Lucy
===============
my comment:
Interesting. Muertos (comment) contradicts Dr. Babs with the same propaganda that deceived this nation, his own information being incorrect. Barbara Olsen's cellphone records show she NEVER made the cellphone calls her husband claimed she did.
AND: Osama Bin Laden NEVER admitted to committing 9/11. Even the FBI doesn't have a warrant out for him, saying they "don't have enough evidence." He did say he was glad, though, I think. Maybe we should look a bit closer to home, like Israel's Mossad, or PNAC ("new Pearl Harbor"), or big oil -- Unocal has wanted to build a pipeline through Afghanistan for many years, and testified to such in front of a congressional committee in 1998, but said it wasn't possible unless ONE government was in power there... and 'voila"! Hamed Karzai, former UNOCAL executive, was put in the presidency. How serendipitous! (fat chance)
And, yes, the WTC DID turn to dust... as did almost 3,000 bodies, computers, CEMENT, furniture, etc. And left molten steel burning in the basement for, what?, 100 days? Not to mention people escaping BEFORE THE COLLAPSE saw a lobby already blown up when they got there, and heard other explosions going off, as did firefighters.
Pentagon: A bunch of so-called 'hijackers', who couldn't fly a Cessna, made a 180 degree turn, poking a 757 into a 16'wide hole? No wreckage on the lawn (engines, wings), no fusilage removed from the Pentagon, no airline passenger bodies (while dead and injured Pentagon employees were recovered) and NO VIDEO. That, in itself, is preposterous. THINK, THINK, THINK.
Shanksville: No plane "crash" creates a crater in the earth and covers itself over along with the wreckage, as the world was told. IN FACT, the wreckage was strewn over 5 miles. This is NOT a crash. (Even Lockerbee dumped a fusilage on the ground.)
And, please, someone tell me how folks were making cell phone calls at 20,000 ft, and 500 miles per hour in 2001! One can't even do that in 2010... and we ALL lose calls going past a building or a small hill or mountain. This story is patently ridiculous.
WTC7: Please tell me how the NYFD was able to set charges (between the time WTC1 & 2 came down and 5:30 pm - while floors burned) for a controlled explosion to "PULL" WTC7, which came down at gravity speed). This type of demolition takes weeks to set up in normal circumstances?? The erroneously described 'collapse' of WTC7 wasn't even MENTIONED by the 9/11 Commission.
And there's so much more! Not to mention that some of those named as 'hijackers' are still alive, as claimed by themselves or their families... on of whom did take flight training in Texas, but is now a commercial pilot for a Syrian airline. HELLO!
And I'd love to talk to the person that found Mohammad Atta's passport in a foot of concrete powder three blocks from the WTC the next day! How it survived this so-called 'inferno' is beyond me!
Monday, April 26, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
To Understand 9/11, You Must Go Back and Make Sure You Know Some Stuff First
Outline:
1. Introduction - Why we need to know some stuff first before we can understand 9/11.
2. Nature of matter - How the World Trade Center (WTC) was destroyed.
3. Physical movement - How we know that no hijackings occurred on 9/11.
4. Chemical reactions - How we know that thermite did not destroy the WTC.
5. Nikola Tesla - The person discovered the technology used to destroy the WTC.
6. Human psychology - Why it is so difficult to explain 9/11 to people.
7. Conclusion - Why this is the most important subject on the planet.
1. Introduction
9/11 was a complicated crime. Nothing is going to change that. Most of us saw some things on TV that day that we had never seen before, so we didn't know what to think about it. Those who lived in the area of Ground Zero then witnessed long weeks and months of the aftermath. 9/11 didn't end on September 11, 2001, because Ground Zero kept fuming heavily for many weeks and months.
As an experienced laboratory scientist, I recognized when I had seen something unusual. So unusual, in fact, that I didn't know what it was. No scientist knows everything, but every scientist knows how to go about finding out answers to scientific questions, and I couldn't figure out what it was. What kind of weapon, exactly, can turn a building into dust and then continue to fume for months?
Right away I knew some things. I knew I was in a particular position to investigate 9/11, because not only did I live in lower Manhattan, but because I'm that type of person. I already knew that FOX News lies. I already knew about the deep corruption in our Corporatocracy we have in the US. I was already outside the mainstream.
These three things situated me in a unique position to discover the weapon used to destroy the WTC. First, I am a trained scientist. Second, I am outside the mainstream. Third, I was living in the vicinity of Ground Zero during the aftermath and became an unwilling witness and ultimately a victim of the attacks. Part of the World Trade Center is in my body right now, because I breathed all those fumes. I deserve to know what caused them, and nobody can convince me that airplanes and jet fuel was what I was smelling.
