Pentagon's non-lethal weapon projects leaked - including a laser beam that 'steers enemy planes'

While I do find this technology quite fascinating, I have to ask the question of how many times this would be used as a weapon rather as a deterrent. And then there will be the 9/11 angle.

If 9/11 truly was an inside job (not the thread direction) could this technology already exist and could it have been used in the attacks. Ok, had to throw that out there.

And then there is the future to consider. This is said to be a Non-Lethal Weapon. It is that only if no one uses it as a weapon. A hammer is considered a Non Lethal Tool. Until it cracks someone's head open and it then becomes the "Weapon" in court.

Here comes da conspiracy!

How easy would it be for anyone to create a false flag event using planes? Very easy IMO. Quite simply, hijack a plane without being on board and slam it into an aircraft carrier, building, stadium...whatever. No witnesses and no suspects because there were no "terrorists" even on the plane. Nice huh?

www.dailymail.co.uk... ml

Descriptions of the Pentagon’s very latest non-lethal weapon projects have been leaked online. Publicintelligence.org recently published the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate’s ‘Non-Lethal Weapons Reference Book’, which includes devices in use and some that have been dreamed up for the future.

One of the fantasy weapon systems is a laser device fitted to a plane that can actually steer an enemy aircraft away from a restricted area – somehow.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... ml#ixzz1iit2JkKU

When I tried publicintelligence.org... there is only a small logo business card for the Chamber & Growth Partnership. Whatever the hell that means.

Also on the drawing board is a weapon that blocks cars using high-powered microwaves. Among the non-lethal weapons being used today that the leak details are Tasers, rubber bullets filled with pepper spray that disorientate rioters and 'Acoustic Hailing Devices' that leave targets with 'auditory impairment'.

Yup, never enough weapons for us. Gotta build bigger and badder.

Some user comments are revealing as to what many are thinking:

At last we see a possible explanation for presence of the E-4B electronic warfare airfcraft filmed by CNN and others over New York and Washington on 911, something that was never explained in the official version of events. - Graham Casey, Australia, 5/1/2012 11:23 -- 19 Green arrows for this ill informed post! Shame on you people! The E-4B is not an "electronic warfare aircraft" it is a command and control aircraft more commonly known as Air Force One and was not only noted numerous times in the media but there is a very simple explanation, it was participating inthe "global guardian" training exercise which was cancelled when the first plane hit and was in the air after requesting emergency takeoff from Andrews, ultimately in circled in a few places near the capital after being granted clearance to do so (all of which is recorded and available info) As an airbone command centre would be safer from further attacks that may have been coming it makes sense to have it in the area - Dave, Birmingham Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... ml#ixzz1ij3ttjL1

And of course, the rebuttal:

Dave, Birmingham, 5/1/2012 21:43 Dave do a bit more research Airforce 1 is the Presidential plane, these E-4B's are a different animal altogether. Agree there were exercises going on which was the official explanation for the woeful response by the supposed top gun air force and NORAD which inexplicably had a system of tracking and interception that worked before 911 and after 911 but not on 911.You really don’t have to be any sort of believer in theories to destroy the official 911 version of events. To believe this official version you have to enter a make-believe world where even the laws of physics were suspended just for that day. Just look at any of the US funded documentaries with a critical eye and you will see historical revisionism at work, the presentation of selected facts and the deletion of others. It’s clever and fools most people who think the electronic picture box in the living room is a source of news or truth, it often isn’t. - graham casey Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... ml#ixzz1ij4Azxh1

Peace

If this is in the public domain now. They've had it for years.

nice find jude! S&F mate!

wow...this does raise quite a few questions. like the guy above me said...they've had it for years now. and if we're hearing about this, now...what else do they already have???

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD
nice find jude! S&F mate!

wow...this does raise quite a few questions. like the guy above me said...they've had it for years now. and if we're hearing about this, now...what else do they already have???

And the bigger question is where, when and how have they already used it? If it has been used and we don't know about it, it could only mean that downed airliners since the inception of this weapon could be considered suspect IMO.

Peace

Rabbi Dov Zackheim....co,ptroller of the pentagon when the funds (three trillion) were found to be missing....holds dual isreali/american ctizenship. also owned a company specialising in this takeover technology on 9/11
Theres the guy to check out.......

"steering" might imply more fine control than is suggested by the artwork.

Flight is caused by a pressure difference between the top of the wing and the bottom of the wing. The top of the wing has a lower pressure by the Bernoulli Principle and so the wing is held upward against gravity by suction.

By heating the air above the wing the pressure above the wing would rise, and the pressure difference between the top and bottom of the wing would decrease. This would cause the wing to fall or lower itself and the plane would bank to that side, causing the plane to turn to that side.

On the other hand, software for this specific situation could cause a high degree of control I guess

Interesting thread but I seriously doubt that this particular technology had/has the finesse to steer those planes into the Twin Towers, Pentagon etc, using the described methods.

On the other hand I buy the possibility that the planes were fitted with remote control capabilities, that were engaged to do the un-human manouvers that we saw on that fateful day.

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
Interesting thread but I seriously doubt that this particular technology had/has the finesse to steer those planes into the Twin Towers, Pentagon etc, using the described methods.

On the other hand I buy the possibility that the planes were fitted with remote control capabilities, that were engaged to do the un-human manouvers that we saw on that fateful day.

Agree with most of what you said but I believe the tower scenario is not as difficult as we might think.

Start to control and "steer" the air craft from 50 miles out for example and it's not that difficult to imagine it as possible. No tight and tricky maneuvers but rather a slow gradual "aim" for the target.

Maybe...

reply to post by jude11


Yes, except that wasn't the scenario...professional pilots have stated that the 'turns' that were required to steer at least one plane into a tower, was physically IMPOSSIBLE do.

They've tried to repeat these manouvers, over and over in simulators, and have never been able to duplicate.

Basically the g-forces generated would likely knocked everyone onboard, unconscious.

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
reply to post by jude11

 

Yes, except that wasn't the scenario...professional pilots have stated that the 'turns' that were required to steer at least one plane into a tower, was physically IMPOSSIBLE do.

They've tried to repeat these manouvers, over and over in simulators, and have never been able to duplicate.

Basically the g-forces generated would likely knocked everyone onboard, unconscious.

Quite agree that this wasn't the scenario. But that isn't saying that the tech in the OP couldn't be used in such a way on another day with a different target.

I am not suggesting that the tech was used that day but it certainly does open up the theory of something similar.

On another note, I always found it interesting that pro pilots can't duplicate what was done that day. And being that the "hijackers" (using the term loosely) were not pro, might that leave the avenue open for a technology similar to this?

Don't know...just fishing.

Thanks

reply to post by jude11


I'm pretty sure that what the pro pilots are telling us, is that these planes weren't actually flown by terrorist. Rather they were REMOTE controlled.

But hey, will we ever really find the TRUTH?