DISINFO CORNER: NO PLANES / VIDEO FAKERY / SPACE LASERS

[matrixcutter]

Occam's razor.

Nukes are not needed to take down a building like that.  So, why would they be used.  When have they ever been used before in demolitons?  Thye are probably not nearly as accurate as well-placed thermite cutting chrarges which were probably pre-placed weeks or months befer 911.

The people who did 911 are not experimenters.  I'm sure they used suitable methods to take down the buildings in their own footprint the way that they did fall.

Prove you can do that with underground nukes and shock-waves from one epicenter.  I don't think you can.

Matrix,

I would pose the same arguments to you.

What do you want me to say?
They didn't use nukes, as I said.  They used directed energy weaponry and it turned steel to dust and re-created various results from the Hutchison Effect.  The buildings didn't fall, they "dustified".

And Occam's Razor has no place in something as complicated as 9/11.

[citizenx]

Hutchison effect.  I don't even know where to start.  I don't think you are even amenable to scientific reasoning. This stuff deserves to be parked right here in disinfo/fakery.

Occam's razor has a role to play in nuclear physics, brain science, and yes -- 911.

Directed energy weapons are completely unnecessary to explain all this.  I suppose Darth Cheney himslef pushed the button form the Death Star (and not the PEOC console in his underground bunker).

You have watched/read way too much Sci-Fi.

Was this a plot by those super-hot women on Venus to subjugate all men, and kill all Earth women?

Read less Sci-Fi and more science and philosophy of science. Assuming you really do read.

[RabidSheep]

You just don't get it, whether i though giant purple cosmic rabbits kicked the buildings down, i would still be demanding an independant investigation.
Shame on you to think that i'm posting this to discredit the truthmovement. I have been a truther for last 4 years, and will be perfectly happy for someone to come out and debunk this Nuke theory to smitherines.
But i think you will find the truth will get out in the end. This ones staying!

Good luck with that.

[Viper]

..I don't think you are even amenable...

Now you done it, standby for reality check in 5  ... 4 ...

[citizenx]

I don't think Matrix would know reality if it came up and took a big bite of his tucchus.

I can't wait to hear this "reality check".

Or, will it be a Rael-ity check?

[Finchie]

Khazelov's interview makes the claim that the US government is a VICTIM on 9/11. To me not only does the evidence suggest Khazelov's theory is wrong because the towers are destroyed from the top to the bottom (by timed detonations in a top to bottom direction) rather than simultaneous destruction of the whole structure but I am concerned that this theory gets the perpetrators of 9/11 off the hook.

The US government becomes a victim because they were forced to destroy the towers by nuclear explosion to prevent a nuclear device (planted by someone else) in the towers wiping out the whole of New York.
Who planted the nuclear device in Khazelov's theory? The 26 videos don't say but he invites us to buy his book to find out.

[matrixcutter]

Hutchison effect.  I don't even know where to start.

You should probably start by finding out what it actually is.  Then you should analyse what actually happened on 9/11, review the anomalies at the WTC and compare that to the Hutchison Effect.  Dr Wood has it all on her website.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

Then you can try to come up with a hypothesis that explains all the evidence and has nothing to do with what Dr Wood talks about, if you still refuse to treat her information seriously and scientifically.

I don't think you are even amenable to scientific reasoning. This stuff deserves to be parked right here in disinfo/fakery.

Yes, there are a lot of groupthinkers in the "9/11 truth movement" who have exactly the opinion they have been conditioned to have about evidence which they clearly haven't even bothered to review for themselves.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as directed energy weaponry, or just that it couldn't have been used on 9/11?  If it couldn't have been used, then are you prepared to attempt to explain why this was an impossibility?  And then can you explain the dustifying of the steel.

Occam's razor has a role to play in nuclear physics, brain science, and yes -- 911.

No, it doesn't have a place in 9/11 (except to mislead people).  To suggest that it does is to display a fundamental misunderstanding of what it actually is, assuming you don't believe that you know everything there is to know about what happened that day and how it happened, which you don't.

Directed energy weapons are completely unnecessary to explain all this.

