Steve Jones quits ST911

Originally posted by debate
hang on 11Bravo;

you are mixing political argument with scientific hypothosis

Dude, lets put it like this:

My car breaks down on the motor way. I try and suss out whats gone wrong, but I ignore blindly the possibility that it could be the engine's just broken down through wear and tare (I don;t know anything about mechanics, so bear with my somewhat vague analogy ). Has the radiator over heated? No. Oil problem? Nope. Eventually, as I run out of plausible reasons, I start to reach to the implausible (although, strictly speaking, still possible, just highly improbable).

Maybe my neighbor crept into my garage last night and sabotaged the engine? Nope, he's on holiday at the moment. Maybe the stretch of motorway was built on a top secret dumping ground of exotic materials that messed with the electronics of my car? etc.

I;m not saying that the official line of 9/11 is particularly plausible, because there's many holes in the story. But to reach for extremely exotic and implausible theories simply because strictly speaking they are possible hints at the fact that u havent really exhausted all the plausible scenarios, but are merley barking up the wrong tree. Wrong forest even.

Originally posted by john_bmth
.....Maybe my neighbor crept into my garage last night and sabotaged the engine? Nope, he's on holiday at the moment. Maybe the stretch of motorway was built on a top secret dumping ground of exotic materials that messed with the electronics of my car? etc.

I;m not saying that the official line of 9/11 is particularly plausible, because there's many holes in the story. But to reach for extremely exotic and implausible theories simply because strictly speaking they are possible hints at the fact that u havent really exhausted all the plausible scenarios, but are merley barking up the wrong tree. Wrong forest even.

but, the more we inspect the 'car', the more we begin to find new evidence that cannot fit with a simple scenario. evidence that is not explained at all by the official story.

for example, a simple thing... building seven, and the MEDIA BLACKOUT on it. five years later, and still a majority of americans do not even know that it existed, or ceased to exist. what is the SATISFACTORY explanation for THAT?
or, the EPA saying air which had 96, 000 times the 'safe' level of asbestos particles was SAFE to breathe? this is causing major health problems, including death, for the what seems to be ANYONE who worked at ground zero.
the NIST spent over twenty million taxpayer dollars( a paltry sum compared to what it cost to investigate one hasty sexual act by a president), and did not explain the mechanism(s) which broke apart the buildings. nor does the NIST 'show their work'.
anthrax mailings. where is the investigation? where are the culprits? why does no one care!?

now, if you could seperate those things into boxes, and pretend they are unrelated, then you have taken step one to believing cover-up stories and other lies and obfuscations.

logic is a science, and politics cannot be 'scientifically' removed from consideration in the case of 911.

I was asking why it is silly to think about directed energy beams... most of the replies i am fine with.
The replies which use political arguments, i do not entertain.

thanks

n.b i am not saying that political arguments do not have a place within scientific hypothosis but in the case of my posted question they dont concern me.

The reason energy beams sound silly is because to the average joe (hell, even the average doubter of the official line) it sounds abolutley nuts, and conforms to all of the tinfoil hat wearing nut job stereotypes that completely discredits the whole 9/11 truth thing.

Guys, perspective check: ur talking about ENERGY BEAMS It sounds completely and utterly crazy and implausible.

To toe the "well, we've tried all the other plausible scenarios,and this is the only one that fits" line simply highlights that u haven't either a) really considered ALL possible scenarios or b) are being selective in what u choose as ur evidence.

I'm starting to believe the official line even more these days... after all, its far more plausible that 2 planes crashed into the buildings than them being taken down by holographic aeroplanes and energy beams

In short, all these far-out theories only serve to isolate the undecided.

I dont think there is anything wrong with investigating the energy beam angle.

However, it absolutely should not be your stong point, or any point really unless you have great evidence.

I am open to any suggestion. But, i dont see any reason to go way off the path of insider trading, wargames, stand down, and general controlled demolition.

If you want to convice people, stick to the strong evidence, not far out fantasy bull#. The people coming up with this energy beam and blue screen - hologram crap are clearly trying to discredit the movement.

Let's put a little thought into the energy beam theory, and if I get anything wrong then I can be corrected.

• These beams were supposedly coming from space, down onto the buildings, and yet the destruction started at the impacted floors rather than the ROOFS of the buildings.
  
  This AT LEAST implies other devices causing the destructions of each building all the way down until the roofs were out of the way. Watch a video of a tower falling, ie the South Tower, and you'll see that this includes a significant portion of the total collapse, and there were no apparent changes in the behaviors of the collapses past these points, so we are left to assume that either the energy beams were either exactly equivalent to whatever was used beforehand, or else not employed at all. In the case of the former, why complicate things by switching to energy beams halfway through a collapse?
  
  
• Wood claims that the upper 80% of the mass of each building was vaporized. This is demonstrably false by watching any collapse videos. WTC3 was damaged by a large section of perimeter columns falling from the upper part of WTC2 (something she also tries to use as evidence in her favor, no less), and a high-up portion of WTC1's perimeter columns can be seen flying out onto the Winter Garden building, trailing a fine gray material, and those beams were still there after everything was said and done.
  
  
• Wood claims that energy beams damaged the Banker's Trust building on the facade facing the South Tower, even while there is clearly a section of perimeter columns hanging out of the face of that building right where the damage is. The inner damage also has a curve to it, which is consistent with the perimeter column section being resisted by the building's facade, but not with a beam of energy coming down and slicing into the building.
  
  
• Wood suggests that reports of people and planes disappearing (testimonies that I personally have never seen) is suggestive of them being vaporized by stray energy beams. Other issues aside, such as the beams touching ground or etc., why should we believe energy beams cause things to instantly vanish, especially given the behavior of the Twin Tower collapses, in which she claims the beams were also used, and yet displayed totally different behaviors apparently when exposed to the beams?

Another major problem of her work is that many or most of the things she suggests as evidence of directed energy beams, can be perfectly explained by other devices. On the other hand, many of the things she describes that would be exclusive to energy beams, are incorrect or illogical (see above).

I found this interesting thread at another forum.

The site is run my Fintan Dunne.

According to him these are some of the CIA Fakes. Disinfo Agents.
(Note: Alex Jones is among them) Steven Jones is also implicated as well.


breakfornews.com...

Read this thread, it will blow yer hair back!

Originally posted by QuasiShaman
The site is run my Fintan Dunne.

According to him these are some of the CIA Fakes. Disinfo Agents.
(Note: Alex Jones is among them) Steven Jones is also implicated as well.

breakfornews.com...

I read through his theory. It was as expected; A crude amalgamation of flawed logic and Amateur Journalism. Mr. Dunne has offered no explanation in that thread as to how some of the people he has listed in the "9/11 Rats Gallery" are "CIA Fakes." Sure, he has tied some of the "weaker links" in together with what I admit is some fairly eyebrow-raising information -- in places, but he has presented only a fraction of what is required to actually back up his claims in any variety of acceptable manner.

Watch this Man jump like a professional Athlete, it's really quite something:

And if Nimmo is pushing Madsen's 'Iran Invasion' stuff AND Ivashov -both!
And he is tight with Jack Blood and Mike Rivero.... and Rivero is on Jack
Blood and Jack blood hosts the AJ show... and they all buy Hopsicker and
Keller... and AntiWar.com pushes the Iran Invasion stuff too... and Sibel
Edmonds is on Antiwar.com... and she agrees with Hopsicker about Atta &
Drugs... and ...... and... and round and round the clique it goes....

And suddenly you're on to it! The whole crew are CIA Fakes.

If you say so, Mr. Dunne. So how does Michael Ruppert fit into your equation? He was listed and no explanation was offered as to why. Quite frankly, if your working is going to be this slapdash then I don't even care to see it. Don't take this post the wrong way, I'm suspicious of most of the people named, (I don't trust anyone anymore) but you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better connecting the dots in future.





[edit on 2-1-2007 by Conglomeration_Burger]

Anyone who lists Mike Ruppert and Wayne Madsen as CIA plants needs committing.

Mike Ruppert, a man who blew the whistle on CIA drug running and was told not to bother having a family as their safety couldn't be guaranteed.

Seriously!

Alex Jones, Mike Ruppert, Andre von Buleow, and Sibel Edmonds are responsible for waking up tons of people to the "9/11 was an inside job" theory in the first place. If they work for the CIA, its really backfired...

When I see people who list 'CIA' agents I re-call this article:

BBC

US plans to 'fight the net' revealed

From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war...

It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system...

"Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads...