Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
W Tell

Talking Turkey

901 posts in this topic

...but within the error range of their input parameters.

... and the extent of the error range is demonstratably outside reality of the actual damage which occurred on 9/11. So it proves nothing, except that a damage situation more severe than that present on 9/11, with additional human input tweaks (not computer predicted) deliberately added to induce collapse, could initiate a collapse. The simulation within the damage reality, and which most closely matched that reality, did not initiate a collapse in the model.

Anyhow, W Tell has requested a reset of the thread back to its original intention - please desist dragging us off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you are coming from here and how you draw the conclusion that the people are to blame for their government’s actions. As the master propagandist/dictator said, “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think”. I do half agree with your conclusion, but perhaps the other half of blame rests with the establishment (political, business and media) which sets out to shape public opinion and make it difficult for people to objectively think.

I agree that the establishment gets blame also, and I guess I wouldn't blanket assert that 'the people are to blame for their government's actions' in all cases, it depends on the country and the government, my comments were specific to the US. It's a tough line to draw though; the establishment is just composed of 'the people' also, the people elect the political and consume what business and media offer, again that gives us most of the power. Looking at the upper tiers of this establishment as essentially being a more loosely connected secret society, with its ultimate motivations being obscured by vague and empty platitudes and plain dishonesty, and of course secrecy, there is no motivation for them to change because we let them do it. Punish the segments that mislead us, that would send a powerful message, and I don't mean necessarily criminal I mean financial. Yes, business and media entwine themselves with the government and receive benefits in return, but those benefits typically are not enough to make up for a majority of their customers abandoning them. If we really were interested when our leaders lie to us and thereby consumed more of the media reporting that and did it consistently, the media would be happy to serve up those stories; the media and business aren't driven by ideological beliefs, they're driven by money. And, in theory unrealistic or not, the press should be doing just that, they are perfectly positioned to investigate the shenanigans. But lots of people find those stories incredibly boring, partly because it's unfortunately nothing new and partly because they don't know enough about the structure of our government to be interested. We have a lot of politicians who end up resigning because of more salacious offenses such as extramarital affairs, that is actually somewhat irrelevant to their job, I think that ultimately does derive from the will of the people, and the media sure goes gangbusters relentlessly for that crap. Because it sells.

Then, even when people do think, there is often little that can be done. There is evidence of this in the Iraq war example you referred. Taken from an interview in 2008: -

Interviewer:
“Two-thirds of Americans say it’s not worth fighting [
the Iraq war
].”

VP Cheney:
“So?”

Interviewer:
“So? You don’t care what the American people think?”

VP Cheney:
“No, I think you cannot be.. blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.”

If 2/3rds of Americans made some phone calls to their representatives, called the media to see what they could find out, and made this a daily story demanding responses from the executive branch why they are fighting this war against the will of so many Americans, there's no question we could have ended it; Congress pretty much gets to decide what constitutes a 'high crime or misdemeanor'. Nixon had to resign because of a piddly robbery.

In addition, before and after the onset of the Iraq war, millions around the world (people whose governments would launch the war) took to the streets in numerous protests. One month prior to the invasion, this led the NYT to comment: “there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.”

So how much blame can be placed on the people compared to the government/establishment? How much should the public reasonably be expected to fact check their leaders and media commentators? Doesn’t that require distrust to begin with?

I think there is plenty of distrust already actually, with recognition that there will always be people who swallow whatever the govt says and believes they can do no wrong. We make it a joke how much politicians lie, and at any given time, due to the bowel obstruction that is our two-party 'system', you have a sizable part of the population believing the opposite party that is in power is not to be trusted. Ultimately we shouldn't have to fact check them, but what have we done to demand otherwise? It does mean a lot to me personally whether people are being truthful, and I get doubly irritated by having to even keep an eye on them at all, but I don't think a lot of people prioritize that as high as I do.

Here is a question: Could the people really have prevented the Iraq war in face of the political propaganda and drive from Washington, and if so, how?

Good question, can't say I know for sure obviously. I do believe we have the power to put direct pressure on our representatives, ultimately we can threaten to recall them, we can make them start talking about impeachment, I think that would get everyone's attention. We can demand they be held accountable and tried for manipulating intelligence. But that sidesteps a crucial reality: the people are usually not in agreement and it's not just the people vs the establishment, it's as much conservative vs liberal and Republican vs Democrat. Those battles leave less time to spend watching what the govt is doing and more opportunity for secrecy that is not in our best interest. I know the later polls show a lot of disapproval for the Iraq War, but I wonder how many people supported it in 2003 pre-invasion. That's the stickler, what do you do not just about the establishment secret society, but about our fellow 'the people'.

