Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials, politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place. Here are a few additional people to consider:
George WashingtonGeorge Washington is a pen name. I am using the pen name, with the approval of the publisher, because I have received death threats due to my 9/11 research and writing. I am using a pen name to protect myself and my family.
Why is it so difficult to convince people that 9/11 was an inside job? Good question. Simple answer: The 9/11 perpetrators have orchestrated a well planned coverup by planting propaganda in the 9/11 Truth Movement. One clear example is Steven Jones and his "hypothesis to be tested" of controlled demolition. Any rational person can tell from this picture that inside job is definitively proven, so what's this "hypothesis to be tested" nonsense?
Also crystal clear is that the "plane" in this video is a cartoon. Even Peter Jennings knew this, as we can tell from his nervousness and word fumblings when ABC plays it back in slow motion.
Bottom line is that the 9/11 Truth Movement has been a 9/11 perp-run operation from day one, and the members within are encouraged to face up to this now before it's too late.
The 9/11 Attacks, the 9/11 coverup, and the 9/11 "truth movement", were orchestrated, performed, and setup by people who have affiliations with directed energy weapons and the media.
Some examples:
**Steven Jones worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched.
**Greg Jenkins has ties to the NSA and directed energy weapons
**Bob Bowman was former director of Star Wars
**Van Romero, who steered the truth movement toward standard controlled demolitions, made presentations at the Directed Energy Professional Society
**NIST contracted with sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society
**The NY Times published the WTC Task Force Interviews with evidence of explosives, but redacted evidence for directed energy weapons
See the following highly sourced for much much more:
The powdering of all the cement and all the contents of the buildings, filing cabinets and desks and so on, does not point, in my view, to conventional explosives.
Why have I not seen, in my forays into the 9/11 truth sites, ANY photos of conventional controlled demolition aftermath of buildings? Surely some exist, and then the powdering of the WTC buildings could be compared to them. It is something to be considered. Why do they not show such comparisons?
by
ibrahim turner (25 articles, 31 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 177 comments)
on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 2:48:00 PM
CB Brooklyn sits there like a perigrine falcon in wait for the passing homing pigeon, carrying its message of peace.
He or she creates dissent among the seekers of 9/11 truth.
There are many aspects of the case that 9/11 was an inside job. Some of the evidence is indisputable. Some creates arguments. CB B focusses continually on the things that are in dispute. She even creates dispute about things which the majority of scientists agree on. She continually points out that there is a connection between Steven Jones and nuclear research. This is totally irrelevant to the question of whether the tiny spherical particles of metal, mainly iron, which he has found in the dust, indicate that explosives were used and that the metal was molten before it was shattered.
There is no doubt CB Brooklyn is a disinfo artist and should be ignored.
by
gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 157 comments)
on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 8:06:24 PM
People within the "truth movement" need to start thinking for themselves instead of blindly believing scientists within the "truth movement".
gravity32's "science" is based on findings from government plants. Why trust them? Why not look at the evidence for yourselves instead of blindly trusting someone? Don't people have any brains? How about exercising them for a change? Don't be taken for a fool.
The reason the material I promote (DEW and TV-Fakery) is in such dispute in the first place is because the "truth movement" is filled with government plants who want it to be in dispute.
But one must use some common sense:
Let's say the evidence shows that directed energy weapons were used to destroy the towers. (The evidence does show this.)
Now let's say that NIST contracted with sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society (they did) obviously to hide the DEW evidence.
Let's also say the truth movement is infiltrated with people who have affiliations with directed energy weapons. (It is). Let's say these individuals purposely ridicule/discourage people from looking at the evidence. (They do.)
Let's finally say that the only two "inside job" court cases (with mainstream attorney Jerry Leaphart, no less) are based on DEW and TV-Fakery. (They are.)
It's quite obvious to anyone who actually takes the time to sort through the information that the "truth movement" has been a 9/11 perp operation since day one. How about explosives expert Van Romero? On 9/11 he said it could have been done with a "relatively small amount of explosives". Look at this picture. Romero is either out of his mind, or is in on it. Just so happened Romero participated in events at the Directed Energy Professional Society before and after 9/11!
Romero was a Roundtable Discussion moderator in DEPS event: “The Future of Directed Energy Education: From Vocational Schools Through Universities”.
Romero attends DEPS’ “Directed Energy Modeling & Simulation Conference 2003” where he participates in the presentation “Platform Independent Interface for using Supercomputers in the Modeling and Simulation of Directed Energy Weapons”.
