UNFORTUNATE THAT LAWSUITS SUPPORT DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS

   It is indeed unfortunate that the filers of the two lawsuits challenging the NIST report on the collapse of the World Trade Center are supporters of the theory that directed energy weapons brought down the Twin Towers.  Only a nuclear reactor could produce enough energy to bring about the collapse of the towers.  Where is the nuclear reactor?  No nuclear reactors, which are large, bulky and hard to hide, have turned up in the vicinity of the World Trade Center.  The directed energy could not have been beamed down from an orbiting satelite since any satelite big enough to contain a nuclear reactor could be easily seen by earthbound observers.

   How could a directed energy beam cut the steel girders of the World Trade Center at the precise angle cut by thermate explosives in controlled building demolitions.  This is only one of the many indications that the Twin Towers were brought down by carefully preplanted and timed explosions in a controlled building demolition.  Others are that the towers fell at nearly free fall speed and the overwhelming majority of the towers mass fell on to the surface area the buildings stood on, i.e. on to their footprints.

   These lawsuits because they are active court cases are most likely to generate publicity and be regarded as representative of the views of the 9/11 Truth movement.  An overwhelming amount of evidence supports the contention that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.  But, by supporting the theory that the Twin Towers were brought down by directed energy weapons, the lawsuits will associate the 9/11 Truth movement with crack pot theories that lack any supporting evidence and associate us with comic strip depictions of ray guns and Buck Rogers.

   If that were not enough to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement to the public, one of the lawsuits seems to be questioning that planes struck the two towers by arguing that the videos of the impact are physically impossible and therefore have to be fabricated.  Yet many people in New York actually saw the planes hit the Twin Towers.

   Lawsuits based on the well supported controlled demolition theory of the towers demise would have had a far better chance of being credible.  Lawsuits claiming that the towers were destroyed by directed energy weapons will make us seem like nuts and crackpots.

Robert Halfhill     rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 254 comments) on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 1:25:33 PM
 

Only DEWs support the data

Try reading the papers on Dr Wood's site before making such wild assumptions. Also see the information in my recent comments on OpEdNews.

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 382 comments) on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 9:49:25 PM
 

Delusions, Fantaticism, and Lies

A denial of reality and historical revisionism of the most frightening and reprehensible kind.

by Matt (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 4:57:10 PM
 

missed the real one

Andrew, it is most regrettable that you missed reporting the Request for Correction which has been sent to NIST by the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and others. Unlike the two you refer to this one is based on sound science. It can be found on their home page here:

http://stj911.com/

There is good reason to suspect that the authors of the two you refer to have been coerced in some way to file a rubbish request in order to discredit the truth movement. They used to produce good work but suddenly ceased to do so some time ago.

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments) on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 8:00:56 PM
 

Not missed

Oops James Gourley's RFC is mentioned at the end of the Press release/story. Presumably you didn't bother to read that far.

I enjoyed the eulegy of Steve Jones in that RFC.

by Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 56 comments) on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 9:58:55 AM
 

Andrew, thank you for posting this excellent work!

And don't let the idiotic comments bother you. They obviously don't know how to look at information.

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 382 comments) on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 9:53:49 PM
 

proof of explosives, not beams

If anyone has any doubt about what brought down the towers read this:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeConspiracy&Myth7.pdf

It discusses how myths are created.

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments) on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 11:33:42 PM
 

you're looking at it simplemindedly

I have already explained numerous times that the explosives evidence is a planted decoy that the perps will blame Al Qaeda for, as Bush did in 2006.

Do you have memory lapses or something? What's wrong with you?

You (and others in this thread) are practitioners of pathological science. You obviously only look at the evidence that will support your predetermined conclusion. Get a grip on what you're doing.

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 382 comments) on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 12:12:31 AM
 

Dr Legge

Hmmm - I had some interesting correspondence with Dr Legge back in April. I was surprised he even bothered to contact a lowly Part-Time OU Tutor like me. He was acutally somewhat complimentary about my Website and the article I had written, which I thanked him for (although he disagreed with some of it).

 Anyway, 9/11 Truthers are working in myths, aren't they? According to the Mainstream? So maybe we have a "mainstream" 9/11 truth movement now?

by Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 56 comments) on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 11:14:25 AM
 

the real request for correction

The link above is not working. Trying again:

http://stj911.com/

Look at the home page here to find the request referred to above.

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments) on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 11:39:29 PM
 

That RFC is Nothing But a Joke!!!

