Show #15: No Ordinary Inside Job: The 9/11 Psy-Ops

[Guardian]

I also read tons of material by authors that I KNOW have an agenda to conceal or mislead. If you shut out all of this kind of stuff you'll never find anything.

Now that's interesting, because I do shut out all of this kind of stuff, and I still found you guys?

That's really not at all a fair statement to make and you're making it just to try to 'win your argument' which also isn't very helpful.

No I'm not, and your misinterpreting what I said isn't very helpful either. I'm pointing out the FACT that I did not have to read books written by disinfo agents to find out anything I wanted to know, at all, ever. If I want to know something I either do the research myself, or I rely on someone/something I trust, but I do not waste time studying material I know is written by a liar, disinfo agent, moron, etc.

I found this group, and decided to stay, the same way I found out Bridges, Weidner. Stormboob, Wheeler, etc. were disinfo, by studying what people DO, not reading their books.

You didn't "find us" because you "shut out all this kind of stuff" you were just lucky enough to find us in spite of doing that.

Actually, if I was the sort to read the books written by the disinfo agents, it's highly likely that I would never have given this group a second thought once I found the info about Pepin I was looking for. My point is that I found this group by DOING, not reading a disinfo agent's book.

Much of this discussion has been centered around why I should read a book written by a disinfo agent...not whether or not Laura should. My point is that while Laura actually has a reason and need to read these books, I don't... and NEVER have to do anything I've ever done.

The whole point is that if you stick your head in the sand about stuff because you don't "like" people who write the stuff then you're basically shutting out a lot of reality just like the newagers shut out the negative and focus only on love and light.

That's not the point at all...not even close. All you're doing is throwing out baseless accusations and comparisons here that have nothing to do with my point. Whether or not I "like" an author has NOTHING to do with whether or not I read their material. All that matters is that I can trust that they have presented their evidence as accurately as possible.

It's not just liars I discard either. Like we were talking about in another thread, I'm not going waste my time arguing about the colors that show up in a photograph because I know the camera can misrepresent those colors due to rendering, the lighting etc.

In fact, I'd say that none of us would be here, including the SOTT site if Laura hadn't read information and gleaned the truth from mountains of disinformation.

Now you're getting closer to my point. Laura is a TEACHER, so she needs to read the stuff published by disinfo agents, ego sacks, etc.. I try to protect Teachers, Healers, etc. ...so I don't.

Learning is simply not a black and white endeavor and it's a bit disingenuous for you to glean the rewards of a process and then denigrate that process

I did not do that either. I stated that I will not waste my time on a book written by a disinfo agent, and I won't. I will however, spend that time helping someone who might need to read that crap.

If you don't want to "waste your time" doing that, fine - that's why we do it - to help others, including you.

Thank you. I, in turn, will spend my time trying to protect you from the various elements who don't want you to do this as best I can...as well as spread the word, and do assorted other grunt work. All of which does not require me to read a book written by a disinfo agent, which was/is my point.

 

[aragorn]

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers
(Updated 4/12/07)
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics
Co-author: Matt Sullivan

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

The paper is technical, but it's only about 15 pages long (31 pages including footnotes) and I found it quite understandable. It convincingly debunks Wood's arguments in a rigorous manner. I think it's very credible.

I would encourage others who have been impressed by Wood's book to read this paper. It takes her questions seriously, sets forth analyses of relevant information, and dismantles her contentions in a straightforward way that demolishes her positions and theories. I've lost interest in Wood's scenario.

However, I don't regret having taken the time to view Wood's presentation and consider her work, as I wouldn't have found Jenkins' analysis if I hadn't, and that answers some questions and fills in some holes in my own rather casual understanding of what happened on that bright morning 12 years ago.

One of the problems with Jenkins' paper is that he claims there was the right amount of debris, goes anal over the sizes of the bits which is a distraction because we all saw the towers turning to dust AS THEY FELL.

Anyway, I asked Ark to look at Jenkins' paper and after saying that there are a number of problems but it would take him a week to produce the analysis (and he's trying to finish a book), he commented:

Jenkins writes:

"The Associated Massive Energy Scale ---
It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the
steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers. "

This shows that Wood used the very bad term "directed energy beam" and he took the opportunity to attack it. If she would call it differently - he would not be able to do so. It is clear that it was not "energy" that destroyed the towers. Whatever it was - it was destroying molecular bonds, and this can be done by destroying the information - like viruses. They are not using "energy" to destroy cells.

Another example is a catalyzer in chemical reactions. It's not "directed energy".