I’m not saying you are wrong LG, I rather hope you are right; I’m looking for ideas.

To be honest, I think it is a somewhat far-fetched hope, but it's there. A lot more education sure would help, especially about the government and the philosophy behind the separation of powers, but that'll take generations. Can always hope that something emerges from a younger generation, this one seems pretty ripe since a lot of them are having such trouble finding work, but there's just as much to distract them as anybody. It'd be nice to insist more fervently for more separation between our politicians and money, but yea, right. The one possibility is a new leader who can channel the agreed-on frustrations that 'the people' regardless of party agree on concerning the government; I do believe despite the intensity of some partisans, a lot of Americans would go for something new in a heart beat. I always hope that there is actually a large core of 'independents' or 'non-partisans' who are sensible (i.e. agree with brilliant me :w00t: ) who are getting drowned out by the fanatics; people who are ready to defang the current parties.

But I unfortunately have a suspicion that short of something very bad happening not much is likely to change, and the secrecy and power-mongering will continue. And 9/11 was already pretty damned bad.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and the extent of the error range is demonstratably outside reality of the actual damage which occurred on 9/11. So it proves nothing, except that a damage situation more severe than that present on 9/11, with additional human input tweaks (not computer predicted) deliberately added to induce collapse, could initiate a collapse. The simulation within the damage reality, and which most closely matched that reality, did not initiate a collapse in the model.

Anyhow, W Tell has requested a reset of the thread back to its original intention - please desist dragging us off topic.

Err, this thread was off-topic before I even posted to it. I only chipped in because you were posting your usual demonstration of how you don't understand engineering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot more education sure would help, especially about the government and the philosophy behind the separation of powers, but that'll take generations. Can always hope that something emerges from a younger generation, this one seems pretty ripe since a lot of them are having such trouble finding work, but there's just as much to distract them as anybody.

I agree completely that greater education of the people would have helped in avoiding the needless wars we have witnessed, not only of the last decade, but the past hundred years, perhaps even in all of history. I have been asked before what I hope to achieve with all of the 9/11 information I put out here, and the answer has always been that my aim is to raise awareness of what elements of the establishment are capable of so that citizens may take better decisions or course of action in future. It does seem in my experience that the people most informed of subjects such as 9/11 and the Iraq war tend to be the anti-war demonstrators.

It’s a slow process in face of opposition from the establishment which controls current politics along with the mainstream media and education system. Are even “generations” enough? The polls show a greater awareness now that the Iraq WMD ‘intelligence’ was false and the war was unjustified - brilliant. At the same time, polls show a majority of the U.S. public take stock of the Iran nuclear ‘intelligence’ currently doing the rounds and would again support a war. Talk about one step forward, two steps back.

I would say there is evidence of an overall rise in public awareness on U.S. foreign policy, witnessed in cases such as the increased popularity of Ron Paul, but as seen due to the failed campaign, this is far from enough. To see someone like Romney put ahead of Paul really makes me question public awareness. The people who actually voted for Bush, McCain or Romney... I don’t understand them... I can only assume they are the ones most lacking knowledge or who will not be on the front line come the next needless war.

Do the people not realise that Romney is our best chance of a needless war with Iran, or do they just not care? He’s even said that he would not seek authorisation from Congress to launch such a war, thus, once elected, cutting the voting public and their representatives out of the decision. Well... not that it matters anyway judging by those poll results I mentioned.

Here comes the 9/11 tie-in...

As well as the Zionist and Neocon/PNAC foreign policy advisors that closely accompany Romney – Cohen, Chertoff, Kagan, Zakheim, etc (remnants of the Bush administration) – the lead on Romney’s counter-terrorism policy is a certain Cofer Black. There is a lot to say but I’ll keep it short. This is the individual who headed the CIA bin Laden unit prior to and at the time of 9/11. It is under Black’s watch that the known Al Qaeda terrorists who would become the 9/11 hijackers were provided protection within the United States. Black later went on to head the infamous Blackwater mercenary force in Iraq – he must have made a packet from the war. A vote for Romney is a vote for Black. And these are the type of people that Romney voters would put back into power?

What are people thinking? Or is it they just do not have the knowledge, or have been beaten by the establishment too much, to think?