9/11 wasn't about me. I was and am a relatively unknown person. In fact, I knew that in all likelihood I was not going to be the one who discovered the weapon. But here's the deal: I know what a correct answer looks like, and I knew I could recognize the correct answer if it were ever told to me. The correct answer would account for the damage seen on 9/11 and the near-constant fuming from Ground Zero for months after. I am proud to say that in 2005, I found the person who discovered the weapon. Her name is Judy Wood. You can go check out her website at http://drjudywood.com
2. The Nature of Matter
I'm going to keep this section simple. Matter is made up of molecules and molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of a very tiny nucleus (protons and neutrons) surrounded by an electron cloud. Molecules of a solid are very tightly packed in a relatively rigid formation. Molecules of a liquid are closely packed, but free to move around. Molecules of a gas are widely dispersed and bounce all around.
Explosives work in one way: a chemical reaction changes a solid into a gas, releasing energy in the form of heat and a physical blast wave that comes from the rapidly expanding gas. The hot gas continues to expand outwards in all directions until the pressure and temperature are in equilibrium with the environment.
The WTC was not brought down by explosives. We know this for two main reasons. First, the expanding dust cloud did not behave as if it were a gas. Instead, it behaved as if it were a colloidal suspension, and the dust bits fell to the ground. An explosive reaction (solid into gas) results in an approximately spherical-shaped expansion, which was not evident on 9/11. Instead, the dust poofed outwards and then fell to the ground like if you popped a balloon full of powder. POOF!
The second reason we know the WTC was not brought down by explosives is the fact that the dust cloud rolled over people and they survived. We know the temperature of the expanding dust cloud was not hot enough to kill or injure the folks on the street, therefore we know the dust cloud was not a result of an explosive.
Okay, so if not explosives, then what? Here's the answer: The molecules that made up the WTC were vibrated apart by electrical energy. That's it. Why did the buildings continue to fume for months after? Because the process is not self quenching. They had to remove the remains of the buildings before the fuming stopped at Ground Zero. The fuming that came from Ground Zero for months was the continuing molecular dissociation of the building materials. When they took away the last bits of the building, the fuming stopped, or almost stopped.
3. Physical movement
Part of the attacks of 9/11 was the cover story, so we need to understand a bit about the cover story. That whole thing about Osama bin Laden and the hijackers? Never happened. That whole thing about planes crashing into the World Trade Center? Never happened.
Momentum is conserved during every collision. That means that videos of a plane crashing into a building will show at least some pieces of the plane bouncing backwards in exactly the opposite direction. What we saw instead was the entire plane gliding smoothly into the building with no apparent damage, followed by explosions and stuff shooting out the other sides of the building. There wasn't any part of the plane that bounced off the south face of WTC 2, the supposed site of impact, which means there wasn't an impact.
For several years, people have claimed that all the videos were faked, that news editors and cameramen from all these different places altered their videos in exactly the same way. This is neither likely nor logical. What happened was that a 3-dimensional image of the plane was projected into the sky, and video cameras caught footage of this mysterious object passing into the WTC without damage. I'm not proving that no planes were hijacked on 9/11, I'm just telling you that none were. You can prove it to yourself by looking at the slow motion replay of the "plane crash". You won't find any bits of plane debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.
4. Chemical reactions
Getting quickly to the point, Steven Jones has been misleading us with his thermite theory. Thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive, which means it generates heat but not expansion of gas. People didn't die from the expanding dust cloud, therefore no type of incendiary could have been the cause of the destruction of the WTC. The only two people I'm willing to debate on this are Steven Jones himself or Niels Harrit, the primary author on that travesty of a paper, "Active Thermitic Material Found in World Trade Center Dust." Too many people have fallen in love with the thermite theory, despite its deep inadequacy as an explanation for 9/11.
5. Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla discovered a way to transmit electrical energy through the atmosphere, and even likely gave a demonstration of this technology, which resulted in the Tugunska disaster. Previously, he had caused a huge explosion with his experiments and had to relocate from Colorado to Long Island. He died penniless in Manhattan. There is so much about Tesla available for your own research, that I will say only one more thing. John Hutchison has been using electrical equipment to replicate Tesla's work since the late 1970's. You should check out his research, too.
6. Human psychology
Everyone remembers where they were on 9/11. We all have emotional "flash bulb memories" from that day, and the perpetrators of this crime took advantage of this by providing a cover story during that time. The hijacking story was the cover story, and this was cemented into our brains during a time of trauma.