She got what she deserves.

So, one wonders if she was set up to use these terms, to create this theory of "directed energy beam weapons" to create so much disorder around the obvious fact of the "dustification" of the towers that it would get lost in the "dust" of dispute, so to say.

I found the Jenkins paper interesting, because even if he is clearly coloring and exaggerating some points, the text, depth of detail, and equations reads like "real technical science". I mean, in comparison Wood's RFC paper is nothing more than elementary school physics and a lot of images. I was surprised how non scholarly her paper was, knowing she has a lot of credentials. For example, giving the equations for 'Law of conservation of energy' to the NIST guys seems ridiculous.

I get the feeling that her request for correction to NIST was intended to fail, it's such light reading. Just a publicity stunt, maybe?

 

[Guardian]

Just a publicity stunt, maybe?

Yup, and a CLASSIC tactic at that. Either suing someone, or getting yourself sued, is some of the best free publicity available.

 

[Guardian]

these leaders have placed a high priority on maintaining an environment at the US Army Research Office such that it is possible for scientists at ARO to continue to participate personally in forefront research as a way of maintaining a broad and current knowledge of selected fields of modern science.

Ok, that was my chuckle for the day.

 

[QuantumLogic]

Phonons = "heat particles". From Wikipedia:

In physics, a phonon is a collective excitation in a periodic, elastic arrangement of atoms or molecules in condensed matter, such as solids and some liquids. Often referred to as a quasiparticle, it represents an excited state in the quantum mechanical quantization of the modes of vibrations of elastic structures of interacting particles. ...

Nano - you know the term. Now combine and think where the "forefront research" can be today?
What is published is what ARO allows to be published. The rest is left to your imagination and extrapolation.

Well, phonons could then be an explanation for the heat signatures recorded from satellites that have been such a source of controversy. Something else in the link Ark provided to the synthetic gravity wave paper is rather interesting considering 9-11:

In their 2002 paper, Chris Y. Tailor and Giovanni Modanese proposed employing the new impulse gravity generator to direct, from an outside location, an “antigravity” beam toward a spacecraft, this beam acting as a repulsive force field producing propulsion for the spacecraft. (“Evaluation of an Impulse Gravity Generator Based Beamed Propulsion Concept”, Chris Y. Taylor and Giovanni Modanese, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2002). However, the impulse gravity generator was not suitable for this particular application because its powerful, nanosecond-long gravitational bursts would harm pilots and cause severe structural and electrical damage to the spacecraft. The use of Podkletnov’s impulse gravity generator in other applications is limited by the device’s large size and high-energy requirements (reportedly, it is powered by a 5 million Volt energy source). These drawbacks underline the need for a powerful, energy-efficient, and portable projector of on-demand impulse or continuous beam of gravity-modifying phonons.

An impulse gravity generator may not be suitable as a method of propulsion in this form, but it would seem it is rather destructive when used improperly- especially on an object not intended to be moved(static object). But there is something I do not understand. Again from the same paper:

The bundles of superposed phonons, upon the transition from a crystal lattice of the device of this invention into the crystal lattice of the vacuum, amplify, dampen, completely stop, or invert the natural lattice vibrations, thus locally affecting the gravitational energy.

If this is indeed possible, would a complete stop of the vibrations have an effect on the bonding of the local molecules? If so it would explain the disintegration of the towers into particle sizes noted in Dr. Wood's research.

One other thing I have been thinking about ever since Ark said it the day of the show was about it possibly being information and not energy. All of the above is addressing technology in our current density, but would it be possible to achieve the same result with focused or amplified thought? A Diroc sea comes to mind in thinking about this as a possible source of 4D STS interaction, but I'm not sure if that is a correct line of thought. Any insights would be helpful.

 

[Drazen]

In fact, I'd say that none of us would be here, including the SOTT site if Laura hadn't read information and gleaned the truth from mountains of disinformation.

Now you're getting closer to my point. Laura is a TEACHER, so she needs to read the stuff published by disinfo agents, ego sacks, etc.. I try to protect Teachers, Healers, etc. ...so I don't.

Guardian, if I understand correctly, you are here to PROTECT? What about all spectrum of researching, learning, Knowledge? If Laura is Teacher as you said, does it mean that you are not so good student because of your unwillingness to LEARN or she is not enough good Teacher in your opinion? Why limiting yourself with that ego-driven attitude (IMO) of PROTECTOR?

We are all protectors if we don't forget and utilize something like "Knowledge protects, ignorance endangers"! In it's full meaning.

