Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Where did the towers go - directed free energy

15681011

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    enno99 wrote: »
    you picked a line from a post where I disagreed with the comparison of pictures of foundry workers and paper in close proximity to molten metal

    This image?

    911moltensteel.JPG

    Is that even paper?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    This image?

    911moltensteel.JPG

    Is that even paper?

    Im unsure

    Thats why I said the picture seems show molten metal and paper
    which you thought meant something else


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28 Dew Drops


    enno99 wrote: »
    Im unsure

    Thats why I said the picture seems show molten metal and paper
    which you thought meant something else
    FireCat.jpg
    Remember, everything that glows is not hot. For example:
    Bioluminescence is a form of luminescence, or "cold light" emission; less than 20% of the light generates thermal radiation. It should not be confused with fluorescence, phosphorescence or refraction of light.

    Ninety percent of deep-sea marine life are estimated to produce bioluminescence in one form or another. Most marine light-emission belongs in the blue and green light spectrum, the wavelengths that can transmit through the seawater most easily. However, certain loose-jawed fishes emit red and infrared light and the genus Tomopteris emits yellow bioluminescence.

    Non-marine bioluminescence is less widely distributed. The two best-known forms of land bioluminescence are fireflies and glow worms. Other insects, insect larvae, annelids, arachnids and even species of fungi have been noted to possess bioluminescent abilities.

    Some forms of bioluminescence are brighter (or exist only) at night, following a circadian rhythm.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioluminescence

    To better understand how the World Trade Center was "dustified", it is helpful to have a working knowledge of the weak nuclear force.

    The Fundamental Forces of Nature and the Weak Force


    Of the four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force), the “weak force” is the most enigmatic. Whereas the other three forces act through attraction/repulsion mechanisms, the weak force is responsible for transmutations – changing one element into another – and incremental shifts between mass and energy at the nuclear level.

    Simply put, the weak force is the way Nature seeks stability. Stability at the nuclear level permits elements to form, which make up all of the familiar stuff of our world. Without the stabilizing action of the weak force, the material world, including our physical bodies, would not exist. The weak force is responsible for the radioactive decay of heavy (radioactive) elements into their lighter, more stable forms. But the weak force is also at work in the formation of the lightest of elements, hydrogen and helium, and all the elements in between.

    A good way to understand the weak force is in comparison with the actions of the other forces at work in the center of the Sun. The Sun, although extraordinarily hot (10 million degrees), is cool enough for the constituent parts of matter, quarks, to clump together to form protons. A proton is necessary to form an element, which occurs when it attracts an electron – the simplest case being hydrogen, which is composed of a single proton and a single electron. By the force of gravity, protons are pulled together until two of them touch – but because of the electrostatic repulsion of their two positive charges, their total energy becomes unstable and one of the protons undergoes a form of radioactive decay, turning it into a neutron and emitting a positron (the antiparticle of an electron) and a neutrino. This action forms a deuteron (one proton and one neutron), which is more stable than the two repelling protons. This transmutation of proton into neutron plus beta particles is mediated by the weak force.

    A neutron is slightly heavier, and therefore less stable, than a proton. So the normal action of the weak force causes a neutron to decay into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. At any rate, at the center of the Sun, once a deuteron is formed, it will fuse with another free proton to form helium-3 (one neutron and two protons), releasing tremendous amounts of energy. These helium-3 atoms then fuse to form helium-4 and releasing two more protons and more energy. The release of energy in these fusion reactions from the strong force is what powers the Sun. But the entire process is set in motion by the weak force.

    Enter “Cold Fusion”

    When in 1989 Pons and Fleishman stunned the world by reporting nuclear reaction signatures at room temperatures, physicists were understandably baffled and skeptical. Given that virtually all nuclear physicists at the time were trained in the powerful energies of the strong force, table top fusion made no sense. The fact that the phenomenon was dubbed “cold fusion” was unfortunate and likely contributed to almost universal rejection by the scientific community. (Thanks to Steven Jones :rolleyes: ) Standard theoretical models were not able to explain how cold fusion might even be possible and unless it could be understood it was pointless and a waste of time. A comment attributed to Wolfgang Pauli describes the reaction of most physicists at the time: “its not right; its not even wrong”. Without a coherent theory to explain it, it wasn’t even science at all.