Imagine if we had seen the buildings go POOF without the planes? We would have known right away that something very suspicious was afoot and start to search for enemies. The perpetrators provided us with the enemies almost immediately, so that instinct was squelched. We were bamboozled into thinking that a plane crash could take down a steel building, and we were bamboozled into believing that Osama bin Laden and 19 young Arabs committed the crime.
Secret technology was used. What were we supposed to "Never Forget"? Something almost none of us knew about at the time, and most of us still don't know about? Doesn't make sense to "Never Forget" something you never knew. And if you were like me, you didn't know what really happened on 9/11.
But that doesn't mean I'm wrong now. This isn't 2001. This is 2010. Almost nine long years have elapsed since the attacks of September 11, and we know more now than we did then.
7. Conclusion
Tesla was working on technology that could improve the lives of everyone on the planet. He knew that it could be used to destroy, and it was used to destroy the WTC. This was a terrible event, but we can turn it around. We can together continue to investigate this new technology, maybe even find out who used it against us and bring them to justice, but even more. We can use this energy to make our lives better, as Tesla originally intended. We can use a little bit of electrical energy to generate a large amount of physical energy, and we can transmit this energy to any location on the Earth. Pretty powerful and exciting, isn't it?
1. Introduction - Why we need to know some stuff first before we can understand 9/11.
2. Nature of matter - How the World Trade Center (WTC) was destroyed.
3. Physical movement - How we know that no hijackings occurred on 9/11.
4. Chemical reactions - How we know that thermite did not destroy the WTC.
5. Nikola Tesla - The person discovered the technology used to destroy the WTC.
6. Human psychology - Why it is so difficult to explain 9/11 to people.
7. Conclusion - Why this is the most important subject on the planet.
1. Introduction
9/11 was a complicated crime. Nothing is going to change that. Most of us saw some things on TV that day that we had never seen before, so we didn't know what to think about it. Those who lived in the area of Ground Zero then witnessed long weeks and months of the aftermath. 9/11 didn't end on September 11, 2001, because Ground Zero kept fuming heavily for many weeks and months.
As an experienced laboratory scientist, I recognized when I had seen something unusual. So unusual, in fact, that I didn't know what it was. No scientist knows everything, but every scientist knows how to go about finding out answers to scientific questions, and I couldn't figure out what it was. What kind of weapon, exactly, can turn a building into dust and then continue to fume for months?
Right away I knew some things. I knew I was in a particular position to investigate 9/11, because not only did I live in lower Manhattan, but because I'm that type of person. I already knew that FOX News lies. I already knew about the deep corruption in our Corporatocracy we have in the US. I was already outside the mainstream.
These three things situated me in a unique position to discover the weapon used to destroy the WTC. First, I am a trained scientist. Second, I am outside the mainstream. Third, I was living in the vicinity of Ground Zero during the aftermath and became an unwilling witness and ultimately a victim of the attacks. Part of the World Trade Center is in my body right now, because I breathed all those fumes. I deserve to know what caused them, and nobody can convince me that airplanes and jet fuel was what I was smelling.
9/11 wasn't about me. I was and am a relatively unknown person. In fact, I knew that in all likelihood I was not going to be the one who discovered the weapon. But here's the deal: I know what a correct answer looks like, and I knew I could recognize the correct answer if it were ever told to me. The correct answer would account for the damage seen on 9/11 and the near-constant fuming from Ground Zero for months after. I am proud to say that in 2005, I found the person who discovered the weapon. Her name is Judy Wood. You can go check out her website at http://drjudywood.com
2. The Nature of Matter
I'm going to keep this section simple. Matter is made up of molecules and molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of a very tiny nucleus (protons and neutrons) surrounded by an electron cloud. Molecules of a solid are very tightly packed in a relatively rigid formation. Molecules of a liquid are closely packed, but free to move around. Molecules of a gas are widely dispersed and bounce all around.
Explosives work in one way: a chemical reaction changes a solid into a gas, releasing energy in the form of heat and a physical blast wave that comes from the rapidly expanding gas. The hot gas continues to expand outwards in all directions until the pressure and temperature are in equilibrium with the environment.
The WTC was not brought down by explosives. We know this for two main reasons. First, the expanding dust cloud did not behave as if it were a gas. Instead, it behaved as if it were a colloidal suspension, and the dust bits fell to the ground. An explosive reaction (solid into gas) results in an approximately spherical-shaped expansion, which was not evident on 9/11. Instead, the dust poofed outwards and then fell to the ground like if you popped a balloon full of powder. POOF!