 

[Cosmos]

Guardian I have to say, that I think Anart is hitting the nail with her assessment of you and your behaviour in this thread.
In fact IMO, you have showed what I perceive as quite a notorious Ignorance, not only in this thread but in several others in the past.
Something I find especially strange for such a long and supposedly near member of this forum. There seems to be a lack of really understanding the forum and also some kind of disconnect to it. How is that and what is up with that?

I can't remember that I have seen you talking about your personal progress on the forum either. How is "The Work" doing in your live?

Is this forum and the work people do here, just one out of many for you? Do you feel connected to this forum? Are you a member or not and do you think there are exceptional rules for you?

You are always quick to answer, but my impression is that you seem to have a whole lot of problems to question your own behaviour and thinking.
Instead of notoriously ignoring every feedback you get you might, even ones stop and take a deeper look at your own thinking and behaviour.

In short I not only find your behaviour often ignorant but also not externally considerate.
I also think that the moderators and administrators of this forum have shown quite an endurance in your case.
But still almost nothing seems to have penetrated you and your image of yourself.
I don't think that a whole lot of other members could have shown such a notorious and repeated ignorance and lack of external consideration for such a long time.

I'm sorry to have to say it that way, but I need to, since I think you are doing yourself and us no vaviour with it.

 

[Guardian]

Guardian, if I understand correctly, you are here to PROTECT?

Close...that is my chosen life path, not just here, but in pretty much everything I do.

What about all spectrum of researching, learning, Knowledge? If Laura is Teacher as you said, does it mean that you are not so good student because of your unwillingness to LEARN or she is not enough good Teacher in your opinion?

No, it means I read HER books, but not those written by obvious disinfo agents.

Why limiting yourself with that ego-driven attitude (IMO) of PROTECTOR?

Because there are only so many hours in a day, and protecting people from predators, in a wide variety of ways, is what I do best.

 

[Laura]

Much of this discussion has been centered around why I should read a book written by a disinfo agent...not whether or not Laura should. My point is that while Laura actually has a reason and need to read these books, I don't... and NEVER have to do anything I've ever done.

I think that's fair enough.

But here's the rub: a lot of people look up to you, people who do not have your skills, and when you declare more or less unequivocally that you are not going to read a book written by a whacko disinfo artist, many of those other people ALSO think "well, Guardian says its bad, so I better not read it." And that is exactly counterproductive to what many people actually need to be doing: learning how to read/weed/interpret on their own because the network will not always be available.

Additionally, I rely on the network very often to be my eyes and ears. You may have noticed my Acknowledgements page in "Horns of Moses" where I thank the members of this forum for their research and discussions which very often figure significantly in the solution to issues when discussion is engaged in openly and organically.

So, indeed, while you may not need to read such a book, other people do, and I NEED THEM TO READ AND DISCUSS IT so we can sift the wheat from the chaff for everyone's sake.

 

[Laura]

I found the Jenkins paper interesting, because even if he is clearly coloring and exaggerating some points, the text, depth of detail, and equations reads like "real technical science".

Could you follow the equations?

 

[dant]

We're screwed! :P

Well, there is more to come from physics and technology that borders with science-fiction:

ON THE NATURE OF GRAVITATY
AND
THE SYNTHETIC GRAVITATIONAL WAVES

copyright © February 2006 by Boris Volfson

I wrote this paper in support of my Phonon Maser invention. Much of the text below has been included in the patent application. ....

I note that the link points to the way back machine, missing
images on certain pages, and Boris's homepage is pretty
much gone. I also noted in a "oogle" search that there is
some controversy over his granted US patent.

You say: " [...] borders with science-fiction:", so I wonder what
you mean by that? Some truth mixed with lies?

I will try to see if I can discern the lies and/or truth within these
pages with my feeble thinking cap...

 

[Guardian]

Guardian I have to say, that I think Anart is hitting the nail with her assessment of you and your behaviour in this thread.

Of course you do because it has primarily been you insisting that I should read a book that I consider to be utterly useless to ME....even after I told you why I consider it to be utterly useless to ME. Evidently you think you know much more about what I should do than I do.

In fact IMO, you have showed what I perceive as quite a notorious Ignorance, not only in this thread but in several others in the past.

As I said, you clearly think you know what's good for me, and are really bothered by the fact that I don't accept your pushy, arrogant advice.

Something I find especially strange for such a long and supposedly near member of this forum. There seems to be a lack of really understanding the forum and also some kind of disconnect to it. How is that and what is up with that?

