@Peter: are you kidding me or are you serious? I don’t find that theory convincing one bit. We might as well argue that the buildings were destroyed by extraterrestrial beings using Klingon refocused subspace alternatepositon energy beams…
I rather stick to the PNAC folks using explosives…
lol You have a good sense of humour. Alas, I am as serious as cancer. First, watch a video here specificaly watch the part 2 of 5 (TruTV Conspiracy Theory) At the 3:00 point, is described how Haarp weapon was used in the Iraq War I. Symptoms of this Haarp weapon are fact. I have first hand experience. Experiences as real as anything imaginable.
This Dr Woods seems sincere not some devious disinfo agent, but that is jus my gut talkin’ I liked this rather humble diplay of ignorance:***Beam Weapons, Energy Weapons, and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW):
We have used the terms “beam weapons” and “directed energy weapons” to refer to unconventional weapons (exotic weapons) that are energy weapons. We broadly define DEW as Energy that is Directed and is used as a Weapon. The full range of these weapons is classified information, so we make no limits or distinction of categories within the realm of energy weapons, as doing so would imply specific knowledge of all that is available. In the following paragraph, we have listed some of the possibilities we are aware of.
Our critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform. Nor do we make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it involved sonoluminescence, whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved scalar weapons, whether it was HAARP (more here and here), whether it involved a nuclear process (e.g. NDEW, more info), whether it involved conventional directed energy weapons (cDEW), whether it involved improvised directed energy weapons (iDEW), nor what kind of accelerator was used, nor do we claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts that were in the weapon(s).
What we do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.*** found here near the bottom of page. Much of this is unprovable but my visceral reaction tells me she is sincere.
@Peter: oh Peter, please realize that it is one thing to test energy weapons and quiet another to bring three huge steel and concrete buildings down. Think of what kind of effect such energy beams would have on the air over downtown NY or of the energy source needed to get enough of it.
@Peter: not at all – that is what a comment section is all about. In turn, I ask you not to be disappointed in my lack of receptivity about directed energy weapons use on 9/11 or anything Jones and Ventura have to say about all this. I am a WYSIWYG kind of guy – I call it the way I see it. Let me add here that as a former military analyst involved in force planning and operation art I can tell you that there is a VERY long way between something working in a lab and a deployable weapon. Look at, for example, laser weapons or biological warfare. Both of these have been weaponized, but their use entails such headaches and limiting constraints that they are hardly ever used. In what concerns various kinds of ‘beams’ the two issues of having to deal with the atmosphere and the huge amounts of energy needed are really major issues. Lastly, in the case of 9/11 the risk of partial or total failure to bring down the buildings would be absolutely huge and no putative conspirator(s) would ever go for such a needlessly complex solution. Look at WTC1 adn WTC2: they are clear examples of overkill. WTC7 was brought down the conventional way, but the other two were simply too big to be sure, so the amount of explosive overkill built into the plans to bring them down had to be very large. This tells you how careful the folks who brought down these buildings were. They wanted to make absolutely darn sure that there would be no last minute glitch. Can you imagine these folks taking the risk of deployed and using a DEW in downtown NY? I don’t. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this hypothesis here, and I ask you not to be offended by my frank reply.
@Saker, You have an open mind, that is why i presented this evidence to you. Pictures tell stark tales. One series of pictures show a steel structural piece seeemingly, turn to dust see that here (scroll down that page , maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of th way down) This dr Judy wood has an enormous quuuantity of info. It is sadly, handled badly. That fact alone could be revelatory in that it is not sophisticated disinfo. Your cautionary warning about Jones and Ventura is valid. They could be controlled assets but in that capacity, they could be giving out what has been termed, “revelation of the method”. I am just an observer.
@Peter: I am just an observer same here. I try to keep an open mind, btu I am slow to convince. Heck – it took me 7 long years to finally accept that 9/11 was not a fuckup, but an inside job.
I will try to keep my mind open the best I can, even if it is a slow working one :-)
Hey Saker,
take a look at this web site that claims, rather convincingly, that 911 was causd by high tech beam weapons.
