Beam Weapon Theory Summaried

[John White]

Why don't the NPT theorists here deal with the evidence of the article rather than attacking me personally?

Becuase our great strength is also our greatest Tragedy: we're "only" Human. Unfortunate, but them's the breaks

However, on general principle its fairly clear that on any issue, the lack of a detailed rebutal is an indicator of weakness in a particular case, and should encourage someone pursuing a particular line of enquirey to continue

[Fallious]

Wise and timely words.

[Andrew Johnson]

I'm a bad boy aren't I?

There's no question that you're not to be trusted with an IP address.

= Andrew
= Hapless Punter

"Hey - Gringo"
"yes?"
"You wan' an IP Address?"
"Wh... who are you?"
"My name eez Skeepton Geet"
"Wh... where did you get it?"
"Vell, you don't neeeeed to know, do you?"
"I'm not interested. Go away."
"i's a nice one - very good - from far away contry, you know?"
"I said go away."
"OK, OK, I go away now."
"Good."
"You sure....?"
"Go away"

etc

[utopiated]

Yup, but I believe that No Planes is a divisive theory designed and pushed by agents of some kind. What's more, I have provided proof of the creation of false evidence in my article - the video I analyse is LIEING. What else am I to name it? Why don't the NPT theorists here deal with the evidence of the article rather than attacking me personally?

It just gets a little hard to accept statements about truth and 'proof' from posters that steam in to debates and amass super-poster type status within a few weeks. Although like many of us here I'm sure you were looking into the data on this area prior to sign-up it could also be taken that you've not taken the time to look at all the discussions going on in the area you claimed to have finally disproven on your site.

Re NPT and your claims of proof: I think we often forget that proof of *anything* is a bit more elusive than we first think or assume when looking outward from our own positions on things.

In this instance we've got to the hilarious point of stating that someone has de-faked the TV fakes! In an era of reality generation via media [any media] the idea that one person can somehow access the definitive version of events or peel off the 'false' layers and get to the real event[s] just doesn't wash.

Does this mean all investigation into these areas is futile? Not at all - but shouting about having debunked a whole area of [valid] research isn't going to help you make further inroads into just what went on.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Yup, but I believe that No Planes is a divisive theory designed and pushed by agents of some kind. What's more, I have provided proof of the creation of false evidence in my article - the video I analyse is LIEING. What else am I to name it? Why don't the NPT theorists here deal with the evidence of the article rather than attacking me personally?

It just gets a little hard to accept statements about truth and 'proof' from posters that steam in to debates and amass super-poster type status within a few weeks. Although like many of us here I'm sure you were looking into the data on this area prior to sign-up it could also be taken that you've not taken the time to look at all the discussions going on in the area you claimed to have finally disproven on your site.

Re NPT and your claims of proof: I think we often forget that proof of *anything* is a bit more elusive than we first think or assume when looking outward from our own positions on things.

In this instance we've got to the hilarious point of stating that someone has de-faked the TV fakes! In an era of reality generation via media [any media] the idea that one person can somehow access the definitive version of events or peel off the 'false' layers and get to the real event[s] just doesn't wash.

Does this mean all investigation into these areas is futile? Not at all - but shouting about having debunked a whole area of [valid] research isn't going to help you make further inroads into just what went on.

Spot on Utopiated

I have visited your website which is very good (a bit bohemian) and have watched some very interesting presentations

If you want to know about flying saucers and how they actually work this is the place to go

[Fallious]

It just gets a little hard to accept statements about truth and 'proof' from posters that steam in to debates and amass super-poster type status within a few weeks. Although like many of us here I'm sure you were looking into the data on this area prior to sign-up it could also be taken that you've not taken the time to look at all the discussions going on in the area you claimed to have finally disproven on your site.

Agreed, I was lurking for a few weeks. This is the first 911 forum I've ever bothered with and I was introduced to NPT through it. I'm a 3D artist by trade and work with video also, so NPT was never going to 'get' me, but I also understand how the purely visual evidence can be compelling to people without the necessary experience to debunk it themselves.

I've noticed this puts a lot of people in a frame of mind, understanding that it's mad, but having difficulty ignoring what looks like strong visual evidence.

Re NPT and your claims of proof: I think we often forget that proof of *anything* is a bit more elusive than we first think or assume when looking outward from our own positions on things.

In this instance we've got to the hilarious point of stating that someone has de-faked the TV fakes! In an era of reality generation via media [any media] the idea that one person can somehow access the definitive version of events or peel off the 'false' layers and get to the real event[s] just doesn't wash.

Well, I didn't de-fake the TV fakes. All I did was reveal how the pro NPT video was specifically designed to confuse and mislead the viewer. Need I remind you of the first comparison shot?!

Does this mean all investigation into these areas is futile? Not at all - but shouting about having debunked a whole area of [valid] research isn't going to help you make further inroads into just what went on.