I have no idea since you just created that in your own head.

I can't remember that I have seen you talking about your personal progress on the forum either. How is "The Work" doing in your live?

Just great, thanks for asking.

Is this forum and the work people do here, just one out of many for you?

One of several, but not "many"

Do you feel connected to this forum?

Yes, or I wouldn't not be here.

Are you a member

Yes

do you think there are exceptional rules for you?

Of course not.

You are always quick to answer, but my impression is that you seem to have a whole lot of problems to question your own behaviour and thinking.

I'm constantly questioning my own behavior and thinking, but I can understand why you might not notice since your primary objective seems to be to convince me to adopt your thinking.

In short I not only find your behaviour often ignorant but also not externally considerate.

I think that would be because I disagreed with you, every time you repeated "read the book" over and over and over again.

I also think that the moderators and administrators of this forum have shown quite an endurance in your case.

Well yeah, I think that could be said for both of us at this point.

But still almost nothing seems to have penetrated you and your image of yourself.

Again, because YOU know what that is so well.

I don't think that a whole lot of other members could have shown such a notorious and repeated ignorance and lack of external consideration for such a long time.

Likewise

I'm sorry to have to say it that way, but I need to, since I think you are doing yourself and us no vaviour with it.

No you're not, you're just calling me names because I told you "No" That's ok though, that's one of the primary ways I find out about the real nature of people...by disagreeing with them.

 

[anart]

That's really not at all a fair statement to make and you're making it just to try to 'win your argument' which also isn't very helpful.

No I'm not

Yes you are. If you could just try - just once - actually try to listen instead of defending yourself - to actually LISTEN to what people are saying to you, then perhaps we could get somewhere. You aren't listening.

I found this group, and decided to stay, the same way I found out Bridges, Weidner. Stormboob, Wheeler, etc. were disinfo, by studying what people DO, not reading their books.

That makes no sense regarding the discussion at hand - writing books IS what some people do, after all.

Now you're getting closer to my point. Laura is a TEACHER, so she needs to read the stuff published by disinfo agents, ego sacks, etc.. I try to protect Teachers, Healers, etc. ...so I don't.

At no point in this discussion has your point been that Laura is a teacher - see how you shift what you say in order to maintain being "right", even when you're not? You aren't listening.

Learning is simply not a black and white endeavor and it's a bit disingenuous for you to glean the rewards of a process and then denigrate that process

I did not do that either.

You most certainly have.

I stated that I will not waste my time on a book written by a disinfo agent, and I won't. I will however, spend that time helping someone who might need to read that crap.

No, you used sarcasm and eye rolling and all sorts of rather snarky tactics to denigrate the fact that others think it's a good idea to read this book in order to glean information. That is what you did - that is denigration.

Thank you. I, in turn, will spend my time trying to protect you from the various elements who don't want you to do this as best I can...as well as spread the word, and do assorted other grunt work. All of which does not require me to read a book written by a disinfo agent, which was/is my point.

It would actually be helpful if, in the midst of all that, you learned to actually listen to the people you claim to want to protect. As you mentioned earlier, a friend tells you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear - if you refuse to hear it, though, not much your friends can do to help.

As Laura said,

But here's the rub: a lot of people look up to you, people who do not have your skills, and when you declare more or less unequivocally that you are not going to read a book written by a whacko disinfo artist, many of those other people ALSO think "well, Guardian says its bad, so I better not read it." And that is exactly counterproductive to what many people actually need to be doing: learning how to read/weed/interpret on their own because the network will not always be available.

Additionally, I rely on the network very often to be my eyes and ears. You may have noticed my Acknowledgements page in "Horns of Moses" where I thank the members of this forum for their research and discussions which very often figure significantly in the solution to issues when discussion is engaged in openly and organically.

So, indeed, while you may not need to read such a book, other people do, and I NEED THEM TO READ AND DISCUSS IT so we can sift the wheat from the chaff for everyone's sake.

 

[andi]

For me as a forum member, this discussion has left me a bit confused and I imagine the 911 gangs are having fun watching this subject go astray. This discussion being so important, I see the latter part of the thread to be counter productive and falling in the trap the gangs want us to fall, or so it seems to me. Many of us here won't even be able to read the book and check the facts, so let's let those that want and can do it, so that we may all come out with something concrete.

 

[Laura]

Along the lines of Punch and Judy, here's an interesting interview with Gordon Duff:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/18/911-interview-with-gordon-duff-sahar-university-video/

What do ya'll think of this?