Star Wars
@Peter: are you kidding me or are you serious? I don’t find that theory convincing one bit. We might as well argue that the buildings were destroyed by extraterrestrial beings using Klingon refocused subspace alternatepositon energy beams…
I rather stick to the PNAC folks using explosives…
lol
You have a good sense of humour. Alas, I am as serious as cancer.
First, watch a video here
specificaly watch the part 2 of 5 (TruTV Conspiracy Theory)
At the 3:00 point, is described how Haarp weapon was used in the Iraq War I. Symptoms of this Haarp weapon are fact. I have first hand experience. Experiences as real as anything imaginable.
This Dr Woods seems sincere not some devious disinfo agent, but that is jus my gut talkin’
I liked this rather humble diplay of ignorance:***Beam Weapons, Energy Weapons, and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW):
We have used the terms “beam weapons” and “directed energy weapons” to refer to unconventional weapons (exotic weapons) that are energy weapons. We broadly define DEW as Energy that is Directed and is used as a Weapon. The full range of these weapons is classified information, so we make no limits or distinction of categories within the realm of energy weapons, as doing so would imply specific knowledge of all that is available. In the following paragraph, we have listed some of the possibilities we are aware of.
Our critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform. Nor do we make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it involved sonoluminescence, whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved scalar weapons, whether it was HAARP (more here and here), whether it involved a nuclear process (e.g. NDEW, more info), whether it involved conventional directed energy weapons (cDEW), whether it involved improvised directed energy weapons (iDEW), nor what kind of accelerator was used, nor do we claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts that were in the weapon(s).
What we do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.***
found here near the bottom of page.
Much of this is unprovable but my visceral reaction tells me she is sincere.
@Peter: oh Peter, please realize that it is one thing to test energy weapons and quiet another to bring three huge steel and concrete buildings down. Think of what kind of effect such energy beams would have on the air over downtown NY or of the energy source needed to get enough of it.
Also, the Chavez quote is a canard:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5117
Lastly, if I am voice a friendly advice, stay away from the likes of Ventura and Alex Jones. They give the 9/11 truth movement a bad name.
Sorry to take your time.
@Peter: not at all – that is what a comment section is all about. In turn, I ask you not to be disappointed in my lack of receptivity about directed energy weapons use on 9/11 or anything Jones and Ventura have to say about all this. I am a WYSIWYG kind of guy – I call it the way I see it.
Let me add here that as a former military analyst involved in force planning and operation art I can tell you that there is a VERY long way between something working in a lab and a deployable weapon. Look at, for example, laser weapons or biological warfare. Both of these have been weaponized, but their use entails such headaches and limiting constraints that they are hardly ever used.
In what concerns various kinds of ‘beams’ the two issues of having to deal with the atmosphere and the huge amounts of energy needed are really major issues. Lastly, in the case of 9/11 the risk of partial or total failure to bring down the buildings would be absolutely huge and no putative conspirator(s) would ever go for such a needlessly complex solution.
Look at WTC1 adn WTC2: they are clear examples of overkill. WTC7 was brought down the conventional way, but the other two were simply too big to be sure, so the amount of explosive overkill built into the plans to bring them down had to be very large. This tells you how careful the folks who brought down these buildings were. They wanted to make absolutely darn sure that there would be no last minute glitch. Can you imagine these folks taking the risk of deployed and using a DEW in downtown NY? I don’t.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this hypothesis here, and I ask you not to be offended by my frank reply.
Cheers,
VS
@Saker, You have an open mind, that is why i presented this evidence to you. Pictures tell stark tales. One series of pictures show a steel structural piece seeemingly, turn to dust see that here
(scroll down that page , maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of th way down)
This dr Judy wood has an enormous quuuantity of info. It is sadly, handled badly. That fact alone could be revelatory in that it is not sophisticated disinfo.
Your cautionary warning about Jones and Ventura is valid. They could be controlled assets but in that capacity, they could be giving out what has been termed, “revelation of the method”.
I am just an observer.
@Peter: I am just an observer same here. I try to keep an open mind, btu I am slow to convince. Heck – it took me 7 long years to finally accept that 9/11 was not a fuckup, but an inside job.
I will try to keep my mind open the best I can, even if it is a slow working one :-)
The Dr Judy Wood site is so huge and daunting, I am stumbling aroung in it and came upon this page
Maybe some much needed perspective.