So that’s my message – don’t let these people, or those sharing their ideologies, or those involved in past misadventures, anywhere near power – they are a danger to U.S. and world peace. I know I’m quite forceful with it sometimes, but this is the area in which I believe awareness needs raising and I do think it’s that important. Specifically in which areas and how do you believe awareness needs raising LG, and how might it make a difference?

Anyhow, it seems we all loosely agree one way or another, whether due to nature of the government or lack of education of the people in allowing it, that the establishment has a greater control at this moment and ultimately follows its own agendas, more than the citizens and views it is meant to represent. I’m wondering where W Tell would like to take the discussion from there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An outstanding post Q! 1 step forward and 2 steps backward is a good description of the situation. As for the american electoral process, I have now reached the point on the cyncism index that I see american 'democracy' as thoroughly an illusion. I would love to be proved wrong.

LG

Regarding your idea that if the american people all called their elected representatives demanding we end our illegitimate wars we would quickly be out, I would like to offer some anecdotal evidence regarding the actual effect of contacting one's elected representatives.

For many years, perhaps decades, I was a frequent caller to the office of the US congressman in my district, through 3 or 4 different men. I called so frequently that I was on a first name basis with the lead secretary in the office. Her name is Diane.

When TARP was first proposed, I called in to object to the bill. I asked Diane how the calls were going, and she said probably 100 to 1 against the bill. You may recall that on first attempt the bill did fail. So I felt some measure success and joy, but it was short lived. Obviously, the process was begun again, and despite the 100:1 ratio, it passed.

So please pardon my cynicism, but the reality is that US leaders have their own agenda, and whatever it may be, it does NOT coincide with any agenda in favor of popular wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So please pardon my cynicism, but the reality is that US leaders have their own agenda, and whatever it may be, it does NOT coincide with any agenda in favor of popular wishes.

If the American people are dissatisfied with their representatives, their are power to have their representatives removed from office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err, this thread was off-topic before I even posted to it. I only chipped in because you were posting your usual demonstration of how you don't understand engineering.

Actually this thread should meander and I like the fact that it's taking it's time as it goes from topic to topic. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything. I'm no stranger to this debate, though I haven't participated in one in over 5 years. I've been drawn to this site "because" of the high brow discussion that takes place.

In the end I don't want to stifle debate. ( a little less in fighting would be nice. But in the end, I may not be able to refrain either. :blush: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

such are the flaws of a representative democracy....

It's supposed to be a Rebublic with a democratic process for elections.
Once individuals get into high office and control the police, military and popular media...there seems to be little

'people' can do to influence them..?

Without devoting huge ammounts of time and energy....and even then they have an uphill struggle to make a dent in the status quo..?

People are generally kept busy earning a wage to pay for rent, mortgages, bills, food etc....too busy to devote that much time to basic change

in the power structures and processes.

GWB once praised a women for holding down three jobs just to make ends meet. Said it was the American way. Slave to the grind if you ask me and exactly what an uber-government wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the same time, polls show a majority of the U.S. public take stock of the Iran nuclear ‘intelligence’ currently doing the rounds and would again support a war. Talk about one step forward, two steps back.

I hear you on Iran; Israel seems to be doing a lot of sabre-rattling, and I think our, perhaps inevitable, involvement would be a disaster.

The people who actually voted for Bush, McCain or Romney... I don’t understand them... I can only assume they are the ones most lacking knowledge or who will not be on the front line come the next needless war.

Do the people not realise that Romney is our best chance of a needless war with Iran, or do they just not care? He’s even said that he would not seek authorisation from Congress to launch such a war, thus, once elected, cutting the voting public and their representatives out of the decision. Well... not that it matters anyway judging by those poll results I mentioned.

What I'd really like is for Congress to tighten up these rules, they are the ones who are supposed to have the power to declare wars, they seem unclear on the whole 'checks and balances' thing, so that this is not possible. But that would mean then they would have to take some responsibility, so what's their incentive? And as you note, the biggest issue is the number of people who support this type of war lunacy, they have the same voting power and say in what the country does as I do. We may prioritize this issue very highly, but other people don't; they'll vote for Romney because they believe in his economic plan or his abortion stance or whatever.

As well as the Zionist and Neocon/PNAC foreign policy advisors that closely accompany Romney – Cohen, Chertoff, Kagan, Zakheim, etc (remnants of the Bush administration) – the lead on Romney’s counter-terrorism policy is a certain Cofer Black. There is a lot to say but I’ll keep it short. This is the individual who headed the CIA bin Laden unit prior to and at the time of 9/11. It is under Black’s watch that the known Al Qaeda terrorists who would become the 9/11 hijackers were provided protection within the United States. Black later went on to head the infamous Blackwater mercenary force in Iraq – he must have made a packet from the war. A vote for Romney is a vote for Black. And these are the type of people that Romney voters would put back into power?

