DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign

reply to post by _BoneZ_


_BoneZ_.....can I pry you away from all of your avid fans, for a moment???

I was looking at a site that was really a sorta-kinda 'anti-TM' site (forget which, it will come to me) and they cited AE4Truth as a group they respected!!!

Now, that gave me pause. NOT, don't take this wrong, that I don't respect that group...I don't even know that group, except from your posts, as a member and quasi-spokesperson.

Seems as if, with exception of the slight disagreement about whether pre-planted demolitions or not, you're pretty close to the same page I'm on....not that I matter, in the slightest, of course. I'm just ONE person.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yikes! and Egad!!! typos, edited....stupid hotel computer!


[edit on 9 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I'm not clear on what you're trying to ask.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Thought I'd pull you away from a dire situation.....



Anyways....I had a question for you, on your other thread, about the South Tower, and the video narrated by the retired USAF Colonel(?) Or was he a General?

Again, thought you needed a break from the adoring fans that were trying to corner you, back there....

I respectfully disagree.

I was convinced by the nano-thermite theory for a very long time, but then I started reading about Dr. Judy Wood and the Hutchinson Effect, and I started learning about all of these anomalies that occurred at ground zero that could not be explained by nano-thermite alone.

In my honest and professional opinion, there is no way nano-thermite alone brought down these buildings, because nano-thermite does not explain nearly all of the evidence that was observed at ground zero. It does not explain power outtages blocks away, it does not explain flipped cars blocks away, it does not explain electrical-like burns in cars blocks away, it does not explain how in all of that high heat, thousands of sheets of paper were unburnt, it does not explain how survivors in the buildings were found with NO BURNS, and there is so much more.

This is why, in my honest opinion, I feel that 9/11 involved a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind, and that the cover up of 9/11 is really a cover up of Free Energy technology as well. The Energy companies want that technology suppressed because it would be severely damaging to their profits and their control over the world. We all know that companies like the Rockefeller-founded Standard Oil and its divisions (ExxonMobil, etc.) have their hands in Washington for a very long time.

I do not rule out nano-thermite, but after looking at all of the evidence and asking myself more questions, I now realize that nano-thermite alone cannot explain everything.

Here are some of the questions I began asking myself:

• How come steel and concrete were pulverized, aluminum had electrical burns, but paper was unharmed? Nano-thermite and heat do not selectively damage certain materials, so how come thousands and thousands of paper sheets were completely unharmed?
• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, how come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero during the attacks?
• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, where is all the molten steel? Thousands of pictures, yet not a single one shows large quantities of molten steel?
• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, how come the resulting steel and concrete dust clouds were not hot enough to burn the people it coated nor to set adjacent buildings on fire?
• If thermite alone caused the ‘collapses’, how come there was significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks?
• Why was the Alaskan magnetosphere normal until immediately before and during the 9/11 attacks, when there was suddenly a huge surge in electromagnetic activity?
• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, how come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks, even though they were not exposed to thermite?
• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, how come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side?
• How come Dr. Wood has already filed several legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies and NIST, yet Dr. Jones has not?
• How come Dr. Wood has already been taking legal steps towards demanding a new 9/11 investigation, yet Dr. Jones does not support her legal efforts?
• How come Dr. Jones has not officially filed or shared his nano-thermite evidence with Congress, NIST, or any official governmental body? Why the delay?
• Why is Dr. Jones just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which made it to the Supreme Court?


Still, a fascinating thread. Thanks for posting it.

I respectfully disagree, because I honestly feel a Directed Energy Weapon was used.

-Abe

[edit on 13-3-2010 by PookztA]

Originally posted by PookztA
This is why, in my honest opinion, I feel that 9/11 involved a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However the majority of the 9/11 truth movement doesn't agree with you or the disinfo that Judy Wood puts out.

Originally posted by PookztA
How come steel and concrete were pulverized

The concrete in the towers was a light concrete aggregate. That light aggregate was very easy to break up and pulverize by the explosives and the tons of steel smashing it.

Can you provide proof of steel pulverization? I'm not aware any exists, nor would steel have pulverized just from collapsing. The only steel that would've been dustified is the steel directly affected by the explosives cutting the steel.

Originally posted by PookztA
aluminum had electrical burns, but paper was unharmed

Aluminum conducts electricity, paper does not. I can't believe I had to even type this part.

Originally posted by PookztA
how come thousands and thousands of paper sheets were completely unharmed?

The plane impacts knocked thousands of sheets of paper out of the towers on impact. The smoke carried thousands of more sheets of paper miles away from the tower. Further, the only floors the paper would've been damaged on are the floors affected by fire, so about 5 floors? That leaves over 100 floors in each tower that had paper that wasn't affected by anything other than just collapse.

Originally posted by PookztA
If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings

It was not. We have no idea in what capacity or where the nano-thermite would have been used. The towers for the most part were brought down with conventional explosives:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by PookztA
how come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero during the attacks?

