Information-based Technology/Physics

Replying with a new topic from the Pete Santilli & Dr. Judy Wood to avoid interweaving conversations.

Mods, could the other posts along this topic also be moved here for reference as well please? Tigersoap's question appears to be the start of the divergent conversation.

sitting said:

Thanks. Very interesting read.

Assuming (for fun) that an information disruption (borrowing Ark's term) gizmo was involved, do you think it was more likely a fire and forget thingy or does it have to dictate continually the altered info stream?

Click to expand...

Even curious speculation breaks down here, because the answer would depend on the implementation not the concept. It's like asking if a phone line can be used to talk directly or deliver a message like a voicemail; it depends entirely on how the device is made (it just so happens that “phones” that can't talk directly but can send/receive voice messages are somewhat rare :P)

[quote author=sitting]
What part does randomness play in this?
[/quote]

It would be extremely hard to “contain” because the odds things going catastrophically wrong would be pretty high. If this concept is what the Philadelphia Experiment was based, my guess is that if I could comprehend the scope of “what could gone wrong”, what has been reported and said by the C's would in the range of “not too bad.”

[quote author=sitting]
And at what point do you think it stops?
[/quote]

Again, would depend on the implementation from a technological perspective.

[quote author=sitting]
Regarding the amount of data, I'm reminded again of the soul imprint abduction process. The entire body of the victim is replicated. In exact form. The information field would necessarily encompass the totality of all cells in the body (10 to the 13th power)...multiplied by the number of atoms in each cell. That is simply huge, and may compare favorably with the totality of the inanimate structure of a large building. Since abductions occur with ease, the computational power currently available (perhaps rationed at 3 rd density) may be greater than we think.
[/quote]

Those abductions are in 4D, and therefore the “computers” used would have a comparably infinite amount of “storage” and “processing speed/efficiency”.

[quote author=sitting]
Sound was mentioned (in transcripts) on several occasions as the agent which moved heavy stone blocks. The above Ra except however implied that thought or intent (as in request) was responsible. Is there any indication that sound and thought are somehow related?
[/quote]

What seems most intuitive to me is that sound would be a kind of medium which acts as a catalyst for the thought/intent to be more easily transmitted and perhaps as part of an interface to translate the “request” into “language” that 1D can “understand”.

Saieden said:

(it just so happens that “phones” that can't talk directly but can send/receive voice messages are somewhat rare :P)

Click to expand...

Oh really???? Have you ever used an iPhone 3G on AT&T?

On a more serious note, thank you for your reply. Certainly more food for thought.


PS For the record, the iPhone, on a lousy AT&T network is without question an information disruption gizmo. I can barely make out the conversation when the kids call from California sometimes. :P

Saieden said:

sitting said:

Assuming (for fun) that an information disruption (borrowing Ark's term) gizmo was involved, do you think it was more likely a fire and forget thingy or does it have to dictate continually the altered info stream?

Click to expand...

Even curious speculation breaks down here, because the answer would depend on the implementation not the concept.

Click to expand...

Yes...implementation. They had to be very careful with that.

In the radio show, Ark asked Judy about the "directedness" of this energy weapon. He felt (as I did) that it wasn't really that "directed" because some cars were affected and others not. (I would call it maybe "fuzzy directedness" at best). Judy got defensive and said well, it was directed enough to hit mostly the WTC prefix structures.

What may be relevant here is that it HAD to be fuzzily directed! A purely coherent directedness would result in cartoon like features which no one would buy. To sell the scenario, it had to be fuzzy. It could not be surgical or clinical. And it's debatable whether this fuzzy attack took greater or less computational power than a purely coherent one.

Another implementation element was the time it took for the towers to "fall" (dustify). They made it close to free-fall speed...but it wasn't identical. It was in fact a bit faster than free-fall velocity. Studying the videos, I get the impression that they could've dustified the structure as any rate they want, but chose to keep things "real". The slight time discrepancy was telling.

The bottom line is when you have access to a comprehensive body of forensic evidence, and relatively trustworthy data (not opinion), you can draw your own conclusions.