    This all changed in 2006 with the publication of a paper in the peer-reviewed The European Physical Journal by Allan Widom and Louis Larsen titled “Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces”.

    In this paper for the first time a theoretical basis was put forth that explained many of the anomalous results being reported by experimentalists in the new field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) – and the common explanatory action was the weak force.

    As explained by Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center in his article “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook”:

    “The Strong Force Particle physicists have evidently been correct all along. “Cold Fusion” is not possible. However, via collective effects/ condensed matter quantum nuclear physics, LENR is allowable without any “miracles.” The theory states that once some energy is added to surfaces loaded with hydrogen/protons, if the surface morphology enables high localized voltage gradients, then heavy electrons leading to ultra low energy neutrons will form– neutrons that never leave the surface. The neutrons set up isotope cascades which result in beta decay, heat and transmutations with the heavy electrons converting the beta decay gamma into heat.”

    Brief Description of Widom-Larsen Theory

    Not everyone agrees that the Widom-Larsen Theory (“WLT”) accurately explains all, or even most, of the observed phenomenon in LENR experiments. But it is worth a brief look at what WLT proposes.

    In the first step of WLT, a proton captures a charged lepton (an electron) and produces a neutron and a neutrino. No Coulomb barrier inhibits the reaction. In fact, a strong Coulomb attraction that can exist between an electron and a nucleus helps the nuclear transmutation proceed.

    This process is well known to occur with muons, a type of lepton that can be thought of as very heavy electrons – the increased mass is what pulls the lepton into the nucleus. For this to occur with electrons in a condensed matter hydrogen system, local electromagnetic field fluctuations are induced to increase the mass of the electron. Thus, a “mass modified” hydrogen atom can decay into a neutron and a neutrino. These neutrons are born with ultra low momentum and, because of their long wavelength, get caught in the cavity formed by oscillating protons in the metal lattice.

    These ultra low momentum neutrons, which do not escape the immediate vicinity of the cavity and are therefore difficult to detect, yield interesting reaction sequences. For example, helium-3 and helium-4 are produced often yielding large quantities of heat. WLT refers to these as neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions. As Dennis Bushnell explains: “the neutrons set up isotope cascades which result in beta decay, heat and transmutations.” Nuclear fusion does not occur and therefore there is no Coulomb barrier obstruction to the resulting neutron catalyzed nuclear reaction.

    Brief Description of Brillouin Theory

    Robert Godes of Brillouin Energy Corp., claims that WLT explains some, but not all, of the observed LENR phenomena. As Godes understands the process, metal hydrides stimulated with precise, narrow, high voltage, bipolar pulse frequencies (“Q-pulse”) cause protons or deuterons to undergo electron capture. The metal lattice stimulation by the Q-pulse reverses the natural decay of neutrons to protons, plus beta particles, catalyzing an electron capture in a first endothermic step. When the initial proton (or deuteron) is confined in the metal lattice and the total Hamiltonian (total energy of the system) reaches a certain threshold level by means of the Q-pulse stimulation, an ultra cold neutron is formed. This ultra cold neutron occupies a position in the lattice where dissolved hydrogen tunnels and undergoes transmutation, forming a cascade of transmutations – deuteron, triton, quadrium – by capturing the cold neutron and releasing binding energy. Such a cascading reaction will result in a beta decay transmutation to helium-4, plus heat.

    The Q pulse causes a dramatic increase of the phonon activity, driving the system far out of equilibrium. When this energy reaches a threshold level, neutron production via electron capture becomes a natural path to bring the system back to stability.