The second reason we know the WTC was not brought down by explosives is the fact that the dust cloud rolled over people and they survived. We know the temperature of the expanding dust cloud was not hot enough to kill or injure the folks on the street, therefore we know the dust cloud was not a result of an explosive.
Okay, so if not explosives, then what? Here's the answer: The molecules that made up the WTC were vibrated apart by electrical energy. That's it. Why did the buildings continue to fume for months after? Because the process is not self quenching. They had to remove the remains of the buildings before the fuming stopped at Ground Zero. The fuming that came from Ground Zero for months was the continuing molecular dissociation of the building materials. When they took away the last bits of the building, the fuming stopped, or almost stopped.
3. Physical movement
Part of the attacks of 9/11 was the cover story, so we need to understand a bit about the cover story. That whole thing about Osama bin Laden and the hijackers? Never happened. That whole thing about planes crashing into the World Trade Center? Never happened.
Momentum is conserved during every collision. That means that videos of a plane crashing into a building will show at least some pieces of the plane bouncing backwards in exactly the opposite direction. What we saw instead was the entire plane gliding smoothly into the building with no apparent damage, followed by explosions and stuff shooting out the other sides of the building. There wasn't any part of the plane that bounced off the south face of WTC 2, the supposed site of impact, which means there wasn't an impact.
For several years, people have claimed that all the videos were faked, that news editors and cameramen from all these different places altered their videos in exactly the same way. This is neither likely nor logical. What happened was that a 3-dimensional image of the plane was projected into the sky, and video cameras caught footage of this mysterious object passing into the WTC without damage. I'm not proving that no planes were hijacked on 9/11, I'm just telling you that none were. You can prove it to yourself by looking at the slow motion replay of the "plane crash". You won't find any bits of plane debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.
4. Chemical reactions
Getting quickly to the point, Steven Jones has been misleading us with his thermite theory. Thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive, which means it generates heat but not expansion of gas. People didn't die from the expanding dust cloud, therefore no type of incendiary could have been the cause of the destruction of the WTC. The only two people I'm willing to debate on this are Steven Jones himself or Niels Harrit, the primary author on that travesty of a paper, "Active Thermitic Material Found in World Trade Center Dust." Too many people have fallen in love with the thermite theory, despite its deep inadequacy as an explanation for 9/11.
5. Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla discovered a way to transmit electrical energy through the atmosphere, and even likely gave a demonstration of this technology, which resulted in the Tugunska disaster. Previously, he had caused a huge explosion with his experiments and had to relocate from Colorado to Long Island. He died penniless in Manhattan. There is so much about Tesla available for your own research, that I will say only one more thing. John Hutchison has been using electrical equipment to replicate Tesla's work since the late 1970's. You should check out his research, too.
6. Human psychology
Everyone remembers where they were on 9/11. We all have emotional "flash bulb memories" from that day, and the perpetrators of this crime took advantage of this by providing a cover story during that time. The hijacking story was the cover story, and this was cemented into our brains during a time of trauma.
Imagine if we had seen the buildings go POOF without the planes? We would have known right away that something very suspicious was afoot and start to search for enemies. The perpetrators provided us with the enemies almost immediately, so that instinct was squelched. We were bamboozled into thinking that a plane crash could take down a steel building, and we were bamboozled into believing that Osama bin Laden and 19 young Arabs committed the crime.
Secret technology was used. What were we supposed to "Never Forget"? Something almost none of us knew about at the time, and most of us still don't know about? Doesn't make sense to "Never Forget" something you never knew. And if you were like me, you didn't know what really happened on 9/11.
But that doesn't mean I'm wrong now. This isn't 2001. This is 2010. Almost nine long years have elapsed since the attacks of September 11, and we know more now than we did then.
7. Conclusion
Tesla was working on technology that could improve the lives of everyone on the planet. He knew that it could be used to destroy, and it was used to destroy the WTC. This was a terrible event, but we can turn it around. We can together continue to investigate this new technology, maybe even find out who used it against us and bring them to justice, but even more. We can use this energy to make our lives better, as Tesla originally intended. We can use a little bit of electrical energy to generate a large amount of physical energy, and we can transmit this energy to any location on the Earth. Pretty powerful and exciting, isn't it?
Friday, April 23, 2010
Why we shouldn't trust the newsbroadcasts of 9/11
Why not? Because it was advanced technology, the witnesses and newsbroadcasters did not have the words to describe the phenomena.