If you ignore most of the important evidence, then yes, they are.  Obviously you will never get to the truth if you do that.

Steel turned to dust.  How do you explain that?  Or do you prefer to pretend that it simply didn't happen?

I suppose Darth Cheney himslef pushed the button form the Death Star (and not the PEOC console in his underground bunker).

Your poor quality sarcasm does not affect the evidence.

You have watched/read way too much Sci-Fi.

No, I haven't.

And again, are you saying that directed energy weaponry is science fiction, that it doesn't even exist?  This silly and pathetic comment of yours implies that you put directed energy weaponry in the category of science fiction.   Are you willing to say explicitly that directed energy weaponry does not even exist, or to clarify that this is not what you meant to imply?

Was this a plot by those super-hot women on Venus to subjugate all men, and kill all Earth women?

Read less Sci-Fi and more science and philosophy of science. Assuming you really do read.

This response shows that your posting on this thread is not motivated by a desire for serious rational discussion.  Your opposition to this evidence is based on what other people told you to think, rather than on your own reasoned analysis of this evidence.  You couldn't have made that much more apparent.

[InfoArsenal]

Matrix,

I would pose the same arguments to you.
What do you want me to say?
They didn't use nukes, as I said.  They used directed energy weaponry and it turned steel to dust and re-created various results from the Hutchison Effect.  The buildings didn't fall, they "dustified".

And Occam's Razor has no place in something as complicated as 9/11.

Steel DID NOT turn into dust, you're living in a fantasy world.

There were massive beams laying around everywhere like logs.

The concrete and glass turned to dust, but the steel basically fell down in segments with the rubble.

And the energy weapon thing is just so stupid I'm not even going to go into that. Anyone who saw those building collapse saw (and even heard) explosions.

[carlee]

Steel DID NOT turn into dust, you're living in a fantasy world.

There were massive beams laying around everywhere like logs.

The concrete and glass turned to dust, but the steel basically fell down in segments with the rubble.

And the energy weapon thing is just so stupid I'm not even going to go into that. Anyone who saw those building collapse saw (and even heard) explosions.

              most of the steel was pulverised    we are talking about high tech weapons that were used for this not nukes  check out Joseph P. Farrell  works  http://www.thebyteshow.com/JosephPFarrell.html

[matrixcutter]

Steel DID NOT turn into dust,

Yes it did.  You can actually see it happening on some videos.

Around the 7 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU
The best clip is from about 8 minutes 41 seconds.

Andrew Johnson

... if you look at the pieces that are coming down you can actually see some of the pieces turning to dust ... This particularly is the smoking gun evidence which I think you'll find a lot of people not happy talking about; this is about 70 columns of unsupported steel turning to dust before your very eyes. ... Explosives don't turn steel to dust.

you're living in a fantasy world.

No, I'm living in the real world, in which thermite and/or bombs do not turn steel to dust.  But something else does, evidently.

There were massive beams laying around everywhere like logs.

Yes there were beams laying around.  I'm not saying that 100% of the steel was turned to dust, but most of it was.

What percentage of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel that made up the two 110-storey buildings would you say was laying around after the so-called collapse?  What happened to the rest of it?

The concrete and glass turned to dust, but the steel basically fell down in segments with the rubble.

Then where did it all go?  How do two 110-storey steel-framed buildings leave a pile of steel in which most of the steel has disappeared?

And the energy weapon thing is just so stupid I'm not even going to go into that.

A worthless comment.  All it does is serve to highlight that people have been trained en masse to refuse to discuss directed energy weaponry, without even knowing what they are refusing to discuss.  Or the evidence is misrepresented by the use of deliberately misleading terminology.

Anyone who saw those building collapse saw (and even heard) explosions.

And anyone can see that the steel turned to dust, unless they have been conditioned not to see it.
That people heard and/or saw explosions in no way negates this fact.

[InfoArsenal]

              most of the steel was pulverised    we are talking about high tech weapons that were used for this not nukes  check out Joseph P. Farrell  works  http://www.thebyteshow.com/JosephPFarrell.html

Hey maybe it was the reptiles using mind energy or Obama's martian cousins?