    Theory and Experiment

    Other well-known LENR theorists have implicated the weak force, including Peter Hagelstein, Tadahiko Mizuno, Yasuhiro Iwamura and Mitchell Swartz. The project now, as with all scientific endeavor, is to match experimental evidence to theory. The hope is that the electron capture/weak force theories will help guide new, even more successful experiments. This process will also allow theorists to add refinement and new thinking to their models. I am reminded of the two “laws” of physicists proposed by an early weak force pioneer:

    1. Without experimentalists, theorists tend to drift.

    2. Without theorists, experimentalists tend to falter.

    (T.D. Lee, as quoted in “The Weak Force: From Fermi to Feynman” by A. Lesov).

    Experimentalists have been reporting anomalous heat from metal hydrides since before Pons and Fleischmann. But without a cogent theory, they have had to rely on ad hoc, trial and error methods. Given this state of affairs, the progress made in the LENR field in the last twenty years is remarkable. Perhaps we are now at the beginning of a new era in which theoretical models will guide a rapid transformation of the science.

    Conclusion

    Scientists have focused on the strong nuclear force due to the immense power that can be released from breaking the nuclear bond. Less attention has been paid to the weak force, which causes transmutations and the release of energy in more subtle ways. Recent theories that explain many of the phenomena observed in low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) implicate the weak force. We are now at the stage where theory and experiment begin to complement each other to allow for the rapid transformation of the new science of LENR.

    By David Niebauer

    http://theenergycollective.com/cleantech-blog-neal-dikeman-and-richard-stuebi-et-al/112566/weak-force-key-lenr

    Timeline of Events Involving Steve Jones, Crockett Grabbe and Steve Koonin
    http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=162&Itemid=60

    Dr. Mallove: "One important implication of cold fusion is that there are, at least, 300 gallons of gasoline equivalent in every gallon of ordinary water. If you take the heavy hydrogen contained in one gallon of water, normal water that you drink, or get at the pond or the lake or the ocean, and fuse that heavy hydrogen into helium, which is what is happening in cold fusion. This gives you heat, and that amount of heat is the equivalent of 300 gallons of gasoline. That means that in only one cubic kilometer of ocean, we have the energy equivalent of the entire known oil reserves on Earth. And that means total energy independence from any localized supply of oil plus the environmental benefit of not producing CO2 and other noxious pollutants."
    http://jet.xvm.mit.edu/news/

    Cold Nuclear Fusion Gatekeeper Steven Jones
    http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28 Dew Drops


    Juicee- It still amazes me to what lengths forum posters will go to obnubilate the evidence Dr. Judy Wood presents in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? Why are they being blatantly obvious by playing a shell game with the truth?!?! :rolleyes:
    TheShellGame.jpg

    PS The frost is on the pumpkin and the hay is in the barn. I made a Pumpkin Spice Latte this morning. Send me a private message if you would like the recipe. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    :) I still have fairly basic and simple questions..

    1. Who designed, developed and built this "directed energy weapon"?

    2. Who came up specifically with the plan to use this "direct energy weapon" to destroy the Twin Towers ("dustify" them) after they were to be hit by planes, with evidence please.

    3. Where was this weapon deployed?

    4. What was the power source used for this weapon?


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Dew Drops wrote: »
    Remember, everything that glows is not hot. For example:
    Can you please demonstrate that this fictional weapon is capable for actually causing things to glow without heat?
    That waffle and pseudo-science above does not address anyone's points and just raises more questions and shows that you and Judy Wood are less that scientific they you pretend.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    :) I still have fairly basic and simple questions..

    1. Who designed, developed and built this "directed energy weapon"?

    2. Who came up specifically with the plan to use this "direct energy weapon" to destroy the Twin Towers ("dustify" them) after they were to be hit by planes, with evidence please.

    3. Where was this weapon deployed?

    4. What was the power source used for this weapon?



    I think you need to dump the sceptic's handbook this has become monotonous


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    enno99 wrote: »
    I think you need to dump the sceptic's handbook this has become monotonous
    Yes, let's just believe whatever fairy stories anyone suggests - it's so much more exciting.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you please demonstrate that this fictional weapon is capable for actually causing things to glow without heat?
    It seems that the argument is that the metal in the twin towers was covered in bioluminescent insects, which made it look like they were glowing and liquid. Obviously the amazing mystery space weapon leaves a residue that fireflies just love.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It seems that the argument is that the metal in the twin towers was covered in bioluminescent insects, which made it look like they were glowing and liquid. Obviously the amazing mystery space weapon leaves a residue that fireflies just love.
    I got the impression that it was cold fusion cause that sounds sciencey and esoteric, plus the government tried to suppress it by making it look like it was total nonsense and pseudo-science so therefore it must be a thing....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 234 ✭✭Juicee


    Juicee wrote: »
    What can make metal glow or turn to jelly without high heat? The hutchison effect. Lots of other weird things as well.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj93HaGKV3g
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdETtRXwjrM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPYCKySAePQ

    I posted these links earlier..