Except: unbelievable, incredible, impossible, unheard of
Nobody could believe their own eyes and ears because what they were witnessing was magic to them (i.e. sufficiently advanced technology).
Analogy: Imagine you go back to the year 1000 A.D. and shoot somebody to death in a small village in rural England. If you were to be given the task of determining the mode of death, do you care what the villagers say happened (in terms of possibly being an accurate description)? No, because they don't know what they need to know in order to describe the situation. They don't know what a gun is, or bullets, or what a bullet wound looks like. Given what they do know, they might come up with any number of ridiculous reasons how the person was killed, but every one of them would be false, except by unreasonable chance.
Conclusion: We should pay attention to the news reports, but very carefully analyze them for editorial comment. If they say the building "collapsed", for instance, you can accept their testimony and analyze it for content as long as you fully realize that the building did not collapse and that no amount of saying it did makes it so.
The buildings were fuming and smoking for a while and then turned into dust. After they turned into dust, most of the dust fell to the ground. The buildings did not collapse. Saying the buildings collapsed without mentioning that they turned into dust first isn't really a description of the events, and is very misleading.
These people didn't deliberately mislead us. They were witnessing advanced technology and did not have the words to properly describe it to us. Heck, I don't blame them. It's almost 9 years on, and I still struggle with the words to describe what happened. I just knew at the time it wasn't a plane that did it. I didn't know what did do it or even that the whole plane thing was a hoax.
Except: unbelievable, incredible, impossible, unheard of
Nobody could believe their own eyes and ears because what they were witnessing was magic to them (i.e. sufficiently advanced technology).
Analogy: Imagine you go back to the year 1000 A.D. and shoot somebody to death in a small village in rural England. If you were to be given the task of determining the mode of death, do you care what the villagers say happened (in terms of possibly being an accurate description)? No, because they don't know what they need to know in order to describe the situation. They don't know what a gun is, or bullets, or what a bullet wound looks like. Given what they do know, they might come up with any number of ridiculous reasons how the person was killed, but every one of them would be false, except by unreasonable chance.
Conclusion: We should pay attention to the news reports, but very carefully analyze them for editorial comment. If they say the building "collapsed", for instance, you can accept their testimony and analyze it for content as long as you fully realize that the building did not collapse and that no amount of saying it did makes it so.
The buildings were fuming and smoking for a while and then turned into dust. After they turned into dust, most of the dust fell to the ground. The buildings did not collapse. Saying the buildings collapsed without mentioning that they turned into dust first isn't really a description of the events, and is very misleading.
These people didn't deliberately mislead us. They were witnessing advanced technology and did not have the words to properly describe it to us. Heck, I don't blame them. It's almost 9 years on, and I still struggle with the words to describe what happened. I just knew at the time it wasn't a plane that did it. I didn't know what did do it or even that the whole plane thing was a hoax.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
What Types of Projected Image Technology Are Already Commonly Known?
Image projected onto a building at night.
Moving image projected on the Arch of Triumph in Paris. (still image)
Image of some shadows.
Image projected onto a person.
I have made the claim in the past that what was seen in the sky on 9/11 was not an airplane, rather that it was a projected image of an airplane.
What technological hurdles must be overcome to project a moving image into the daytime sky?
All the examples below are light being projected onto an object in dark conditions. EXCEPT the shadow image has light being SUBTRACTED to create the image. The daytime sky has so much light, and the sky on 9/11 appeared to be clear and cloudless. What could be going on here?
Brainstorming: What if, instead of reflecting light to form an object, in the daytime sky you need to absorb light in a certain way to form an image? What if, instead of light rays being reflected off objects (as in the four examples below), light is being absorbed in a pattern that is determined by a pattern of disturbance in the air, generated by a computer and localized using GPS devices?
Neither of these things are particularly likely to be true. I just made them up. Point is that I, as a non-expert in video projection technology, can at least imagine a technology that can project an image in the daytime sky. Not knowing the particular technology that might have been used doesn't mean that I can't recognize the effect of using such a technology.
If you tried to simulate a plane crashing into a building and failed to account for the fact that a plane crash would slow the plane and generate debris, what you would get is the sort of videos that are claimed to be showing WTC 2 being hit by a plane. Those videos do not show debris where debris should be (namely, at the exterior south face of WTC 2).
Those videos are consistent with a moving projected image of a plane where they forgot to add the plane crash. The plane just slipped on through into the building.
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=wtc+2nd+hit&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35&fr2=tab-web&vid=0001595930321
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)