FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
9/11 & Free Energy
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Big Boss



Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 822
Location: Outer Heaven

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well Abe, the problem is that you are attempting to direct us in an area that is filled with poison so to speak. Let us grant for the sake of this discussion that Wood's research proves to be true, or rather, that Directed Energy Weapons are legitimate. Alright, there are simply not much in terms of evidence that they were used in 9/11. There seems to be lacking some sort of signatures of such elegant weaponry in the broader 9/11 context.

When you understand the entire generality of the 9/11 attacks as far as their being carried out and covered up (by use of the perps actually BEING the "opposition") then you honestly have to tread VERY carefully. BreakForNews has extensive coverage of this issue and has dealt with the "Wood Issue" and frankly and consciously, I am truly satisfied with the verdict. Directed Energy Weapons are a "ghost town" of research. You have been given adequate responses regarding Hutchinson and Wood and you keep saying at the end "seek yourselves, look/study at her research, etc" but we already have lol.

You seem to be especially interested in that she seems to be the only person in the 9/11 Truth Comm. to bring a case to court......ok? Daniel Ellsberg "leaked" the Pent. Papers, and? He's suspect given his background and who he's been "in bed" with, and I believe Wood is also suspect. Court Cases do nothing ultimately to show they're on the "good side" You need a strong convincing context. I mean the feeling I get when visiting Wood's site is that its "pretty wacky stuff" and I believe I am supposed to feel that way basically. She has TONS of links EVERYWHERE, I find that most of the fakes sites' almost have exactly the same layout as well, confusing and confounding. Where do we begin? Would it harm you to basically and at least consider Wood's research (as far as as causal demolition of the twin towers) and not claim it as dogma as to what really happened on 9/11? I think you and I can definitely do that and move on to stronger, more plausible research, as it is done here at BreakForNews. I mean ultimately, why did you even join BFN? What do you intend to gain from this site or Dunne's/Others research here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PookztA



Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 16
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny how you agree with me that we all should think for ourselves, yet you keep referring to the readers of this forum as "We", as if you somehow speak for them, lol.

Again, more nonsense accusations that "Wood is fake", or that "Wood is in bed with those who did 9/11", etc. etc. etc.

Sad how alls I ask is that you discuss what evidence and/or conclusions of Dr. Wood you find to be incorrect, and to provide evidence to back up any accusations or concerns you might have. Sadly, after many requests, you still are here typing large paragraphs about how "this forum has already decided" and how "Dr. Wood is a fake", yet you can't even devote one small sentence to discussing the evidence and conclusions of hers which you feel are incorrect.

As I stated in the Hutchison Effect thread, I do not have time to speculate with you nor to entertain the rumors you are spreading. If you want to have a scientific discussion about the scientific evidence and conclusions presented by Dr. Judy Wood, please let me know.

Thanks,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

_________________
Abrahm
Mindoutpsyde.com

Quote:
Dr. Judy Wood on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. Defendants (Supreme Court case): http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Big Boss



Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 822
Location: Outer Heaven

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find it funny how you are simply and quite easily misunderstanding me here as well. Yes, based on my observation (obviously you haven't seemed to observe much here at BFN in terms of research) the majority of the forum members I've taken part in such discussions with do agree with me and I with them as well as Fintan Dunne. This does not mean every BFN forum member, that is quite obvious.

Yes, I am asking you to think for yourself or keep an open mind, but we both know that that has consequences, sometimes, good, sometimes negative or bad. In the case of 9/11, I think that having a genuine open mind, steering clear of disinfo, learning what it is, etc will or should most definitely lead you to the truthful conclusion that the 9/11 movement itself is a Govt. run Op. You constantly refer me and others to check out Wood's research and you are in no way leaving room for other, more plausible theories.

It is not "sad" I simple find Wood's findings to be an empty road on the way to 9/11 truth, thats all and I am not the only one who feels as such. If Wood has been "sleeping around" with other fakes or questionable 9/11 truth personalities, is it NOT logical to ask the same of her? Is that far fetched to think or believe lol? BreakForNews has done an incredible expose of the 9/11 Fakes, my god, have you even read that thoroughly? I get the feeling you are cherry picking your argumentation. I have spent quite a long time looking at evidence, yet I am NOT a researcher and yet, and yet, I easily dismissed Wood's work after careful study. I personally am not convinced that Directed Energy Weapons were used on 9/11. Am I open to the possibility I could be wrong on that, certaintly, I am simply for certain than not, that they were used as a primary cause for bringing the towers down.

Please do tell, what "rumors" am I spreading here? I honestly believe you have not nor do you care to check out what BFN as to offer. Again, and I believe for the 3rd time, why did you join BFN Abe? Wood's theory is attractive and elegant, but it simply does not hold muster for me and others indeed DO agree with me on that conclusion. Allow me to ask another important question, what do you think concerning the sabotaging for the 9/11 movement or its creation by the very perps. who actualized and caused the attacks? What are your thoughts. I think its crucial to build bridges of truth first. What CAN we both agree on first?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PookztA



Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 16
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To answer your question:

I think it was silly of me and of others to not see the corrupted orchestration of the 9/11 Truth Movement coming. For the longest time, I blindly believed in the nano-thermite story, mainly because there was the one scientific paper by Dr. Jones, but then someone told me to check out Dr. Wood and to consider her conclusions, so I did. I went to her website, I started scouring through her evidence, picture by picture, graph by graph, verifying sources, double checking data, and staring deeply into the thousands of pictures she has hosted. After doing this, I realized that there was an entire hoard of evidence that I had NEVER even viewed before. So, I kept viewing this evidence, and after a few days of endless researching and viewing of Dr. Wood's evidence and conclusions, I realized that her conclusion was the only one that could explain all this evidence. Nano-thermite did not explain the evidence she had gathered, nor did nuclear devices. The only thing that could explain ALL of the evidence she has gathered, is some kind of directed energy weapon combined with field effects, as seen in The Hutchison Effect.

At this point, I never stopped to think that perhaps the 9/11 Truth Movement was also being led / corrupted, so I thought, "hey, I bet those nano-thermite people like Dr. Jones and Richard Gage will want to hear about Dr. Wood!"

So, I messaged Richard Gage and Dr. Jones in private emails to share some of the important information Dr. Wood had gathered, to see what they thought. That is when I got banned from AE911Truth's petition (silently). Richard Gage never replied to my email, they simply banned me from their petition. All I wanted to do was help, by telling him about Dr. Wood and the amazing evidence she had gathered, and to let him know that even if nano-thermite was used in part (which it very well could have been), that nano-thermite alone did not explain all the evidence Dr. Wood had gathered. I thought I was helping Richard Gage with this email, but instead, I received no reply, and was banned from their petition.

So, I think whoever did 9/11 knew there would be an uprising, and they wanted to steer the uprising in the wrong direction, to make sure that if the perpetrators ever were prosecuted, that they would go free because they would be accused of 'blowing up' the buildings when in fact explosives played a very minor role in the whole thing.

Think about it like this, we finally figure out who the murder is, but when we take him to court, we try to accuse him of using a knife to murder people, when in reality it was a gun. We saw gun shots in the body of the victim, but for some reason, we are trying to prosecute the murder suspect as if he used a knife to kill the victim who has gun shot wounds. The murder suspect would go free and would never be able to be tried for this crime again.

This is why the 9/11 Truth Movement is being 'pushed' down the 'thermite-only' road, because that way the murder will go free once we try to prosecute someone for it.

I think it is far more likely that a small group of terrorists (domestic or foreign) got a hold of this directed energy weapon technology, used it against our country, and used their media connections to fake the airplane footage so they could blame it on Arabs. This is far more likely than thousands of government employees and agents secretly working together to organize 9/11 against their own country.

Why do you think there are such few government whistleblowers over 9/11? because it was not organized by our government. In my opinion, it was organized by foreign terrorists, most likely Israel, so they could blame it on Arabs and get us to go to war against the Arabs.

Dr. Alan Sabrosky of the U.S. Army War College says that there is more than enough proof to show that Israel's Mossad were the one's behind 9/11. See here: http://911falseflagarchive.blogspot.com/2010/03/dr-alan-sabrosky-former-director-of_19.html

Anyway, I hope we can both disagree that the 9/11 Truth Movement is obviously being guided and manipiulated by the same people who were behind 9/11. They do not want to be caught, and that is why they are sending us down the 'thermite-only' road, when in reality, all the evidence observed on 9/11 can ONLY be explained by one scientist's conclusions, and those are the conclusions of Dr. Judy Wood.

Cheers,

-Abe

_________________
Abrahm
Mindoutpsyde.com

Quote:
Dr. Judy Wood on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. Defendants (Supreme Court case): http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Big Boss



Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 822
Location: Outer Heaven

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Abe lol....I hate to slam it to you but there are so many holes in your 'testimony'. For one, you seem to be of the opinion that the planes were 'faked'. So basically, a "No-planer" Please explain this article to me.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1.shtml
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PookztA



Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 16
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any scientist who is willing to re-examine the event of 9/11 with an open-mind will realize that an aluminum planes do not disappear into steel buildings without at least losing large wing or tail sections.

I hate to say it but I no longer believe that commerical airlines hit the WTC towers... I did for a very long time, and then I learned about Dr. Judy Wood and her amazing research, and it raised enough questions in my mind to start re-examining my belief that planes did hit the towers. Now, I honestly think it was something other than a major airliner.

1. One reason that I question whether or not commercial airliners hit the towers is because:

Softer elements cannot cut through harder elements, thus...

...Aluminum CANNOT cut through steel, just like copper does not cut through diamond (FACT).

...but Steel CAN cut through Aluminum. (FACT).

In fact, BIRDS can even cut through Aluminum (see below).



So, for those of you that have been assuming that aluminum can some how cut through steel, I now have a question for you:

If birds can cut through aluminum (as seen in the picture of the aluminum airplane that hit a bird), does that mean birds can cut through steel?

It is commonly known in chemistry that harder elements can cut through softer elements, but not the reverse. The "hardness" of a material is classified using Mohs Scale, which explains how 'harder' materials can scratch / cut 'softer' materials, but not the other way around. See here: http://chemistry.about.com/od/geochemistry/a/mohsscale.htm and here: http://www.jewelry-secrets.com/Other/Whats-The-Mohs-Scale-Of-Hardness/The-Mohs-Scale.html

This is why Diamond, one of the hardest materials of all, is used in the toughest situations, because it cuts through most everything since it is one of the hardest materials known.

Aluminum is much softer than Steel, therefore, Aluminum cannot cut through Steel, just like Copper cannot cut into Diamond.

I learned this in junior high school Chemistry, and it was a basic concept that was used over and over again throughout highschool and college chemistry courses.


There are a few exceptions I know of, one of which is when water is highly focused and sprayed at high velocity to cut through metals. They often add abrasive elements to the water to assist with cutting. The water has to be focused into a very narrow beam though so that all of the pressure is applied to a very small area, and the water has to be accelerated to 900+ miles per hour. see here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

Another exception is when a lead bullet pierces through harder metals, but as with the water exception, this is because the lead bullet exerts its pressure on a very small surface area, striking at a very extreme velocity.


2. Another reason is because many of the hijackers have been reported to be alive and well.

See here:

1. http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm

2. http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/identities.html


3. Another reason I believe commercial airliners did not hit the towers is because many videos have shown some type of infrared light-targetting mechanism on the WTC buildings as the "plane" approached, which is characteristic of a large cruise missile of some kind. Here, see the light for yourself:

1. Laser Targeting UAV, Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4BJ89Df5Q

2. ABL Laser spotting and fly by wtc I jet impact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9z15bgkoy4


And here is just one of several types of remote piloted cruise missiles which could have been used: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-86c.htm


4. And here is another reason, relating to video footage that has not really been closely examined by the mainstream media:

Chopper 5 & the Missing Shadow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYQHD69ojGY


5. Another reason I question whether or not large airliners hit the WTC buildings is because many witnesses and many reporters did not seem to think it was a plane.

On-Site 9/11 News Reporter Gives Eye Witness Testimony: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrwF0Dx_FuU


6. And here is yet another reason I have been questioning the official airliner story, after seeing how easy it is to create a fake airliner impact using computer technology:

9/11 Ghost Plane Theory - Digital Computer Recreation of WTC Plane Impact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWZyXRuz1Uk


7. More videos which demonstrate why I do not think large airliners hit the buildings:

Did Large Airliners Really Hit The WTC Buildings on 9/11? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gujn4jMGgIE

No Major Airline Wreckage at Pentagon on 9/11 | CNN News LIVE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxfsY9kX5U4


-------------------------------------------------

I'm not saying I know exactly what happened, but I just see too much evidence contradicting the "airliner" story to accept it without a doubt.

It seems that the criminals behind 9/11 are getting us to hate terrorists AND hate our government, by blaming the "hijackings" on terrorists and blaming 9/11 on our government. I think the reality of the situation is that the "terrorists" behind 9/11 are trying to blame everyone else so that they can get away with the 9/11 attacks and use 9/11 to bring about the police-state they desire within the USA.

Please let me know your thoughts,


-Abe

_________________
Abrahm
Mindoutpsyde.com

Quote:
Dr. Judy Wood on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. Defendants (Supreme Court case): http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Big Boss



Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 822
Location: Outer Heaven

PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey there Abe, I see you're still kicking lol, nice. I see that your entire argument is built on sand. Let me explain how. You say that Alum. simply CANNOT cut into steel, and that basically seems to be your argument, and I see you have images to support your claim (is that a light aircraft in your photos?, are all planes made equally? I would think a heavier plane requires more aluminum, I wouldn't know). My only issue seems to be the fact that you fail to exhaust the nature of those buildings. I quote Fintan Dunne "They were NOT normal buildings" They had a steel strength index far too high than your average steel index for a building. I believe it was 90ksi steel (as opposed to 50ksi) which makes the steel very brittle and FAR easier to "break" rather than, say, bend.

I agree, the Hijackers being alive strikes me as odd and I haven't seen or come across any news in BFN concerning that story (I know, I know guys....I need to search if its here lol) Don't worry lol, I am still asking questions and being cautious, but truth is my goal. As for your videos, I'd have to study them, get some analysis on which are false, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3174
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big Boss wrote:
"They were NOT normal buildings"


Just to add to this,
the outside of the buildings.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=104

Quote:
The twin towers of the World Trade Center, a New York City landmark and the tallest buildings in the world when completed in 1973, were noted for their incredible 110-story height and their gleaming exterior. The towers were clad in an aluminum alloy sheathing that gave the buildings a golden sheen at sunrise and sunset. The material covered the closely-spaced exterior steel columns, enhancing their soaring appearance.




Quote:
David Shayt
September 11 Collecting Curator
Museum Specialist, Division of Cultural History

It took five or six trips to finally find the steel that we now have. Steel that is manageable in size and yet robust enough to reflect the size and grandeur of the World Trade Center. Also steel that could be identified by its tower and its floor level. So the objects in the collection from these scrap yards have those signature elements: size, identification and most importantly deformation. Twisting, wrenching, and tortured steel.

We also collected from those yards a twisted piece of the aluminum cladding that wrapped the steel, that gave the Trade Centers their characteristic shine. It was a special anodized aluminum sheet that was bolted to the outsides of the steel columns--quickly stripped off and folded up like wrapping paper during the collapse of the buildings. There were great knots of it all over the Schnitzer scrap yard. I found a piece that was both twisted, but also had a sense of what it used to look like, some straight elements and some ways in which--that showed how it was attached to the steel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.