    The second video shows a john hutchison experiment in which a miniature boat in water is being subjected to field effects. you can see cold 'fires' spontaneously appear and disappear. This is an example of how material can be made to glow without high heat.

    Some on here would have you believe John Hutchison is a fake and can't reproduce his experiments. This is a lie.

    Check out all of these videos for an insight to his research and experiments, which have been ongoing for approx 30 years.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    enno99 wrote: »
    I think you need to dump the sceptic's handbook this has become monotonous

    Absolutely, shouldn't question things.. what was I thinking.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Juicee wrote: »
    Some on here would have you believe John Hutchison is a fake and can't reproduce his experiments. This is a lie.
    It doesn't matter a damn if Hutchison can repeat his experiments - any conjurer worth his salt can repeat his tricks.

    What matters is whether real scientists can repeat his experiments. They can't. Hence it is pseudoscientific bullsh!t.

    Does Dr. Judy Wood cite Hutchison in any of her published papers? Why not?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 234 ✭✭Juicee


    It doesn't matter a damn if Hutchison can repeat his experiments - any conjurer worth his salt can repeat his tricks.

    What matters is whether real scientists can repeat his experiments. They can't. Hence it is pseudoscientific bullsh!t.

    Does Dr. Judy Wood cite Hutchison in any of her published papers? Why not?

    She cites him extensively in her book and correlates a large number of the effects he has produced in his experiments with the evidence of 911.

    Who are these scientists who couldnt repeat his experiments? Not another flimsy hit piece like king mobs earlier post I hope. I think it is you talking the bullsh!t.

    How do you explain what's going on in those videos and why would he bother faking it? These experiments have been ongoing since long before 911 remember


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Juicee wrote: »
    She cites him extensively in her book and correlates a large number of the effects he has produced in his experiments with the evidence of 911.
    And you know that these effects can be caused by a weapon you can't show exists or show any properties of because...?

    Why are you so trusting of these people when they leave you with such giant gaps in logic you can't address?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 234 ✭✭Juicee


    The correlation of the effects of hutchisons experiments and the 911 physical evidence are numerous and compelling

    He's just one man carrying out experiments in his own home on a small scale. But the principle of the type of technology used on 911 is clearly shown. Using field interference, the characteristics of materials Can be drastically altered.


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Juicee wrote: »
    The correlation of the effects of hutchisons experiments and the 911 physical evidence are numerous and compelling
    That's not an answer to the question I asked. (Though the answer is still completely untrue. As Hutchison's experiments are nonsense and there is no physical evidence that can be explained by his crackpot theories.)
    I asked you to provide support for your correlation between the effects of hutchisons experiments and the weapon you claim exists but can't show.

    How do you know those effects were cause by the space laser or whatever?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 234 ✭✭Juicee


    Along with the boat 'fires' and metal jellification videos show earlier, Here are some more detailed corrections.


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Juicee wrote: »
    Along with the boat 'fires' and metal jellification videos show earlier, Here are some more detailed corrections.
    Again, not an answer to my question.

    How exactly do you know that these effects can be produced by a directed energy weapon?

    Ignoring reality for a moment and assuming the wreckage shows the effects you claim, how do you know it wasn't caused by something else?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28 Dew Drops


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    :) I still have fairly basic and simple questions..

    1. Who designed, developed and built this "directed energy weapon"?

    2. Who came up specifically with the plan to use this "direct energy weapon" to destroy the Twin Towers ("dustify" them) after they were to be hit by planes, with evidence please.

