911 truth seekers EXOTIC BEAM facts
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ You need to spend some time on it. The world needs to be rescued from the BASTARDS in the US military. However, there is a deeper truth to be deconstructed from the psyches:
A 911 TRUTHER'S GUIDE TO DISINFORMATION
Place yourself, for one minute if you will, in the position of one of the architects of the 911 demolitions. Your job is to counter-attack the inevitable opposition to the official version of events.
You do not need to worry about the press - they are mostly under strict control. So you concentrate your efforts on the principal enemy - the open, undisciplined, autonomous, anarchic, democratic, dangerous free exchange of ideas known as the internet.
Do you sit and wait for groups to spring up and then employ people to post persuasive and persistent defenses of the status quo/ attacks on the doubters?
Do you start new sites devoted to 'debunking' the skeptics? Or do you set up a bogus 'truth movement' which appears to be intent on exposing the villains, but is in fact a deliberate decoy and a 'honey-pot' for honest truth-seekers?
The words of Donald Rumsfeld strongly suggest all three are in operation. Talking about the 'manipulations of the US media by the country's 'enemies' which as we now know can include patriotic Americans who question their government, Mr Rumsfeld said, "That's the thing that keeps me up at night."
He has set up a unit to fight 'inaccurate statements''.
The newly-established unit would use "new media" channels to push its message and "set the record straight", Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff said.
A Pentagon memo seen by the Associated Press news agency said the new unit would "develop messages" for the 24-hour news cycle and aim to "correct the record". The unit would reportedly monitor media such as weblogs and would also employ "surrogates", or top politicians or lobbyists who could be interviewed on TV and radio shows.
So that leaves us to identify the pysops candidates. The first two listed above are easy enough to spot. It is when we get to the Cointelpro, the truth that is not truth, that the difficulty starts.
Here there are a number of possible set-ups. As they are not mutually exclusive, it is possible for more than one of them to be true.
The first possible candidate is the 'wacky theories' infiltration scenario. This is far and away the most popular holder of the 'disinfo' mantle here on 911blogger, and consists of a rag-bag of 'unprovable' theories and hypotheses including holograms, pods, bluescreen, tvfakery, mini-nukes, beam weapons and other exotic (unverified) devices. Clearly some of these are indeed bizarre to say the least, but there are others which are not. They are all indiscriminatingly tarred with the same brush, making the job of research an uphill struggle in the face of insults. I can believe that the 'perps' might well want to confuse us by putting forward impossible theories as genuine research. But as well as presenting fake research, they must surely be doing their best to discredit the real stuff.
This is the second, very important function of the '911 Truth movement' psyops - to attempt to undermine those who are getting near the truth of what was used to bring down the Twin Towers. Which theories are most heavily attacked on 911 Truth forums? For a while it was the no-Boeing-at-the-Pentagon supporters who got the most flak. I believe a couple of years back that Controlled Demolition was not a popular view in 911truth.org, but I stand to be corrected.
The focus of attack has for nearly two months been Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds' lengthy analysis of the Star Wars Beam Weapons hypothesis.
Actually it is not a strict hypothesis as it cannot be tested, for obvious reasons. This does not make it invalid, and to say so is to deceive. There are, however, some interesting puffs of smoke which, although they do not yet constitute a 'smoking gun', should cause concern to every genuine 911 researcher.
This reaction to a question in a recent press conference should ring alarms bells.
QUESTIONER:
Could you answer a question about some of that technology you're developing to fight the war on terrorism, specifically Directed Energy and high-powered Microwave technology. Have you... when do you envision(sic) that you weaponize that kind of technology?
LOOK AT THE FACE!!! IT IS A BEAM WEAPON GIVEAWAY!! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1439692165433909308&hl=en
DONALD RUMSFELD:
Hmmmm...(mumbled)goodness...it is, it is in, for the most part, the kinds of things you are talking about are in very early stages. (turning to Gen. Myers) Do you want to give anything to add?
GENERAL RICHARD MYERS
I don't think I would add much, I, I...(long pause)...(swallows)...I think they are in early stages and, and...and probably not ready... er,for employment at this point.
A US general 'thinks' they are 'probably' not ready for employment. Probably? Thinks? Whoever is briefing him is not doing much of a job.
The reason given by the 911 'truthers' who , with various degrees of force , denounce those who are talking about exotic weapons at the WTC is always the same - it will 'damage the movement ' if this gets into the press, and consequently 911 Truth is ridiculed. They conveniently forget that not one major news media has mentioned, let alone ridiculed these theories. A Google News search on "space beams'' or ''directed energy weapons'' and '' 9/11'' yields barely two results. Neither are from significant media.