There is video of the power in the vicinity of the WTC that fluctuated as the second plane hit the south tower. In essence, many of the electrical lines in the impact zones became grounded and/or exposed. Grounding a significant number of electrical lines at once will put a strain on the local power grid.

Originally posted by PookztA
where is all the molten steel? Thousands of pictures, yet not a single one shows large quantities of molten steel?

There weren't very many cameras allowed at ground zero, so that's your first answer. The video in the OP of this thread talks about and shows some of the molten steel.

Originally posted by PookztA
how come there was significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks?

Seriously, it doesn't get much more ridiculous than this. Magnetosphere readings are associated with CME's and sun flares. Not even a residue of relation to anything happening on 9/11.

But I can ask some ridiculous questions also: How come it was significantly darker on the other side of the earth during the 9/11 attacks?

Originally posted by PookztA
how come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks

I don't know where you're going with the "electricity like burns and holes" because if there were any such thing at ground zero, any living thing in the vicinity of the WTC would also have the same "electricity like burns and holes". I don't know of any reports of any humans that were near the WTC that reported "electricity like burns and holes" to their persons.

Originally posted by PookztA
How come Dr. Wood has already filed several legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies and NIST, yet Dr. Jones has not?

Dr. Jones' findings are "preliminary" and require further testing. They are not 100% proof-positive.

Originally posted by PookztA
How come Dr. Wood has already been taking legal steps towards demanding a new 9/11 investigation, yet Dr. Jones does not support her legal efforts?

It's not just Dr. Jones that doesn't support her. Hence this thread existing. Her findings aren't scientific. They are theoretical and opinions at best.

Originally posted by PookztA
How come Dr. Jones has not officially filed or shared his nano-thermite evidence with Congress, NIST, or any official governmental body? Why the delay?

Again, Dr. Jones' findings are preliminary and need more testing. Others have sent the findings by email and in person to congresspeople and NIST.

Originally posted by PookztA
Why is Dr. Jones just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation”

This statement is blatantly false information. Can you provide a source to your claim? I've been a 9/11 researcher for many years and Dr. Jones along with the rest of the 9/11 truth movement have been pursuing a new investigation since near the beginning. A very sad tactic on your part.






[edit on 14-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

"There is nothing in my mind that is completely ruled out."

I agree 100% and would also like to add that I am very suspicious of individuals and/or groups who unequivocally rule out specific theories because:

1) a thorough and complete investigation was never performed, therefore, ruling out any conclusion (no matter how outlandish it may seem) is virtually impossible

2) we do not have all the pieces of the 9/11 puzzle (such as the potential use of classified weapons), therefore, ruling out certain conclusions is nothing more than baseless speculation

I really do not care which theories are supported or frowned upon by certain groups. However, when I do see a group shut the door on certain theories, without having access to a thorough investigation and all Government information, I have to wonder long and hard about their credibility.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
However, when I do see a group shut the door on certain theories, without having access to a thorough investigation and all Government information, I have to wonder long and hard about their credibility.

I'll remember you said this the next time I see you supporting any organization listed in the OP.

There's a reason why none of the 9/11 research organizations accept tv fakery/no-planes at the WTC, and DEW energy weapons at the WTC. The OP of this thread has numerous articles and debunks.

The articles in the OP make it quite clear why the above theories aren't accepted. I suggest you take the time to read them.





[edit on 14-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

"I'll remember you said this the next time I see you supporting any organization listed in the OP."

Better yet, why don't you dig up one of my older posts where I advocate support of any of the organizations listed in the OP?

"There's a reason why none of the 9/11 research organizations accept tv fakery/no-planes at the WTC, and DEW energy weapons at the WTC. The OP of this thread has numerous articles and debunks."

I'm sure there is more than one "reason" for this. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, to reach such a conclusion without having all the facts at hand is highly suspicious. Not only do I question the credibility, I question the intent.

"I have to look long and hard at the credibility of people that won't read or simply disregard the critical analyses or debunkings of certain theories due to some other hidden agenda they may have."

It's your right to look all you want. In addition, I promise not to get defensive and take such allegations personally.

"The articles in the OP make it quite clear why the above theories aren't accepted. I suggest you take the time to read them."

Thank you for your suggestion. What is clear for you is hazy for me, especially considering the fact these conclusions are being drawn with incomplete evidence and an inadequate investigation of the events.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


I see your point and I'll just agree to disagree and say: fair enough.

Great thread, Bonez. I would be less hesitant to call myself a "Truther" if more were like you

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
But anyone who has done any kind of research into 9/11 or the 9/11 truth movement knows that these "theories" are not supported by the 9/11 truth movement and those who peddle them are not 9/11 truthers.

Do 9/11 truthers believe that thermite was used to demolish all 3 wtc towers? Or do they believe that nano thermate was used to demolish all 3 wtc towers? Or do they believe that explosives were used on wtc 7 only? Or do they believe that cutter charges were used on WTC 1 and 2 and nano thermate was used on WTC7? Or do they believe that wtc 1 and 2 were brought down with airplanes and fire and wtc7 was demolished using regular thermate? Or do they believe that missles brought down WTC 1 and 2 and that WTC 7 was brought down with a combination of thermate and thermite or a combination of nano thermite and explosives?