    3. Where was this weapon deployed?

    4. What was the power source used for this weapon?

    None of your questions need to be answered to know that this secret technology exists or else by definition it would not be secret technology. DUH :rolleyes:

    As I said before:
    "When 'white man' first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn't need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brother. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city."

    1.) Did an unknown (secret) technology kill Native Americans and Japanese civilians? Yes, both groups of people were killed with an unknown (secret) technology.

    2.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology proof that it existed? Yes, both groups of people knew that the unknown (secret) technology existed from witnessing its demonstration.

    3.) Did both groups of people need to know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know that it existed? No, neither group of people needed know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know it existed.

    4.) Was an unknown (secret) technology demonstrated on September 11, 2001 in New York City? Yes, the empirical evidence proves that an unknown (secret) technology was demonstrated.

    5.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology on September 11, 2001 in New York City proof that it existed? Yes, we know that the unknown (secret) technology exists from witnessing its demonstration.

    Hai capito adesso? smile.png


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Dew Drops wrote: »
    None of your question need to be answered to know that this secret technology exists or else by definition it would not be secret technology. DUH :rolleyes:
    So you can't answer those questions in other words?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28 Dew Drops


    King Mob wrote: »
    So you can't answer those questions in other words?
    Anyone answering those questions would be divulging classified information and would be breaking the law. DUH :rolleyes:

    None of your questions need to be answered to know that this secret technology exists or else by definition it would not be secret technology. DUH rolleyes.png

    As I said before:
    "When 'white man' first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn't need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brother. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city."

    1.) Did an unknown (secret) technology kill Native Americans and Japanese civilians? Yes, both groups of people were killed with an unknown (secret) technology.

    2.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology proof that it existed? Yes, both groups of people knew that the unknown (secret) technology existed from witnessing its demonstration.

    3.) Did both groups of people need to know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know that it existed? No, neither group of people needed know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know it existed.

    4.) Was an unknown (secret) technology demonstrated on September 11, 2001 in New York City? Yes, the empirical evidence proves that an unknown (secret) technology was demonstrated.

    5.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology on September 11, 2001 in New York City proof that it existed? Yes, we know that the unknown (secret) technology exists from witnessing its demonstration.

    Hai capito adesso? smile.png


  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Dew Drops wrote: »
    Anyone answering those questions would be divulging classified information and would be breaking the law. DUH :rolleyes:

    None of your questions need to be answered to know that this secret technology exists or else by definition it would not be secret technology. DUH rolleyes.png
    So again, you can't answer them as you/Judy Woods don't actually know. Why can't you just say that?

    And since you can't actually show this technology exists or show how it's possible or know any details that would allow you to make the claims you do, who are we to tell the difference between this magic, unknowable space laser and a magic unknowable, non-existent space laser?

    How do we know that the towers weren't destroyed by, lets say an elite team of government trained agents with psychic and telekinetic powers?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Juicee wrote: »
    She cites him extensively in her book and correlates a large number of the effects he has produced in his experiments with the evidence of 911.
    So, to answer the question I asked, she never cites him in her actual published scientific papers. Why not? (nice attempt to deflect the question, by the way)
    Juicee wrote: »
    Who are these scientists who couldnt repeat his experiments? Not another flimsy hit piece like king mobs earlier post I hope. I think it is you talking the bullsh!t.
    Which scientists couldn't repeat his experimental results? ALL OF THEM.
    Juicee wrote: »
    How do you explain what's going on in those videos and why would he bother faking it? These experiments have been ongoing since long before 911 remember
    Why does anybody bother faking perpetual motion machines, or any other type of pseudoscience? For fun, for notoriety, for financial gain, because they are nuts - that sort of thing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Dew Drops wrote: »
    Anyone answering those questions would be divulging classified information and would be breaking the law. DUH :rolleyes:

    None of your questions need to be answered to know that this secret technology exists or else by definition it would not be secret technology. DUH rolleyes.png

    As I said before:
    "When 'white man' first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn't need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brother. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city."

