2006: A Year of Many Critical Breakthroughs for 9/11 Research
In my view, this year the evidence has become overwhelming for:
-- No conventional planes at the WTC
-- Live 2nd hit TV fakery
-- Video fakery for 2nd hit
-- Beam weapons used for WTC demolition
It has been a big year for me. For the first time, I personally feel as though I have some understanding of how the hoax was carried out.
-- No conventional planes at the WTC
-- Live 2nd hit TV fakery
-- Video fakery for 2nd hit
-- Beam weapons used for WTC demolition
It has been a big year for me. For the first time, I personally feel as though I have some understanding of how the hoax was carried out.
posted by spooked at 8:26 PM
19 Comments:
you should be more alarmed by the way so many people have bought into the govt/media's 'aluminum 767 slips thru a steel tower like casper the ghost' nonsense. or the 'jet fuel can turn all of the concrete of a wtc into powder and make most of the steel simply disappear into thin air all at the rate of 11 floors per second' bullshit.
it's good that you see things for what they are - and for what they are not. i wish more people would wise up.
Hi Rowan,
For me, the key insight is that they used exotic weaponry.
The exact type they used would be interesting to know, but it's probably less important. Maybe people would believe that Osama's terrorist buddies put explosives in the building, or that they used thermite. As Steven Jones loves to say, you can buy thermite on Ebay! That's not a huge blow to the official line.
No sane person is going to believe that Osama had access to directed energy weapons. Rumsfeld and Myers clearly had access to that sort of thing. I think Spooked is right that we've got a solid "theory of the case" at this point.
Whether or not Bearden is right or wrong on his "scalar" stuff isn't going to hurt us one way or the other. Arab Muslim Martyrs are notoriously low-tech and this attack was high-tech. People can understand that. There's no way the official patsies could have turned steel to jelly down the street from the WTC.
Fred
is our very own fred this fred burks that you refer to as a spook? damn you fred, prepare to accept heftys! ha ha.
No, I'm pretty sure our Fred here is not Fred Burks. Fred Burks is a Steven Jones groupie. And from what I hear, Burks is almost certainly a spook-- you're on the money, Rowan.
Rowan, I'm not saying that the truth doesn't matter, although I can see how you would get that idea from my posting. And I'm not Fred Burks.
What I'm trying to say is that the "exotic weapons hypothesis" doesn't depend on Bearden being correct. If we can find some clear evidence of exotic weapons having been used, such as fried automobiles, then we have ANOTHER piece of evidence that Osama couldn't possibly be the guy responsible for the attack. We also have another piece of evidence that "hijacked civilian airliners" were not the means by which the WTC was blown up.
Then the evidence points us clearly towards members of a technologically advanced organization, like elements of the US military or military-industrial complex. Combined with evidence that the media were manipulated into telling us a story about hijacked airplanes, we have a pretty powerful story.
So, what I'm saying, is even if Bearden is a kook, spook, nutcase, or crackpot, establishing some solid evidence for the use of exotic weapons really discredits the official story completely.
Fred
Bearden is irrelevant.
Fred Burks, Alex Floum, Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman all seem a little *spooky*...
There can’t simultaneously be both high resistance—causing grinding of the concrete into dust—and negligible resistance allowing a fall at the same speed as through air. Only the input of extra energy—an orchestrated demolition, explains the simultaneous presence of both factors.
– Gerard Holmgren (emphasis added)
To me, the single most important underlying fact which proves 9/11 was an inside job is the fact three buildings, all part of the same complex, owned by the same man, all collapsed at FREE FALL SPEED. Too many times we get boggled down in plane theories, hole theories, and exactly why the government reports focus on how a plane crash in the building could bring it down (not on the collapse itself). MAYBE it could, but that's irrelevant. We are being distracted into arguments that do not matter. Maybe planes did crash, maybe they didn't. In the end, it makes no difference, the buildings all fell in the same manner at or near FREE FALL SPEED. Highlighting that fact and discovering how that was accomplished is the key to unraveling 911 and forcing more and more people to re-examine that day.
Jim-- you're right. And yet it is truly amazing how many people can simply delete out that fact, ignore it or hand-wave it away.
Hi Jim, I agree that the free-fall alone should be enough evidence to destroy the official story, but there's a lot more here to explore.
Suppose they just come right out and say that the buildings were blown up by Bin Laden... (Bush has toyed around with this in his remarks about KSM and how lovely torture is.) Then we're back with an evil, external enemy and we should all have to walk through metal detectors and run a gauntlet of bag searchers and explosive-sniffing dogs.
Free-fall speed has already been conclusively demonstrated, and yet peoples heads are so thick that it's not enough for them to abandon the official story. Fortunately, 911 is incredibly fertile ground, since there are so many smoking guns all over the place. I think there's merit to chipping away at all the other aspects to the 911 operation, especially since free-fall collapse and WTC 7 have been covered beautifully already. 911 Mysteries does a great job with "controlled demolition". That's just one facet of the big picture, and it lets the media off the hook.
Some of these other areas don't allow anyone to blame Osama. With Controlled Demolition, you can say, "well, they did it in 1993, now they did it again in 2001. BFD." I'm probably not expressing this idea very well, but I think it's a huge mistake to just rest on the laurels of the free-fall "collapse". These other arguments actually matter a lot.
Fred
On Bearden, I don't know much about his stuff. I glanced at his website some time back and was not impressed-- it had an air of bogusness.
Hi Rowan,
I should probably shut up about Chomsky. I don't have a deep understanding of him or his work, especially compared with his legion of fans. My impression of him is that he has his own pet political theories and even linguistic theories and that none of them seem to be useful for much. Maybe he's defending Israel by making weak arguments against Israel.
When I hear Chomsky I just have a knee-jerk desire to throw something. I always like the titles of his work, but then when I flip through the pages of his books I get upset. "Manufacturing Consent" is a great title for something, but then he says 9/11 doesn't matter, yadda yadda yadda...
I see Chomsky's name cited a lot in Military Propaganda research. I'm not saying he's in the CIA or anything, but he strikes me as the typical lefty Directorate-of-Intelligence-type. Of course, I'm *ahem* almost certain that the CIA doesn't have any ties to the academic community, especially not at MIT. Heaven Forbid!
The very thought that someone like an MIT professor would accept money to advise the goverment on psychological operations is unthinkable!
Sorry for the heavy sarcasm. He's just one of those people I cannot stand. I probably haven't given him a fair chance. Hillary Clinton has the same effect on me.
Fred
Hi Rowan,
I'm all for de-Bearden-izing the language we use.
How would you feel about the term "Tesla Weaponry"?
Basically the idea is that there's some directed energy technology that's not conventional laser or microwave that turns metals to dust as we see with the WTC core.
My gut feeling is that Bearden is correct that this technology works, even if he's technically deficient. Just like I can say that "atomic bombs" are powerful, even though I don't have the skills to build one myself.
Maybe "unconventional directed energy weapons" is the right term. I don't like "Hutchison Effect" much either. What would you recommend?
Fred
It would be helful if one of you could actually point to EVIDENCE that these things exist (a grainy youtube vid is NOT evidence)
Hi Rowan,
I checked out the Chomsky thread on Xymphora, and it didn't make me like Chomsky any better. I've never liked "the Left" in the USA and I guess I agree that Chomsky can't help their cause either.
WRT directed energy weapons, clearly the USA has poured R&D money into these projects since the 1940's, and some of the stuff works reasonably well. I've got some friends who worked on the Star Wars program who assure me that the technology is real, and not in 2025 but in 1985.
I think I'll drop words like "hutchison effect" and "scalar" from my lexicon and just stick with "exotic weaponry". No one can deny "exotic weaponry", and it has a nice, non-conspiratorial ring to it.
Thanks for the links and the suggestions.
Fred
i think that jim makes a good point about getting distracted by minutia; it IS very easy to show that the towers were purposely brought down without dwelling on the hows and whys - after all a raygun is a raygun is a raygun to most people (including myself). however, to say that it's not important whether real planes hit the towers or not might not really be the best approach on this particular blog. the mcmedia perps are IMO every bit as responsible as the military/govt perps or the giuliani/port authority perps.
Rowan, I posted a response to your comment on my blog, asking you to provide more information about Chomsky and Israel, which you did here with Jeffrey Blankfort's article. Can you post that, or let me? Thanks.
P.S. You probably won't like what I said about my views -- I just wanted to let you know where I come from. It's probably irresponsible of me to avoid taking a position on this issue because it is so important to a lot of what's going on in the world.
You are doing a big work and giving a contribute to democracy.
Post a Comment
<< Home