What are people thinking? Or is it they just do not have the knowledge, or have been beaten by the establishment too much, to think?

I think its part lack of knowledge and a part laziness. Lots of people don't want to think about this stuff, even though it is the responsible thing to do and actually necessary for our form of govt to function correctly. I'm sure part of it is also a feeling of futility concerning the government, there are so many things to change about it and it's been corrupted for so long where do you even start.

So that’s my message – don’t let these people, or those sharing their ideologies, or those involved in past misadventures, anywhere near power – they are a danger to U.S. and world peace. I know I’m quite forceful with it sometimes, but this is the area in which I believe awareness needs raising and I do think it’s that important. Specifically in which areas and how do you believe awareness needs raising LG, and how might it make a difference?

I don't mind the forcefulness as long as it doesn't affect the interpretation of the evidence of things like for a 9/11 conspiracy; the pros and cons have to be given their due weight. I understand your strong opinions on the danger of letting these people to continue to influence something as crucial as our military ventures and that it provides a very vivid background for you against which the possibility of 9/11 demolitions and such play out. But the Son of Sam didn't shoot every person he saw; the fact that there are bad people in the govt provides only the tiniest of evidentiary points to their proposed involvement in any specific crime.

To your question on this topic, I think a lot more war coverage is in order; most of us are so insulated to what's going on, especially after a decade, that it hardly registers, it's background with all the other national issues. Don't just show the servicemen we've tragically lost, show the accidental casualties, the families and god the poor kids, make sure no American is not reminded regularly of exactly what they themselves share responsibility for. That's why maybe I have an instinctive reflexive objection anytime I hear talk about the big bad govt or establishment and how they are blame for our ills; I don't want people to think that in any way they are any less at fault, since they are the only way the situation can be changed. If we're being lied to about specific points in a build up to Iran, bring more awareness to it and hold someone responsible, continually remind people that this is exactly how we got into Iraq that most people now don't agree with. That's where I'd like to raise awareness in the short term, hell just keep reminding people of the cost of these wars, but it'll only happen if people want to know about it and I'm not really sure they do. It's a vicious circle since even a non-establishment media is at some point only going to be able to report what people want to consume. How would you answer your question by the way? Would you focus on getting awareness out that people like Black are involved in areas where they are a danger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding your idea that if the american people all called their elected representatives demanding we end our illegitimate wars we would quickly be out, I would like to offer some anecdotal evidence regarding the actual effect of contacting one's elected representatives.

For many years, perhaps decades, I was a frequent caller to the office of the US congressman in my district, through 3 or 4 different men. I called so frequently that I was on a first name basis with the lead secretary in the office. Her name is Diane.

When TARP was first proposed, I called in to object to the bill. I asked Diane how the calls were going, and she said probably 100 to 1 against the bill. You may recall that on first attempt the bill did fail. So I felt some measure success and joy, but it was short lived. Obviously, the process was begun again, and despite the 100:1 ratio, it passed.

So please pardon my cynicism, but the reality is that US leaders have their own agenda, and whatever it may be, it does NOT coincide with any agenda in favor of popular wishes.

And more power to you BR and kudos, you've done more than I ever have; I've been a lazy butt American who would rather donate money occasionally to political causes I support (it's easier). And it touches on a more complex point also in that our representatives are supposed to be using some of their own judgment, they're not just supposed to be pure number-crunchers of the positions of the voters they specifically represent and robotically vote. They to some extent need to make deals with each other to get bills passed, and vote certain ways that may not conform to the wishes of their constituency. And that's understandable for certain legislation. But what percentage of his constituent's even contacted his office at all about this? Even 20%? The result may have been different had that been higher, especially if it was more comprised of voters from his own political party.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the American people are dissatisfied with their representatives, their are power to have their representatives removed from office.

Meant to read:

If the American people are dissatisfied with their representatives, they have the power to have their representatives removed from office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Son of Sam didn't shoot every person he saw; the fact that there are bad people in the govt provides only the tiniest of evidentiary points to their proposed involvement in any specific crime.

Of course it is not enough to identify the ‘bad people’, but when they can be tied to the ‘bad actions’ we can start asking real questions. It is under direction of Cofer Black, who I just mentioned, foreign policy advisor to Mitt Romney, that the CIA bin Laden unit prevented the FBI from going after two of the future hijackers in the United States pre-9/11. How can we rule out that was not a deliberate attempt to facilitate the 9/11 attack? If there was a deliberate attempt to facilitate the 9/11 attack, it could not have been performed any better.

To your question on this topic, I think a lot more war coverage is in order; most of us are so insulated to what's going on, especially after a decade, that it hardly registers, it's background with all the other national issues. Don't just show the servicemen we've tragically lost, show the accidental casualties, the families and god the poor kids, make sure no American is not reminded regularly of exactly what they themselves share responsibility for. That's why maybe I have an instinctive reflexive objection anytime I hear talk about the big bad govt or establishment and how they are blame for our ills; I don't want people to think that in any way they are any less at fault, since they are the only way the situation can be changed. If we're being lied to about specific points in a build up to Iran, bring more awareness to it and hold someone responsible, continually remind people that this is exactly how we got into Iraq that most people now don't agree with. That's where I'd like to raise awareness in the short term, hell just keep reminding people of the cost of these wars, but it'll only happen if people want to know about it and I'm not really sure they do.

Yes, I’d agree that is all worthwhile.

How would you answer your question by the way? Would you focus on getting awareness out that people like Black are involved in areas where they are a danger?

I do sometimes take your suggested approach in talking about some of the issues you mention above – in particular that the Iran propaganda is no different to that we saw on Iraq... or Al Qaeda... or the Soviet threat before that (all perpetrated by the same ideologists, and in the case of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the very same individuals; they have a long history of it). I have thought about putting more effort into this on the U.S. Politics and Middle East boards, though there are already a lot of people doing that. I mainly focus on 9/11 issues and the connected Neocon/Zionist threat as there seems to be a lack of information here (I sometimes wonder if that's because my presence is holding others back) and because I believe that every ‘truther’ is an anti-war demonstrator. And yes, if I can lead people to question voting Romney through connecting his advisors to a failure to prevent 9/11 or a spectre of the Bush administration, as one part of the approach, I think that is worthwhile.

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can we rule out that was not a deliberate attempt to facilitate the 9/11 attack?

It is very simple to rule out a deliberate attempt by the CIA to facilitate the 9/11 attack. First of all, there is no evidence! Secondly, the CIA has admitted its mistakes regarding the 9/11 attacks. Thirdly, intelligence failures and conflicts within our intelligence agencies, including those between the CIA and the FBI, have now been revealed.

Nothing there that supports 9/11 conspiracist claims implicating the United States in general, and the CIA in particular, in the 9/11 attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can we rule out that was not a deliberate attempt to facilitate the 9/11 attack?

In the words of Goethe, subsequently much paraphrased: "...misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent."

...I believe that every ‘truther’ is an anti-war demonstrator.

A fact which non-"truthers" who are anti-war regret. It does nothing to promote confidence in the soundness of the anti-war position.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the words of Goethe, subsequently much paraphrased: "...misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent."

Oh he’s an engineer and a philosopher now. Yeah, there is no “trickery” in the world, especially when it comes to war, politics and global affairs. Better in such cases that we auto-appeal to “misunderstandings”, of course. What a great point, Swanny – I can’t believe I never saw it. I’ll keep that one safe... right in my scrap bin.

A fact which non-"truthers" who are anti-war regret. It does nothing to promote confidence in the soundness of the anti-war position.

Which would only prove the foolish and petty nature of some official adherents is greater than their true anti-war sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh he’s an engineer and a philosopher now. Yeah, there is no “trickery” in the world, especially when it comes to war, politics and global affairs. Better in such cases that we auto-appeal to “misunderstandings”, of course. What a great point, Swanny – I can’t believe I never saw it. I’ll keep that one safe... right in my scrap bin.

Please quote specifically where Swanny posted that "there is no trickery in the world" in the post you have quoted, or if you prefer, please specify exactly where Goethe said that, since that's who Swanny is quoting.

Either that, or explain why you find it necessary to resort to strawman arguments...

Cz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it is not enough to identify the ‘bad people’, but when they can be tied to the ‘bad actions’ we can start asking real questions. It is under direction of Cofer Black, who I just mentioned, foreign policy advisor to Mitt Romney, that the CIA bin Laden unit prevented the FBI from going after two of the future hijackers in the United States pre-9/11. How can we rule out that was not a deliberate attempt to facilitate the 9/11 attack?

You can't, you never can, and likewise the idea of there being evidence to support the idea that it was a deliberate attempt is very unlikely also. How can we rule out that it's not just another example of the issues and territorialism that existed in the intelligence communities prior to 9/11? This isn't the first time something like that had happened, you agree? If we can't rule that out either then it does raise the question, why does this merit a mention? Not trying to be too snarky there, but the list of things that can't be ruled out is very long and contains lots of contradictory, mutually exclusive scenarios. I'm itching to mention our good friend Sasquatch yet again, but I'll just leave it there. If I were to guess, I'd guess this is another point in 'the big picture' which somehow lends more credence to these types of bits of I guess, 'suggestive evidence'.

If there was a deliberate attempt to facilitate the 9/11 attack, it could not have been performed any better.

Of course it could in many ways, and for the obvious reason that it would be 'better' if we didn't even know anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please quote specifically where Swanny posted that "there is no trickery in the world" in the post you have quoted, or if you prefer, please specify exactly where Goethe said that, since that's who Swanny is quoting.

Either that, or explain why you find it necessary to resort to strawman arguments...

The obvious explanation is that he resorts to insult and strawman arguments because he hasn't got anything better.

Sad, really.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

I know that previous discussions in this thread about the WTC 'collapses' focus on natural collapse (from fires etc) or conventional demolition...

But my theory (cover up of some (3) key aspects but no inside job)...includes the use of some kind of directed energy weapon

to bring down the Towers (and WTC7)....for the purposes of protecting the area and bringing the buildings into their own footprint

and at the same time dramatically reducing the debris.....

I think this was done when the top section of the South Tower began to topple over threatening to cause devastation of the area.

I came across this article that was written in February 2002, that I haven't seen before and may be of interest to anyone who is prepared

to entertain the third 'collapse' option.....laser technology....used for damage control....(on this occasion)

http://www.serendipi...wot/bollyn1.htm

Did a laser beam weapon cause the collapse of the World Trade Center? A physicist who worked on the original infrared beam weapon has reason to believe so.

part of my theory is that WTC7 was terminally weakened by the field effects of the energy weapon and so also brought down

using an energy weapon / lasers.. and there is even something in the article that could back that up...

Furthermore, the demolished buildings nearby [the 47-story Salomon Bros. Bldg.] are an indication that there was a plasmoid cloud involved, which probably affected the buildings nearby."

The article then goes a bit off base, as far as I'm concerned linking possible use of lasers and the potential 'plasma cloud'...with the planes that hit.

That isn't what my theory is about. It's about pre-planned demolition using lasers for the safety of the area.

In this short video of the South Tower collapse.....during the 3rd and 4th second you can see a bright light appear well below the ongoing

disintegration of the building.

[media=]

[/media]

Could this be a laser hitting ...? (maybe just one of a few laser hits that disintegrated the Tower)

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spit coffee all over my keyboard. Thanks bee.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spit coffee all over my keyboard. Thanks bee.

:P

you're welcome..... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bee, thanks for that old article by Bollyn. He is a very interesting fellow and has done a pile of work on this question. :tu:

"Half-baked farce" by Fire Engineering magazine is certainly the best description yet of the FEMA/NIST 'investigations'.

I never knew that many of the dead at WTC had been vaporized. Jetfuel & gravity don't do that.

Never knew that infrared radiation was invisible. I have always found the DEW theory advanced by Judy Wood to be plausible, but I always wondered how we did not see anything visible to support that.

And it is MOST interesting that TRW and industry sources acknowledge that certain weapons in that category, "requirements for the system driven by Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bee, thanks for that old article by Bollyn. He is a very interesting fellow and has done a pile of work on this question. :tu:

:tu:

another quote from the article....

http://www.serendipi...wot/bollyn1.htm

The THEL is part of a joint program known as Nautilus, in which the US Army and the Israeli Ministry of Defense (IMOD) have developed infrared laser weapon systems. The prime contractor, TRW Space and Electronics Group, has been involved in the development of high-energy laser systems since the early 1970s.

since the early 1970s !!!

no wonder Donald Rumsfeld and General Meyers looked so uncomfortable here...

[media=]

[/media]

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're in the same church Bee, just diffrent pews :clap:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.In this short video of the South Tower collapse.....during the 3rd and 4th second you can see a bright light appear well below the ongoing

disintegration of the building.

Probably best to go to the YouTube site to see this.....

and search... 9/11 WTC South Tower Collapses, West Street ...

the uploader is... coolgamer1677

(don't ask.... :mellow::passifier: )

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.