    1.) Did an unknown (secret) technology kill Native Americans and Japanese civilians? Yes, both groups of people were killed with an unknown (secret) technology.

    2.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology proof that it existed? Yes, both groups of people knew that the unknown (secret) technology existed from witnessing its demonstration.

    3.) Did both groups of people need to know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know that it existed? No, neither group of people needed know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know it existed.

    4.) Was an unknown (secret) technology demonstrated on September 11, 2001 in New York City? Yes, the empirical evidence proves that an unknown (secret) technology was demonstrated.

    5.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology on September 11, 2001 in New York City proof that it existed? Yes, we know that the unknown (secret) technology exists from witnessing its demonstration.

    Hai capito adesso? smile.png
    I already took this post apart on this thread. But just to repeat: unknown/secret technology was not used against Native Americans or Japanese people - I doubt you could find any university physicist (or even school science teacher) in 1956 who did not understand the principle of the nuclear bomb, and you couldn't find anybody at all in the West who didn't understand the principle of gun powder since the 1500s.

    Does every university physicist know about your amazing space mystery dustification super laser blaster emitter?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Dew Drops wrote: »
    None of your questions need to be answered to know that this secret technology exists or else by definition it would not be secret technology. DUH :rolleyes:

    You are not answering the basic straightforward questions because you have absolutely no evidence that these weapons exist or have ever been operational.

    By the way, have you ever seen a space-fairy? no? oh, they are secret, they must exist then ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    By the way, have you ever seen a space-fairy? no? oh, they are secret, they must exist then ;)
    Hush man - they won't stay secret if you keep blabbing about them! :mad:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28 Dew Drops


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    You are not answering the basic straightforward questions because you have absolutely no evidence that these weapons exist or have ever been operational.

    By the way, have you ever seen a space-fairy? no? oh, they are secret, they must exist then ;)
    ConflictofInterest.jpg
    The evidence that this secret technology exists was demonstrated on September 11, 2001 for the whole world to see. The integrity, irrefutability, and solidity of Dr. Judy Wood's work, however, as well as its importance, have not protected it from programs of denial, disinformation, falsehood, and smear. In light of the seemingly indefatigable attack-and-disinformation campaign mounted against it, Dr. Judy Wood's research and book will outlive us all and hold a singular position in world history.

    Let’s start over again. To solve a problem, we must first begin with defining the problem ("Empirical Evidence is the Truth that Theory Must Mimic").


    1. Were the towers once there? (yes or no)

    2. Are the towers still there? (yes or no)

    3. Did most (over 50%) of the towers turn to dust? (yes or no)

    Choose the question that corresponds to their answer to #3 above:

    4. (a) If your answer to question #3 was "no," Please review the empirical evidence contained in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? more carefully or find someone who can.

    4. (b) If your answer to question #3 was "yes," Does there exist a mechanism or technology capable of doing this? (yes or no)

    ==> If your answer to question #4b was "yes," we are in agreement.

    ==> If your answer to question #4b was "no," please explain your contradiction, claiming something occurred that was impossible to occur.

    As I have said many times before:

    "When 'white man' first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn't need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brother. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city."

    1.) Did an unknown (secret) technology kill Native Americans and Japanese civilians? Yes, both groups of people were killed with an unknown (secret) technology.

    2.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology proof that it existed? Yes, both groups of people knew that the unknown (secret) technology existed from witnessing its demonstration.

    3.) Did both groups of people need to know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know that it existed? No, neither group of people needed know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know it existed.

    4.) Was an unknown (secret) technology demonstrated on September 11, 2001 in New York City? Yes, the empirical evidence proves that an unknown (secret) technology was demonstrated.

    5.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology on September 11, 2001 in New York City proof that it existed? Yes, we know that the unknown (secret) technology exists from witnessing its demonstration.

    Hai capito adesso? smile.png

    PS I've read Dr. Judy Wood's book and nowhere in it does she mention "space laser". People who use this meme are connected to the cover-up.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    I've an easier way to solve this problem. Give us another example of this weapon in use. 9/11 isn't valid as the whole reason this thread exists is because it's claimed this weapon exists and was used then and there.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement