2 incidents, a good 7 hrs later.
I mean, what would you be saying if some BBC robot reading an autocue on 7/7 had announced a bomb going off on the bus at Tavistock Square 20 mins before it actually did...?(no, let me get it, you'd wait for the official investigation to conclude and believe whatever was in it 100% because you're a good citizen, god bless the Queen and all that... )

There has to come a time when you need to step back and realise that the official 9/11(and 7/7) account is crammed full of lies. With 9/11, take a bigger look at the geo-politics and precedents for decades before and you'll be able to join the dots easily enough.
Doesn't mean you're crackers to do this, just that bit wiser than the average drones in our society I reckon.

 

[joinerjohn]

There has to come a time when you need to step back and realise that the official 9/11(and 7/7) account is crammed full of lies..

So your now saying that 4 lads of foreign descent, didn't blow themselves up in London on 7/7? Ahh it must have been a government led secret thing then. The 4 lads didn't travel to London that day. It was bombs planted on the underground and the bus in Tavistock Square, that went off. These lads were just unfortunate to have been picked by the security services to take the blame?

Oh yeah, I feel a link to the PSB picture of them at Luton coming on,,, , where the barrier conveniently appears to be going through one lads legs, or summat like that. (that's a real clincher for those who believe, isn't it). I suppose the Met, Lord Mayor of London, Tony Blair, Parliament. London Transport and all of the security services were in on the act too?
Pffffffttttttttttttt

 

[ABCwarrior]

Why don't you ask the people who actually recorded the seismic records for their take on it?

As Judy Woods put it on her own site when comparing the towers to a known, well recorded CD in Seattle:

Although these data(WTC) seem to be corrupted by unknown filters and a complicit Lamont-Doherty(Columbia University) will not release the raw data, a seismic reading similar to the Seattle Kingdome would be impossible if the twin towers were destroyed by conventional means (bottom up) because much greater weight would have slammed into a much smaller chunk of land and therefore would have shaken the ground far more than the Kingdome did. Each tower’s collapse should have registered at least four on the Richter scale given two orders of magnitude difference between the twin towers and Kingdome dimensions. The apparent fact that the Richter reading peaked at 2.3 and the disturbance lasted only 8 seconds indicates an extraordinary high-energy weapon was used top-down to preserve the bathtub(structure to keep out the Hudson River below the WTC complex) and surrounding structures. And where are the data from the other recording stations shown (in Figure 35)? Are they being withheld?

So, like the CCTV footage(or lack of it) no one will release it in raw format for analysis?!?
Where's my evidence? If they won't give free access to data and images then it's impossible to disprove any "official" myth they want us to believe unless some kind soul gets a conscience, like one of Silversteins employees, who leaked the exact blueprints for the towers so they could be examined independently. Or we could just believe NIST and Popular Mechanics, they wouldn't lie to us now would they?

 

[ABCwarrior]

Not much more than a baw hair off it JJ...

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/london_exercise_video.html

Spend the time to watch the video. Statistically if you were to take all the train stations in London and randomly pick four it'd be millions to one to get the ones this "exercise" was coincidentally running on, on the same day, at the same time.....
Like the NORAD fiasco during the 9/11 events, an imaginary scenario whereby planes were being hi-jacked -hence the understandable, nay inevitable confusion as to what was going on)....

 

[joinerjohn]

How extraordinary. The link to the website works, but the links on the website that go to external links from that website either don't work or only take you to another page on the same website. Must be a conspiracy if the government or others (unknown have disabled links to further material or taken those websites down)

 

[ABCwarrior]

Life is a conspiracy!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPV73jB0N6Q

Think of this the next time you go to the dentist

 

[joinerjohn]

Hmm, next time I go to the dentists, all I want him/her to do is either remove a tooth or fill it. Nothing more, nothing less... Unless you think the government is directing directed free energy weapons at my teeth to help out these poor dentists, struggling to make ends meet on their pittance of a wage.

 

[wobs]

Why don't you watch the programmes, then we can continue this endless(like the War on Terror!) debate? I've read all your links at least do the same!(does 'ull have broadband yet?!!?)

Well 'ull isn't the best place for t'internet (and not the cheapest!), but that's another story. Like I said I seldom have access to online video (for a variety of reasons). However, I got to see a bit last night. From memory, she mentioned that the end of the wings are quite thin, and would have not been able to penentrate the steel structure. This has an element of truth in it, but what was dishonest was that she then showed a picture of the hole made by the plane and give the impression that the whole of the plane penetrated the steel. This large picture clearly showes that this is not the case (note the right hand side), and she also fails to mention that the building was clad in aluminium, which was of course damaged by the wing tips. Look at the image below and you'll see she is wrong:

The burnt out cars I refer to were in car parks and the whole area was scorched, wasn't them placing burnt out wrecks there for convenience, and they were several blocks well away from the WTC complex and any debris fields.

The only car park image I have is from her own website. There are a few cars that are close together that are burnt, but the rest are covered in dust. The fire could have come from jet fuel as it continued out the other side of the tower and down, or a building collapse could have spread flying burning debris in that area. Without more info its difficult to say either way, but there is certainly nothing suspicious about it.

Those photos you claim showing the sag/deformation of the trusses are nonsense with regards to proving the towers pancaked- there's still no way a tower that high could collapse in that ridiculously short time with the "pancake" effect, and leave so little behind.

What a suprise. The fact that it was a raging fire, and the trusses were seen to be failing, and even the police pilot noted deformation of the outer structure makes no difference to your view on this.

The BBC made a mistake in a breaking news story. Not the first and not the last time it has/will happen.

Not acceptable, Like I've said before this was not in the heat of the WTC 1+2 incidents, a good 7 hrs later.

It was a breaking news story, and the BBC has a reputation for being bad at them. Nothing new.

I should add that not many in the media knew which building was WTC7 on the day. Did you?

I mean, what would you be saying if some BBC robot reading an autocue on 7/7 had announced a bomb going off on the bus at Tavistock Square 20 mins before it actually did...?(no, let me get it, you'd wait for the official investigation to conclude and believe whatever was in it 100% because you're a good citizen, god bless the Queen and all that... )

I'm glad you mentioned 7/7 in that context, as they did make a huge gaff on that day. Hours after the explosions were went off, they were still saying it was a power surge on the undergound, even though other news sources were reporting it as a bomb.

There has to come a time when you need to step back and realise that the official 9/11(and 7/7) account is crammed full of lies. With 9/11, take a bigger look at the geo-politics and precedents for decades before and you'll be able to join the dots easily enough.
Doesn't mean you're crackers to do this, just that bit wiser than the average drones in our society I reckon.

Still waiting for any evidence for anything you say is true.