Everyone should see my timeline (linked in separate comment above) for sources.
Why does gravity32 call me a "disinfo artist" instead of challenging me on the data? He himself is using disinfo tactics!
How does anyone know what Steven Jones found in his laboratory anyway? As far as I know, he found nothing at all.
Has anyone seen this new video on Steven Jones? He explains molten metal very very well!!!
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 417 comments)
on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 10:33:20 PM
"Why didn't the History Channel documentary "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" mention directed energy weapons or TV-Fakery??"
These hypotheses weren't (and I'll say shouldn't be) postulated with respect to a review of all the available data because better hypotheses existed - Occam's Razor.
If you don't have the actual device or even any data that details the device that was used to direct the energy, then you cannot include it in the population of available data. If you think you can include such a device - even though you have no evidence for its existence, then you might as well throw in Little Green Men into the population because it's just as valid using this logic.
Do be reasonable and USE the scientific method here. Don't just talk about the scientific method, apply it.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1719 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 11:41:52 AM
I use the Scientific Method. I look at the Data. The Data point toward Directed Energy Weapons. Your need for the name/serial number of the device in question is called the "political method", aka Pathological Science, and completely unscientific.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 417 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 12:49:53 PM
If you don't have any information on the device, how do you know it's even capable of producing the energy need to "dustify" the structures?
You can neither dismiss this necesssary information nor can you "presume" its existence because you're now handpicking the available data to fit your hypothesis - as opposed to creating a hypothesis that conforms to the AVAILABLE data - not presumed data. You might be able to presume a conclusion but you can't presume data within the context of the scientific method.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1719 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 1:32:48 PM
if it accounts for all the available data. Drs Wood/Reynolds explain that they didn't even know the military had directed energy weapons (DEW). Only after they saw that the data pointed toward DEWs did they conclude that DEWs must exist. (See this section of their paper.)
Dustification is not the same as vaporization. The latter would definitely require enormous amounts of energy, since it would require changing steel to liquid and then to gas. But dustification is quite different.
Obviously this weapon is being kept top secret. But it definitely exists, since the data shows it must.
Perhaps Steven Jones can give us a handle on this weapon. After all, he did do work at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched.
Maybe Bob Bowman can give us a clue. He was Directer of the Star Wars program.
What are all the directed energy weapon people doing in the truth movement anyway???
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 417 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 1:58:34 PM
One should read this report dispassionately and consider it on balance, and then should regard the interventions of Brooklyn here as part of the overall conspiracy. The more he or she persists, the more you may be sure that 911 was an inside job.
Can these professional debunkers and spinners and apologists for this atrocious criminal act and all they have led to be traced?
by
Geraldo (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 105 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 4:44:56 AM
If that helps convince people that 9/11 was an inside job, good. Just don't discourage people from looking at evidence. People need to use their own brains and look at and interpret information for themselves, instead of blindly believing whatever they are told.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 417 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 12:53:56 PM
"Only after they saw that the data pointed toward DEWs did they conclude that DEWs must exist."
From a purely logical perspective, this is where Woods and Reynolds have erred. The result that exists is the collapsing of the structures. The data that is available for review either (a) can be seen or heard (with differing levels of distortion due to recording devices and media), (b) can be recollected (with subjective presentation inherent with the individual), or (b) can be extrapolated based upon empirical measurements (with their own standard deviation due to problems inherent with (a) and (b).
Based upon these data, the following three theories that explain the structures' collapses have been forwarded:
(1) The structures collapsed due to the initial damage from the aircraft impact, coupled with the weakening of the exposed structural supports from the resulting fire, which resulted in a massive realization the structures' potential energy into kinetic energy within a shortened time period.
(2) The structures collapsed due to catastrophic damage inflicted upon structural supports from hitherto unknown explosive shape charging of thermite planted on both the aircraft and throughout the vertical and horizontal load bearing structures that extended from the sub-basements to each respective impact zone.
(3) The structures collapsed due to the "dustification" of building architectural elements, structural supports, and building contents (aside from cellulose or cloth-based paper) from hitherto unknown directed energy devices whose operating platforms exist in near or far earth orbit.
Now... A quick synopsis of Occam's Razor or the Law of Parsimony (whichever you prefer) – "When you have two or more competing theories which make exactly the same predictions (i.e., the WTC structures collapsing), the one that is simpler is the better." An application of this principle to (1) "fits" given a review of the available data. With (2), no demolition contractor has patented a process by which cutting charges made of packaged thermite. While by-products of thermite reactions were reported in the debris pile, other event-created causes associated with (1) could have produced the same by-products in the similar ratios. With (2), no agency or entity has filed a patented device capable of producing the energy requirements needed to affect the previously unreported physical process of dustification. The result is that theory (1) is preferred because it is the simplest of the competing theories and, therefore, better than the other two theories.
Unless you can prove that space-based directed energy weapons with sufficient energy exists, theory (1) remains the better explanation of the structures' collapses. All the other "data" you present are legitimate but fail to conform to either other data or cannot be duplicated by others
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1719 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 2:41:47 PM
The term "collapse" is misleading and deceptive. Much of the material went into the upper atmosphere.
Also, the data is not limited to what happened to the towers. See the first comment I made in this post for some of the data that need to be explained. A hypothesis is only valid if it accounts for all the available data.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 417 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 2:56:20 PM
Another and better theory that fits the available data exist
I'd like to see the empirical evidence that can be measured, tested, and verified to support the claim regarding the dust and its diffusion into the atmosphere.
As to your other post and the issues raised within it, a better theory has been offered that hypothesizes the reasons for some of the noted observations. Links to this theory are presented below.
I still need some specifics on the device used to direct the energy to confirm that its resulting beam is circular in nature. It could be that, through the use of prisms and/or superconducting magnets, the resulting beam is ANY shape other than circular. What data at the WTC do you have that indicates the unknown device produces circular beams?
To claim that circular holes in WTC 5 and 6 were caused by a directed energy device requires me to not only (a) accept the device's existence though none have been offered as evidence but (b) accept certain characteristics of such a device OVER other possible characteristics.
how about just looking at the data? What, if not an energy beam, could make such holes? What, if not and energy weapon, could cause the damage to WTC 4?
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 417 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 5:06:42 PM
Call me crazy... but... the debris from a 110-storey tower could cause the damage to WTC 4 - given that it sat in the tower's shadow.
Of course, that's if you believe what was observed on numerous videos of the collapse. If you're into "snowballs" and "water fountains", well then, it MUST have been a directed energy device - not that we have one to test its energy input/output, affect on differing materials/metals, ability to penetrate an atmosphere without scattering or diffusion. Heck, we can't even prove its existence, but we can just make it up to fit our want for such a "weapon".
And "who" could make such a weapon and keep its existence hidden? Obviously, the U.S. military/industrial complex! How convenient.
But I offer with equal validity that it could have been a MASSIVE Sunkist orange; they're round and the rind and pulp could have been consumed in the resulting fires. I don't have to prove its existence according to your logic - just use the data of the results to demonstrate that the "M-O Theory" MUST have been the cause. Or... it could have been a "nanosingularity" (kind of like those mysterious Judy Woods' nanoparticles) - much like the 1908 Tunguska Event in Russia... or... or... anything BUT a falling tower.
I quote Occam's Razor or the Law of Parsimony because by using non-existent data - a directed energy device - you are violating the law. If you're violating the law, your subsequent conclusions are also violated or invalid. You, on the other hand, continuously dismiss the logic. Why?
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1719 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 5:47:27 PM
Any video using such a title as "Debunking yet another silly conspiracy theory" is obviously unscientific and childish. If you wish to not look foolish in the future, I'd recommend not linking to such nonsense.
The scientific analysis of the dust is on Dr Judy Wood's website. Good luck trying to debunk that.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 417 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 4:59:09 PM
A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet
You cannot dimiss an analysis as foolish because you disagree with the title. I think the term "quark" sounds funny but it doesn't dismiss the mathematical existence of sub-atomic particles. Let's focus on the issue here and not get side-tracked by "names" of all things (e.g., snowball, water fountain, dustification, etc...).
I have read through Judy's work, which I find entertaining but largely lacking in any precision or accuracy. She references some of her own papers which, if you read them, require "additional" work to complete, as detailed by her. That's like constructing your new house on uncurred concrete - the foundation will start to crack once its tasked to support the loads above, resulting in structural damage or even collapse (partial or total). If you're not going to use science in your hypothesis, then you must use logic.
The videos have value because they offer an alternative theory as to what can be extrapolated from the images you so readily linked. You offer no logical conclusions other than open-ended questions such as "what could have caused this" or "what could have caused that", which you (and Judy Woods and Morgan Reynolds) claim MUST have been caused by directed energy devices. That's just... silly-think.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1719 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 6:04:43 PM
22 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