Incredibly, some have written on this forum that it does not matter if the theory is true or not, as the public will never buy it. I find the logic of that argument shocking. If we are not telling the world the whole truth as we know it, we are doomed to fail. We will lose what shred of credibility we still have with the non-skeptical public, and confuse and dismay those who want to find the truth but are nervous about agreeing with such an 'unpopular' claim.
So, in summary, it looks highly probable that there is a body of infiltrators at work in the 911 Truth movement.
Some will push untruth in the form of 'red herrings' and bogus theories. Others will work entirely negatively, contradicting and denouncing the proponents, suggesting they be banned, are 'nothing but a joke' and most likely government agents.
These last are likely to be well disguised, and will appear to be pushing genuine 911 Truth. First they have to earn the respect oftheir fellow truthers. This they achieve by making films, writing books and blogs that seem to be making new statements but are in fact denying most of the skeptical theories.
They reveal themselves by their extraordinary persistence and single-mindedness. At one stage it looked as though they were part of a gigantic double-bluff, so frequently did they mention the buzz words 'space beams' (often coupled with mini-nukes and Keebler Elves , a reference to a single, perhaps unwise, ironic metaphor used in a paper by Reynolds and Wood.
In conclusion, I would urge the greatest caution in writing off the research into both TV fakery and Beam Weapons. Both have much to commend them, and both , if proved true, would be vastly dangerous to the perps as they would dismantle -no, demolish - the whole edifice of untruth that has been constructed on the graves of the 3,000 souls who died in the Twin Towers.
Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson on Fri, 12/29/2006 - 8:30pm.
Judy Wood says: Sent 12/28/06
Kevin, If you don't realize directed energy weapons exist, have been tested,
and are in use and you don't want to read our paper (which shows
examples of them in use), perhaps you'd like to visit the US
military's web site on Directed Energy Weapons:
http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat11.pdf directed
energy quotes (dated February 2000)
The above information is all in the public domain. So, perhaps you
can imagine what is not in the public domain.
Don't you find it a bit concerning that Steven Jones, whose area of
expertise this is in, claims to know nothing about the development of
directed energy weapons over the past 30 years? Even if he were that
ignorant about his field of expertise, isn't it a bit concerning that
he uses divisive and derogatory statements to describe our research,
such as "space beams knocking down the towers"? It's very difficult
not to conclude that his motive for taking over the ST911 website is
to keep the truth about 9/11 hidden. After all, he has admitted that
he knows of no way thermite could have brought the towers down.
I thought you might be interested in the response to Alex Floum's
email given by Andrew Johnson, a physicist and full member (FM) of
Scholars. What does it mean when yet another physicist objects to
Steven Jones' actions?
Judy http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html
A LETTER FROM JIM FETZER:
All,
The situation with Scholars has taken an ominous turn, where we have been
frozen out of the Scholars web site and posting and updating has been made
impossible, which can only have been done by Fred Burks, who has possession
of the domain names, or Alex Floum, who may still control the password. It
looks like a nice example of the lack of scruples to which I drew attention
in my most recent message to the membership. I find this quite distressing.
Alex Floum continues to abuse his position as a former member of Scholars by
distributing contrived and misleading characterizations of the issues. To
hear him tell it, it is a conflict between the forces of democracy (led by
Alex Floum) and those of dictatorship (me). My frank assessment is that his
crass and underhanded tactics threaten the continuing existence of Scholars.
Here is a summary of the situation, followed by a list of forthcoming events.
1) As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth who has acted on behalf of the
society to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about 9/11, I alone remain
as a member of the society, which former members are attempting to control.
2) The extant Scholars for 9/11 Truth is the rightful owner of the web site,
the journal, and the forum as well as their contents, where, in some cases,
such as copyrighted articles, that ownership may be shared with the authors.
3) Alex Floum, who obtained the domain names for the web site and the journal
on behalf of the society, had no right to transfer what he never owned to Fred
Burks, a friend of some ten years who served as a translator for Presidents,
who has neither legal, moral, nor intellectual rights to any of these sites.
4) The anonymous email requesting a vote on the future of the society's sites
and membership was unauthorized, illegal, null, and void. The manner in which
it was conducted (by creating fake addresses and phony administrators) offers
clear evidence that this was an ignoble action taken under cover where those
effecting these misdeeds were not even willing to identify themselves by name.
..... SNIP
more here http://911blogger.com/node/5277
Nico Haupt aka Ewing2001 SEEMS to have lost his mind.
Maybe he lived too long in New York, he is fast becoming a anti-NWO crazy.
David Griffin wants the international court of justice to work. This is a good thing, no matter what NICO thinks. Griffin MAY HAVE TALKED to crazy people, but this is not proof of him being member of a conspiracy. I cannot see how Griffin is helping to cover-up the vile crime of 911. Here is what Nico says. Strange, but hey, the world is strange.. so taken with a grain of salt, what is fact?
Re: David Ray Griffin Answers Your Questions
« Reply #14 on: Yesterday at 08:11:08 AM »
David,
the 9/11 Truth Movement is pretty much infiltrated at the TOP from people linked to the exotic weaponry programs of U.S. Government (Bowman, Jones, Hoffman), as pointed out in my articles here:
9/11 Truthling Cult Infiltration Watch Pt.1
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911truthling1204.html
9/11 Truthling Infiltration Watch Pt.2
http://alexconstantine.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-truthling-infiltration-watch-pt2.html
The MIT-AI -9/11 Connection (Pt.3 and related research).
http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?4040
The 9/11 truthling movement turned into a cult, run by a god figure named Griffin.
I understand that you also run another cult in China, based on some obscure pantheism ideology by Wackhead Alfred North Whitehead.
I am not arguing about freedom of speech to chose some particular (pseudo-)religious choices, i am arguing that you are supporting 'one world government' ideologies, which are clearly based on Orwellianism and nothing else.
You also had been documented in close association with several Rockefeller Meetings in Europe.
Since i am not expecting you ever to support the evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery and the use of ExoW (exotic weaponry) on the Day of 9/11 and you also won't argue about the infiltration of this movement either, my question is, when are you leaving the scene, confirming the sabotage of some spook assets and give up or is there already someone else replacing your spot?
The OSS-Tavistock MindControl Cult- 9/11 Truthling Infiltration Timeline
http://911closeup.com/nico/911truthling_cult4.html
http://www.911logic.blogspot.com
http://www.911tvfakery.net
http://www.911researchers.com
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2467
Waiting for Answers from One World Government Cultist David Ray Griffin
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 08:24:09 AM by ewing2001 »
A 911 TRUTHER'S GUIDE TO DISINFORMATION
Place yourself, for one minute if you will, in the position of one of the architects of the 911 demolitions. Your job is to counter-attack the inevitable opposition to the official version of events.
You do not need to worry about the press - they are mostly under strict control. So you concentrate your efforts on the principal enemy - the open, undisciplined, autonomous, anarchic, democratic, dangerous free exchange of ideas known as the internet.
Do you sit and wait for groups to spring up and then employ people to post persuasive and persistent defenses of the status quo/ attacks on the doubters?
Do you start new sites devoted to 'debunking' the skeptics? Or do you set up a bogus 'truth movement' which appears to be intent on exposing the villains, but is in fact a deliberate decoy and a 'honey-pot' for honest truth-seekers?
The words of Donald Rumsfeld strongly suggest all three are in operation. Talking about the 'manipulations of the US media by the country's 'enemies' which as we now know can include patriotic Americans who question their government, Mr Rumsfeld said, "That's the thing that keeps me up at night."
He has set up a unit to fight 'inaccurate statements''.
The newly-established unit would use "new media" channels to push its message and "set the record straight", Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff said.
A Pentagon memo seen by the Associated Press news agency said the new unit would "develop messages" for the 24-hour news cycle and aim to "correct the record". The unit would reportedly monitor media such as weblogs and would also employ "surrogates", or top politicians or lobbyists who could be interviewed on TV and radio shows.
So that leaves us to identify the pysops candidates. The first two listed above are easy enough to spot. It is when we get to the Cointelpro, the truth that is not truth, that the difficulty starts.
Here there are a number of possible set-ups. As they are not mutually exclusive, it is possible for more than one of them to be true.
The first possible candidate is the 'wacky theories' infiltration scenario. This is far and away the most popular holder of the 'disinfo' mantle here on 911blogger, and consists of a rag-bag of 'unprovable' theories and hypotheses including holograms, pods, bluescreen, tvfakery, mini-nukes, beam weapons and other exotic (unverified) devices. Clearly some of these are indeed bizarre to say the least, but there are others which are not. They are all indiscriminatingly tarred with the same brush, making the job of research an uphill struggle in the face of insults. I can believe that the 'perps' might well want to confuse us by putting forward impossible theories as genuine research. But as well as presenting fake research, they must surely be doing their best to discredit the real stuff.
This is the second, very important function of the '911 Truth movement' psyops - to attempt to undermine those who are getting near the truth of what was used to bring down the Twin Towers. Which theories are most heavily attacked on 911 Truth forums? For a while it was the no-Boeing-at-the-Pentagon supporters who got the most flak. I believe a couple of years back that Controlled Demolition was not a popular view in 911truth.org, but I stand to be corrected.
The focus of attack has for nearly two months been Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds' lengthy analysis of the Star Wars Beam Weapons hypothesis.
Actually it is not a strict hypothesis as it cannot be tested, for obvious reasons. This does not make it invalid, and to say so is to deceive. There are, however, some interesting puffs of smoke which, although they do not yet constitute a 'smoking gun', should cause concern to every genuine 911 researcher.
This reaction to a question in a recent press conference should ring alarms bells.
QUESTIONER:
Could you answer a question about some of that technology you're developing to fight the war on terrorism, specifically Directed Energy and high-powered Microwave technology. Have you... when do you envision(sic) that you weaponize that kind of technology?
LOOK AT THE FACE!!! IT IS A BEAM WEAPON GIVEAWAY!! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1439692165433909308&hl=en
DONALD RUMSFELD:
Hmmmm...(mumbled)goodness...it is, it is in, for the most part, the kinds of things you are talking about are in very early stages. (turning to Gen. Myers) Do you want to give anything to add?
GENERAL RICHARD MYERS
I don't think I would add much, I, I...(long pause)...(swallows)...I think they are in early stages and, and...and probably not ready... er,for employment at this point.
A US general 'thinks' they are 'probably' not ready for employment. Probably? Thinks? Whoever is briefing him is not doing much of a job.
The reason given by the 911 'truthers' who , with various degrees of force , denounce those who are talking about exotic weapons at the WTC is always the same - it will 'damage the movement ' if this gets into the press, and consequently 911 Truth is ridiculed. They conveniently forget that not one major news media has mentioned, let alone ridiculed these theories. A Google News search on "space beams'' or ''directed energy weapons'' and '' 9/11'' yields barely two results. Neither are from significant media.
Incredibly, some have written on this forum that it does not matter if the theory is true or not, as the public will never buy it. I find the logic of that argument shocking. If we are not telling the world the whole truth as we know it, we are doomed to fail. We will lose what shred of credibility we still have with the non-skeptical public, and confuse and dismay those who want to find the truth but are nervous about agreeing with such an 'unpopular' claim.
So, in summary, it looks highly probable that there is a body of infiltrators at work in the 911 Truth movement.
Some will push untruth in the form of 'red herrings' and bogus theories. Others will work entirely negatively, contradicting and denouncing the proponents, suggesting they be banned, are 'nothing but a joke' and most likely government agents.
These last are likely to be well disguised, and will appear to be pushing genuine 911 Truth. First they have to earn the respect oftheir fellow truthers. This they achieve by making films, writing books and blogs that seem to be making new statements but are in fact denying most of the skeptical theories.
They reveal themselves by their extraordinary persistence and single-mindedness. At one stage it looked as though they were part of a gigantic double-bluff, so frequently did they mention the buzz words 'space beams' (often coupled with mini-nukes and Keebler Elves , a reference to a single, perhaps unwise, ironic metaphor used in a paper by Reynolds and Wood.
In conclusion, I would urge the greatest caution in writing off the research into both TV fakery and Beam Weapons. Both have much to commend them, and both , if proved true, would be vastly dangerous to the perps as they would dismantle -no, demolish - the whole edifice of untruth that has been constructed on the graves of the 3,000 souls who died in the Twin Towers.
Submitted by Andrew Lowe Watson on Fri, 12/29/2006 - 8:30pm.
Judy Wood says: Sent 12/28/06
Kevin, If you don't realize directed energy weapons exist, have been tested,
and are in use and you don't want to read our paper (which shows
examples of them in use), perhaps you'd like to visit the US
military's web site on Directed Energy Weapons:
http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat11.pdf directed
energy quotes (dated February 2000)
The above information is all in the public domain. So, perhaps you
can imagine what is not in the public domain.
Don't you find it a bit concerning that Steven Jones, whose area of
expertise this is in, claims to know nothing about the development of
directed energy weapons over the past 30 years? Even if he were that
ignorant about his field of expertise, isn't it a bit concerning that
he uses divisive and derogatory statements to describe our research,
such as "space beams knocking down the towers"? It's very difficult
not to conclude that his motive for taking over the ST911 website is
to keep the truth about 9/11 hidden. After all, he has admitted that
he knows of no way thermite could have brought the towers down.
I thought you might be interested in the response to Alex Floum's
email given by Andrew Johnson, a physicist and full member (FM) of
Scholars. What does it mean when yet another physicist objects to
Steven Jones' actions?
Judy http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html
A LETTER FROM JIM FETZER:
All,
The situation with Scholars has taken an ominous turn, where we have been
frozen out of the Scholars web site and posting and updating has been made
impossible, which can only have been done by Fred Burks, who has possession
of the domain names, or Alex Floum, who may still control the password. It
looks like a nice example of the lack of scruples to which I drew attention
in my most recent message to the membership. I find this quite distressing.
Alex Floum continues to abuse his position as a former member of Scholars by
distributing contrived and misleading characterizations of the issues. To
hear him tell it, it is a conflict between the forces of democracy (led by
Alex Floum) and those of dictatorship (me). My frank assessment is that his
crass and underhanded tactics threaten the continuing existence of Scholars.
Here is a summary of the situation, followed by a list of forthcoming events.
1) As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth who has acted on behalf of the
society to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about 9/11, I alone remain
as a member of the society, which former members are attempting to control.
2) The extant Scholars for 9/11 Truth is the rightful owner of the web site,
the journal, and the forum as well as their contents, where, in some cases,
such as copyrighted articles, that ownership may be shared with the authors.
3) Alex Floum, who obtained the domain names for the web site and the journal
on behalf of the society, had no right to transfer what he never owned to Fred
Burks, a friend of some ten years who served as a translator for Presidents,
who has neither legal, moral, nor intellectual rights to any of these sites.
4) The anonymous email requesting a vote on the future of the society's sites
and membership was unauthorized, illegal, null, and void. The manner in which
it was conducted (by creating fake addresses and phony administrators) offers
clear evidence that this was an ignoble action taken under cover where those
effecting these misdeeds were not even willing to identify themselves by name.
..... SNIP
more here http://911blogger.com/node/5277
Nico Haupt aka Ewing2001 SEEMS to have lost his mind.
Maybe he lived too long in New York, he is fast becoming a anti-NWO crazy.
David Griffin wants the international court of justice to work. This is a good thing, no matter what NICO thinks. Griffin MAY HAVE TALKED to crazy people, but this is not proof of him being member of a conspiracy. I cannot see how Griffin is helping to cover-up the vile crime of 911. Here is what Nico says. Strange, but hey, the world is strange.. so taken with a grain of salt, what is fact?
Re: David Ray Griffin Answers Your Questions
« Reply #14 on: Yesterday at 08:11:08 AM »
David,
the 9/11 Truth Movement is pretty much infiltrated at the TOP from people linked to the exotic weaponry programs of U.S. Government (Bowman, Jones, Hoffman), as pointed out in my articles here:
9/11 Truthling Cult Infiltration Watch Pt.1
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911truthling1204.html
9/11 Truthling Infiltration Watch Pt.2
http://alexconstantine.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-truthling-infiltration-watch-pt2.html
The MIT-AI -9/11 Connection (Pt.3 and related research).
http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?4040
The 9/11 truthling movement turned into a cult, run by a god figure named Griffin.
I understand that you also run another cult in China, based on some obscure pantheism ideology by Wackhead Alfred North Whitehead.
I am not arguing about freedom of speech to chose some particular (pseudo-)religious choices, i am arguing that you are supporting 'one world government' ideologies, which are clearly based on Orwellianism and nothing else.
You also had been documented in close association with several Rockefeller Meetings in Europe.
Since i am not expecting you ever to support the evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery and the use of ExoW (exotic weaponry) on the Day of 9/11 and you also won't argue about the infiltration of this movement either, my question is, when are you leaving the scene, confirming the sabotage of some spook assets and give up or is there already someone else replacing your spot?
The OSS-Tavistock MindControl Cult- 9/11 Truthling Infiltration Timeline
http://911closeup.com/nico/911truthling_cult4.html
http://www.911logic.blogspot.com
http://www.911tvfakery.net
http://www.911researchers.com
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2467
Waiting for Answers from One World Government Cultist David Ray Griffin
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 08:24:09 AM by ewing2001 »
Earth's magnetic field:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home