If "Truth and Justice" is soooooo confident in their thermite and molten metal, then why isn't it mentioned in the RFC?

Answer: Because NIST would have dismissed the RFC as frivolous!

That RFC is nothing but a joke! A joke believed by jokers.

It's not even dated!

It's A JOKE!

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 382 comments) on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 12:22:35 AM
 

Comment is hidden Reason:

Does anyone really believe...

...that some death ray from outer space, or even inner space did this? If so, I have some ocean front property in Ohio for sale.

I believe that there's a lot more to the 9/11 attack than we are being told. I watched events unfold on TV, from about five minutes after the first plane hit until tower seven fell. Those buildings fell way too perfectly to have been brought down by the fire from the jet fuel. Building seven wasn't even hit, and fell neatly into a pile. Either the buildings were constructed with shit and crepe paper, or there's something more here than meets the eye.

But to say it was done by some future-matic push-button death ray is to drive yet another nail into the coffin of the truth. It's like trying to sort out the truth of extraterrestrial life and the fiction of alien abduction. One I believe, as it makes no sense that in all the vastness of space, we are the only place that supports life. The other is, IMHO, a batch of total grade "A" bullshit!

I'm sorry, but I'll believe that little gray men with big black eyes are here to disembowel cattle, and perform sexual experiments on us when I either am taken up and ravaged, or witness someone taken up into a space ship. Until that time, it's too many people smoking too much weed looking for their fifteen minutes of fame.

Herein lies the real problem with conspiracy theorists and other crackpots. They thirst for notoriety and fame, and are willing to do anything to get it. Their empty-headed drivel gets sold as truth, and in that process, those who believe that we're not getting the full story look like the same kind of lunatics. I'm not a lunatic. I'm not some far out, sees reds under every bed, paranoid, delusional conspiracy nut. I'm just a guy who thinks we aren't getting the truth about what really happened six years ago. There is a difference!

It's too bad that stupid always gets the floor.

Blessed be!
Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments) on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 2:40:42 AM
 

Andrew Johnson's Report on Legal Challenge to NIST etc

The questions to ask are not if 2 aircraft hit the WTC towers. They did! The more pertinent questions to ask are:

1. Where is the debris of the Pentagon Boeing and the Pennsylvania Boeing?

2. Why "sufficient" facilities were "made available" to the 2 Boeings which hit the twin towers?

Add to the above the short video clip showing over joyous skull capped photographers filming the 2 crashes, a clip which slipped into Media for a few minutes then disappeared forever. Instead another old footage showing Palestinians rejoicing in Gaza or someplace in Occupied Palestine which then turned out was filmed years before and supplied to US Media as a master develish replacement.

Add to all the above the pre-9/11Hollywood Film which was based on a supposed Pentagon Conspiracy to bring down the same Twin Towers for the same purposes and reasons, the Pentagon-Cheney-Dubya-Zionists-Imperialists-Neo-cons have been implementing since 9/11.

Then, work backwards to explain why the twin towers could not have collapsed in the manner they did. The answers to the whole puzzle would unravel.

What about the 19 Arabs? Well, the conspirators needed 19 Arabs at least to point the compass to another convenient way. We all know about how aircraft flights can be taken over by advanced Pentagon- tested GROUND Control Apparatus which disable Aircraft based flight control. Tested? Yes, tested, on the Egypt Air Flight which blew up shortly after taking off from New York without any on-board explosions or any outside missile hits. 

What about Ben Laden's claims? Well, he is a United States creation any way! Every time he releases his tapes, they always end up serving Dubya and his cohorts. Ask yourself why Ben Laden is still able to release his tapes. He is being kept alive and safe and for all I care, he might be at Crawford. Were not all 9/11 available Ben Laden's flown out of the US on 9/11 and 10/11 when no other flights were allowed to even taxi on US runways, let aside take off.

by syed mahdi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 123 comments) on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 3:00:40 AM
 

Keep to the science as much as possible...

If you read the RFC's and Law Suit, they discuss mainly science issues, not people rejoicing at plane impacts.

 There seems to be similar evidence of planting pieces of debris at the WTC as at Shanksville, as well as all the other evidence that something other than large jets hit the towers.

by Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 56 comments) on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 4:04:06 PM
 

Three Excellent Pages

All True Truth Seekers Should Read The Following Pages:

Two Great Posts by "underscribed"

Supporting Evidence for No-Planes and DEW (exotic weapons)

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 382 comments) on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 2:50:52 AM