I can't research truther theories very well because I've found so many of them and they change. Here is the perfect example:


The Aquarian1 says

"I know there were explosions heard before the building collapsed as well as during the collapse."

And in the same forum:

"Finding Thermite in the rubble means the buildings were brought down by something other than fire. Extrapolating on that fact and attempting to explain how the buildings were brought down, with a theory, is not relevant. "

And in the same forum

"If you must know, I believe the buildings were brought down with technologies far in advance of what is publicly available. Our own government admits that "above top secret" technologies are at least 10 years in advance of what is known."

And in the same forum

"I'm merely stating that nano-thermite, a highly specialized incendiary used in military explosives was found in the dust of the world trade center."


So in one forum he's talking about explosions, thermite, nano-thermite and technologies far in advance of what is publicly available. (9 years after the atacks took place). How about all truthers unite, pick one, and stick to it so that it can be researched. The top secret unknown technology is going to be a tough cookie.

source:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I'm noticing that these kinds of things happen in a lot of posts.

PROOF THAT EXPLOSIVES WERE USED!

What about the seismographs? Why don't they show that explosives were used? (other people questioning the use of explosives)

DOES THERMITE EXPLODE?

No. Has thermite ever been used to demolish a building like that? I'm unable to find if it's ever been used on that level. Can someone point me to a place where i can find out? I thought we were talking about explosives.

THERMATE!!

Ok here we go again. Where can i go to find out about about thermate? Has it ever been used to demolish a building before?

NANO THERMATE PAINT!!

Wait a second. I never thoroughly looked into thermite.


TOP SECRET HIGH TECH DEMOLITION!!

Seriously? I will never be able to get an expert opinion on this one because it's top secret.

reply to post by iamcpc


As with any historical event, different people believe different things. Take World War 2 as an example: there are plenty of aspects of the war that are argued by historians, why are those historians not mocked? Why are only people looking for the truth about 9/11 mocked?

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by iamcpc

 

As with any historical event, different people believe different things. Take World War 2 as an example: there are plenty of aspects of the war that are argued by historians, why are those historians not mocked? Why are only people looking for the truth about 9/11 mocked?

There is a huge difference between looking for the truth and spreading highly debated theories as FACT and other theories (which are either different or the opposite of your theories) as LIES.


I have found evidence that explosives were not used to demolish the WTC towers. I present said evidence. I am mocked and I have not even deciding if i'm a truther or a debunker. I see, many times, truthers and debunkers both mocking each other. I also see truthers mocking truthers. I don't know if I've seen debunkers mocking debunkers though. They have a more unified theory to support.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Great compilation of these "theories", some are which way in outer limits.

I find that the best way to solve problems is to have a team of individuals that think unlike you, the best way that ideas and logic that nomrally personally I wouldn't see would be included into a solution.

Yet if some of these topics don't get distanced it only hurts the NON-OS[ as argentus proposed] side of the dicussion.

In the future I hope that both sides see the need for productive debate and discussion about the true nature of the events.

Good job _BoneZ_

reply to post by seattletruth

"The WTC was made of a complex grid of massive steel girders."


It is common knowledge at this point in time that the WTC was NOT a complex grid of massive steel girders .

The towers were constructed of box-columns (tube-steel) ., those columns were approaching a maximum thickness of ONE-QUARTER (1/4) inch thick at the points of impact .

So , let's not continue to make claims of massive steel girders . There is a hell of a difference between a steel girder and a 1/4" wall box column .

The planes would have had little to no resistance when it came to penetrating 1/4" steel .

reply to post by okbmd


Also, do not forget the exterior column trees themselves. They were all bolted together with 5/8" bolts on each end. I'm pretty sure a 767 @ 450+mph is not going to have any trouble punching out the column tree section itself, by snapping and sheering the bolts clean off the ends. A lot of the column trees that were impacted showed being punched into the building. Some where cut by the impact, others just shoved in one piece.

reply to post by GenRadek


Thanks for posting that bit about the bolts . I have looked for that but have been unable to find info on the size of the bolts . Where did you find that at Gen ?

This just further proves the planes would have no problem penetrating the facade .

Thanks for that .

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Hats off to you for posting this thread , as it was much needed .

Process of elimination always works best , in my opinion .

It does indeed get frustrating having to wade through such nonsense when trying to conduct proper research .

So , thanks for taking out the trash .

reply to post by okbmd


That is seen in a lot of the pictures of the face of the WTC that was impacted, like here:



You can see the ends of the column trees as they bolts have failed!



A lot of the external column trees just got punched in like a 3D puzzle piece. Of course, depending on the column tree location and what got hit by what, some just got punched through, while others were clipped, snapped, or cut by the forces of the impacting aircraft!

reply to post by GenRadek


Awesome pics Sir .

Haven't seen those before . Just reinforces my opinion on what caused the collapses .

Thanks .