No I bet it was just GW and Obama teaming up and flapping their big ears together until it collapsed.

How can you believe any crap you find on the internet?

Do you realize that we people on Earth lie?

[InfoArsenal]

Yes it did.  You can actually see it happening on some videos.

Around the 7 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU
The best clip is just before 9 minutes.

Andrew JohnsonNo, I'm living in the real world, in which thermite and/or bombs do not turn steel to dust.  But something else does, evidently.

Yes there were beams laying around.  I'm not saying that 100% of the steel was turned to dust, but most of it was.

What percentage of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel that made up the two 110-storey buildings would you say was laying around after the so-called collapse?  What happened to the rest of it?

Then where did it all go?  How do two 110-storey steel-framed buildings leave a pile of steel in which most of the steel has disappeared?

A worthless comment.  All it does is serve to highlight that people have been trained en masse to refuse to discuss directed energy weaponry, without even knowing what they are refusing to discuss.  Or the evidence is misrepresented by the use of deliberately misleading terminology.

And anyone can see that the steel turned to dust, unless they have been conditioned not to see it.
That people heard and/or saw explosions in no way negates this fact.

Oh man. The steel was all laying right there on the floor if it wasn't melted. There was no full disintegration/vaporization of the building. Did they turn the beam down to make sure not to get all the steel laying around according to your brain?

There were papers flying out of the building and doors blowing off. A ray beam that would have damaged steel and concrete would have also damaged the papers, but it didn't. You're living in lala land.

But then you think the aliens did it right?

Oh and before we go any further, what was the origin/radius/and shape of your weapon's field?

[EvadingGrid]

This has to be the most bogus thread I've seen in ages.

[matrixcutter]

Oh man. The steel was all laying right there on the floor if it wasn't melted.

You seem to be confused.  Was it all laying right there on the floor or had it melted?  Which is it?

There was no full disintegration/vaporization of the building. Did they turn the beam down to make sure not to get all the steel laying around according to your brain?

You can see the steel turning to dust in the video I just posted.

Around the 7 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU
The best clip is from about 8 minutes 41 seconds.

Andrew Johnson

... if you look at the pieces that are coming down you can actually see some of the pieces turning to dust ... This particularly is the smoking gun evidence which I think you'll find a lot of people not happy talking about; this is about 70 columns of unsupported steel turning to dust before your very eyes. ... Explosives don't turn steel to dust.

If you want to pretend that it didn't happen just to avoid rejecting what you already believe there's nothing anybody can do about that.

But you are ignoring the most important evidence, so your opinion loses any value.

There were papers flying out of the building and doors blowing off. A ray beam that would have damaged steel and concrete would have also damaged the papers, but it didn't.

Really?  Why is that?
Do you understand what you're talking about at all?  Have you even attempted to do any research?

The fact that this paper was not burned actually proves that the steel was not and could not have been melted by heat.  But never mind science and logic, this is 9/11 we're talking about.  Just think what you're told to think by the "9/11 truth movement" and let other people worry about whether it makes sense or not.  

You're living in lala land.

As I said, your opinion is worthless because you not only ignore the evidence, but you don't understand what that evidence actually is.

But then you think the aliens did it right?

What a desperate thing to be reduced to saying.  One more person to add to the "not worth wasting any time on" list.

[InfoArsenal]

You seem to be confused.  Was it all laying right there on the floor or had it melted?  Which is it?

You can see the steel turning to dust in the video I just posted.

Around the 7 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU
The best clip is from about 8 minutes 41 seconds.

Andrew Johnson
If you want to pretend that it didn't happen just to avoid rejecting what you already believe there's nothing anybody can do about that.

But you are ignoring the most important evidence, so your opinion loses any value.

Really?  Why is that?
Do you understand what you're talking about at all?  Have you even attempted to do any research?

The fact that this paper was not burned actually proves that the steel was not and could not have been melted by heat.  But never mind science and logic, this is 9/11 we're talking about.  Just think what you're told to think by the "9/11 truth movement" and let other people worry about whether it makes sense or not.  

As I said, your opinion is worthless because you not only ignore the evidence, but you don't understand what that evidence actually is.

What a desperate thing to be reduced to saying.  One more person to add to the "not worth wasting any time on" list.

First off your buddy sent me a link to alien weapons.

Secondly you do not describe your fantasy weapon in any way and make claims by known disinfoists with their stupid energy ray beam nonsense they can't describe.

Do you sit around talking about how the 'magic bullet' that killed Kennedy was made by a terminator from the future?

That's literally how you are drawing your conclusions with faulty evidence.

[matrixcutter]

First off your buddy sent me a link to alien weapons.

What buddy?  Whoever it was, alien weapons have nothing to do with 9/11.

Secondly you do not describe your fantasy weapon in any way and make claims by known disinfoists with their stupid energy ray beam nonsense they can't describe.

When you say known disinfoists, you just mean people you have been told are spreading disinformation.  Despite what some people might think, they are not necessarily the same thing, and you cannot possibly judge whether they are the same thing in any given case without understanding or even attempting to understand the information that has been labelled disinformation.

You have already demonstrated that you don't know what the evidence is and referring to directed energy weaponry as "stupid energy ray beam" does nothing to change that.

Anybody who wants a better understanding of what the evidence is, and what directed energy weaponry is, how it works and what it is capable of should look at Dr Wood's lectures on youtube and the interviews she has done.  It is clearly not fantasy, and the information is there for anybody who wants to find it.

It is far better for people to look at the evidence and listen to what Dr Wood says herself, rather than listening to what other people say about her and the evidence.  Most of what other people in the "9/11 truth movement" say about Dr Wood and the evidence is misleading and/or false.  Dr Wood's information is misrepresented all the time, hence groupthinkers using terms like "stupid energy ray beam".

But many people don't want to think for themselves, so shaping their opinions is often very easy, whether these people think they have "woken up" or not.

Do you sit around talking about how the 'magic bullet' that killed Kennedy was made by a terminator from the future?

No.

That's literally how you are drawing your conclusions with faulty evidence.

No, that's literally nothing like it.

Have a nice life, and try thinking for yourself some time.  It's a good thing, honest.

-----

Around the 7 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU
The best clip is from about 8 minutes 41 seconds.

Andrew Johnson

... if you look at the pieces that are coming down you can actually see some of the pieces turning to dust ... This particularly is the smoking gun evidence which I think you'll find a lot of people not happy talking about; this is about 70 columns of unsupported steel turning to dust before your very eyes. ... Explosives don't turn steel to dust.

[Freeski]

Around the 7 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU
The best clip is from about 8 minutes 41 seconds.

Some additional info, opinion and videos on the disintegrating spire:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=58685.0

[iks83]

Hah the video is laughable. Nowhere do you see steel turning to dust there. What you see, and if you have a decent quality video you will see it, is the spire breaking down and since there is still concrete on there or dust it gets shaken off. Also.... did anyone of those people tell you what steel dust looks like? I mean steel dust... should be easy to find in samples right? where is it?

[matrixcutter]

Nowhere do you see steel turning to dust there.

That's exactly what you see.  Here are the stills.  It is very clear.  You would have to lie to yourself not to see it.


Steel columns disintegrate into steel dust with WTC7 and water tower in the foreground.

The same steel-dust phenomenon from another source and perspective.







But people can be trained with enough propaganda and repetition not to see what is right front of their eyes.  It happens every day.

The steel turned to dust and you can see it.  I'm not going to argue with anyone who says that it didn't happen, because we can all see that it did.  People can argue that something else is happening if they want, but they are wrong.  They might as well argue that the sky is green.  You can see for yourself that they are wrong.

[TheCaliKid]

^ Look closely. Could it simply not be that the steel is collapsing and the dust is momentarily left behind in it's place? Seems logical to me.

[phosphene]

That's exactly what you see.  Here are the stills.  It is very clear.  You would have to lie to yourself not to see it.


Steel columns disintegrate into steel dust with WTC7 and water tower in the foreground.

The same steel-dust phenomenon from another source and perspective.

But people can be trained with enough propaganda and repetition not to see what is right front of their eyes.  It happens every day.

The steel turned to dust and you can see it.  I'm not going to argue with anyone who says that it didn't happen, because we can all see that it did.  People can argue that something else is happening if they want, but they are wrong.  They might as well argue that the sky is green.  You can see for yourself that they are wrong.

the metal structure falls vertically, hits the ground, dust is shaken off the structure, the structure falls, the dust cloud in shape of the structure dissipates.

u can see it at 8:45...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU

[citizenx]

Oh no.  That would be far to simple an explanation.

Hutchison effect, which supposedly makes metal liquid (sometimes -- how? -- why? -- when?) chose this time to make it into powder.

Dontcha know?

[InfoArsenal]

I can't believe how gullible people are...  

Obviously the steel is going to be covered in debris and dust there--this is what was left before the final collapse. Plus you can see that the building is obscuring where the steel dropped to. Steel falls faster than dust so you're not seeing it in all of these frames (plus motion blur makes things look lighter/faded). Look at the second picture--you can freakin see it falling!

You must think magic is real because a magician can pull up a curtain and use some smoke to make something disappear.

[InfoArsenal]

BTW, I guarantee there is footage of this or at least this type of thing being filmed from the font. I remember watching the steel collapse live and the beams drop to the ground fast as clouds rose.

This reminds me of the people who saw a jpeg block on Ron Paul's lip in a video and are now claiming he is an alien with a hologram cloaking device.

[TheCaliKid]

This reminds me of the people who saw a jpeg block on Ron Paul's lip in a video and are now claiming he is an alien with a hologram cloaking device.

LOL!

[iks83]

This reminds me of the people who saw a jpeg block on Ron Paul's lip in a video and are now claiming he is an alien with a hologram cloaking device.

Exactly... or when people blink and the eyes get blocky omfg a reptilian!

But posting stills without any timecode... can it get more deceptive? So you show 2 pictures that are a split second apart, then the next one that is a bit longer apart from the previous and the last one after the spire had collapsed leaving dusttrails behind manufacturing the illusion of steel going poof into dust.... well at least it is an illusion for the retarded people. For the rest of us its obvious whats going on.

[Freeski]

Exactly... or when people blink and the eyes get blocky omfg a reptilian!

But posting stills without any timecode... can it get more deceptive? So you show 2 pictures that are a split second apart, then the next one that is a bit longer apart from the previous and the last one after the spire had collapsed leaving dusttrails behind manufacturing the illusion of steel going poof into dust.... well at least it is an illusion for the retarded people. For the rest of us its obvious whats going on.

It's really that obvious to you?

[iks83]

It's really that obvious to you?

Of course it is. Just as the garbage the tv fakery crowd is spewing is obviously a total deception but luckly only the total retards are falling for that. When suddenly a shaking antenna on a van becomes something mysterious that deserved an arrow and a lable saying WTF IS THAT?!?! Or when 2 videos are compared, shot from different locations, they claim it is one and the same but oh my god they screwed up and moved buildings on different layers around. You cant get more retarded than that. Now we have the laserbeam/nuke/steeltodust crowd who is using similar tricks to win some more retards over. Same with the moon hoax crowd but thats running for so long already that that garbage grew so large that it established itself.

[matrixcutter]

But posting stills without any timecode... can it get more deceptive?

I posted the video footage first you ridiculous waste of a brain.  Still, anything to attack the messenger.

I'll leave the groupthinkers to gang up on the distorted version of me that they seem to feel the need to create.

If someone has genuinely looked into the information that Dr Wood has found, and the connection to the Hutichison Effect (and understand what that is rather than just asking questions which highlight their ignorance) and they disagree with it and can articulate why they disagree with it and explain the reasoning, that's great.  I'm all for that.

But when people are just copying what others have told them to think and don't even understand the arguments they are using, these people are no more awake than someone who watches FOX news 24/7 and believes whatever Bill O'Reilly/Sean Hannity says.  It's pathetic.

[citizenx]

Hutchison effect, which supposedly makes metal liquid (sometimes -- how? -- why? -- when?) chose this time to make it into powder.

Well, why powder this time?

How does Hutchison effect work?

Why don't you start with these two questions, Matrixcutter.  Or are you as mysterious as Mr. Hutchison.  Maybe, you would tell us if we handed you a big bag of money or something.

Sorry, I don't have one.  And I like to know what I'm buying before I buy it.

[oyashango]

What do you guys think of this new 8 part doc-discussion with structural-physicisits Dr. Woods who
is postulating that 911 was not due to air plane attacks, but "free energy" directed weapontry?
======

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qprBH8BuvXE&feature=related

[Dig]

What do you guys think of this new 8 part doc-discussion with structural-physicisits Dr. Woods who
is postulating that 911 was not due to air plane attacks, but "free energy" directed weapontry?
======

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qprBH8BuvXE&feature=related

I think it is perfect timing to distract from the BP false flag, Iran attack plans, and Rockefeller's plan to nuke the internet. but that is just me

[citizenx]

+1

[Viper]

-1

[citizenx]

Viper, you're in Ireland, right?

Hutchison effect must work in Ireland, too.  Just not America.

I though it was just a Canadian thing.

[Viper]

Viper, you're in Ireland, right?

Hutchison effect must work in Ireland, too.  Just not America.

I though it was just a Canadian thing.

1 I have no idea what ya talking about, i'm against peer prressure and group think is all.

2 Why do you keep asking folks where there from?

3 I strongly doubt you be in s korea friend.

[citizenx]

You don't have to answer.  But I'm an American living in SK.  You can come and visit me if you want, though I'm going back to the states for three weeks in July/August, so it would have to be before or after.

So, do you believe in "free energy"?  Hutchison effect?  Do you believe WTC buildings were taken down by unconventional means -- not explosives/thermite/nanothermite?

Was this just off-off-topic?
  
Forget about where you are at, where do you stand?

BTW, I only have about four of five friends in the entire world, and you are not yet one of them.  So, stop the patronizing "my friend" crap. (If it's any comfort to you, my friends think I'm an anti-semite too, though.)

[Viper]

..So, do you believe in "free energy"?  Hutchison effect?  Do you believe WTC buildings were taken down by unconventional means -- not explosives/thermite/nanothermite?

I found some of the pics of the melted cars interesting, as well the fact there was a hurricane off-shore that day, i also think they got ''weapons" that they probably gotta test out at times, on 9/11 i dunno what brought down the towers and i don't believe a big passenger plane hit the pentagon.

Was this just off-off-topic?

 
I guess a little bit of that, but more importantly it serves as a good lesson in thinking for yourself

Forget about where you are at, where do you stand?..

I stand as an individual belonging to no man, NGO, nor secret service (acting or retired)

[oyashango]

What do you guys think of this new 8 part doc-discussion with structural-physicisits Dr. Woods who
is postulating that 911 was not due to air plane attacks, but "free energy" directed weapontry?
======

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qprBH8BuvXE&feature=related

LOL! Somehow, I kinda knew it would end up here which of course, answers my question.
She was postulating that the pulverization of everything but the flying papers, and the fact of no one being seriously burnt in the fires that followed are an indication that some sort of high bean concentration of energy was being used.  I am by no means even a novice in this dept. but she certainly seems sure of herself.

[citizenx]

I found some of the pics of the melted cars interesting, as well the fact there was a hurricane off-shore that day, i also think they got ''weapons" that they probably gotta test out at times, on 9/11 i dunno what brought down the towers and i don't believe a big passenger plane hit the pentagon.  
I guess a little bit of that, but more importantly it serves as a good lesson in thinking for yourselfI stand as an individual belonging to no man, NGO, nor secret service (acting or retired)

Actually, I'm undecided about the pentagon myself.  I do think for myself, too.

As for WTC, I don't think it was a "test" or anything that experimental.  I think that it was a controlled demolition, pure and simple, by the book.  That is why they came down as in free-fall, pancaked.  I don't think the NWO 'experiments'.  They pulled the buildings and the planes were a cover.  That is where I stand on that.  (I am fairly confident that is the general chain of events in NY, though as I said, I'm still on the fence re. D.C.)

I am hardly lock-step with Dig all the time.  We butt heads plenty.  But, on this I guess I am in agreement.