THIS particular NPT 'research' is not valid, it's the specific purpose of my article to expose it.

[ian neal]

......... amass super-poster type status within a few weeks.

FYI, Don't read anything into the 'status' accrued from posting lots of times. It is meaningless.

[Fallious]

......... amass super-poster type status within a few weeks.

FYI, Don't read anything into the 'status' accrued from posting lots of times. It is meaningless.

You would say that! You only got "Organiser" . Anyway, 4.3 posts per day isn't too extreme.

[ian neal]

You would say that! You only got "Organiser" . Anyway, 4.3 posts per day isn't too extreme.

"Organiser" is also a misleading misnomer. I have a degree of influence but organiser suggests that I have an omnipotence to shape this site as I would wish. The truth is change only happens when there is a high degree of consensus (which also explains why it is sometimes painfully slow). Anyway back on subject............

[utopiated]

Spot on Utopiated

I have visited your website which is very good (a bit bohemian) and have watched some very interesting presentations

If you want to know about flying saucers and how they actually work this is the place to go

Heheh... 'a bit bohemian' The site has a few other contributors apart from me and this includes some of the graphics [not my strength].

Thanks - but with that and the UFO thing everyone will have me down as someone that arrives in an anti-gravity vehicle to worship Molech and sacrifice a few effigies

[John White]

Thanks - but with that and the UFO thing everyone will have me down as someone that arrives in an anti-gravity vehicle to worship Molech and sacrifice a few effigies

Not at all: there are many strange things that cannot be explained away, and the evidence regarding UFO's is somewhat massive

However, none of that makes me conclude anything other than large airliners struck the towers and I see huge problems with "BW" Theory that are brushed over time and time again

Just becuase the balance of probability says Secret Tech exists (like unknown propulsion systems with amazing capabilities), has absolutely no bearing on what happened on 9/11 unless the evidence clearly points that way: and no matter how convincing ones own belief system is, it simply isnt doing so to date, and that will continue until advocates of these theories get serious about them and address the questions rather than ridicule the questioners: so i'd advise both yourself, utopiated, and others like TWSU3, to do yourselves a favour and get your focus straight

[IronSnot]

It just gets a little hard to accept statements about truth and 'proof' from posters that steam in to debates and amass super-poster type status within a few weeks.

I had 3000 posts over at the Guardian at one stage. And if they didn't delete threads over there, I'd probably be sitting on about 8000 or so. And that's in a year. I'm by no means the most prolific poster either. At any time there are many posters there with double/triple my posts. And it's easy to knock over 200 (or more) posts in a day if a conversation really got going.

I get a little amused at all the accusations of shillness around here. Andrew is the one that makes me laugh, not only does he accuse others of shillness frequently but he also accuses himself of it often (of course in this case it's supposed to be sarcastic). What's the attraction to shill?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Hi Iron Snot

Will you take part in the 911 Truth March

[IronSnot]

NPT

Your patience with this particular idiocy is laudable. Personally I can't be bothered giving it 2 seconds of my time. I have though spent quite a lot of time investigating it's proponents, so if you want some info there just yell and I'll email some stuff.

[IronSnot]

Hi Iron Snot

Will you take part in the 911 Truth March

Seek and ye shall find. Would I be a shill if I didn't? To be honest Truthhasnt'SetU3 it's probably too far away. Me being in Melbourne and all.

[Garcon Warrior]

you could do the Melbourne to Darwin march.

[utopiated]

Thanks - but with that and the UFO thing everyone will have me down as someone that arrives in an anti-gravity vehicle to worship Molech and sacrifice a few effigies

Not at all: there are many strange things that cannot be explained away, and the evidence regarding UFO's is somewhat massive

I feel a slight contradiction coming on John...

Just becuase the balance of probability says Secret Tech exists (like unknown propulsion systems with amazing capabilities), has absolutely no bearing on what happened on 9/11 unless the evidence clearly points that way: and no matter how convincing ones own belief system is, it simply isnt doing so to date,

Of course it impacts. You admit that probable energy systems exist that allow all sorts of weirdity to take place but refuse to consider this a possibility in the biggest event of the last decade. Have you seen a UFO/ionisation/anti-grav propulsion system first hand? Nor me. Neither have I seen a directed energy weapon destroy anything bigger than a rather large missile BUT i'll assume they are around and in use based on what I know - ergo they are a possibility.

and that will continue until advocates of these theories get serious about them and address the questions rather than ridicule the questioners: so i'd advise both yourself, utopiated, and others like TWSU3, to do yourselves a favour and get your focus straight

My Beam is well focused last time I checked. Who's ridiculed questioners? Not me. In fact on the BW thing there are a handful of us attempting to keep this as an option - not write it off to a kook backwater which is just where "911 Was an Inside Job" was as a whole 4 or 5 years ago.

Semi scorched cars anyone?

[Ally]

I feel a slight contradiction coming on John...

Expect nothing less from a Icke fanatic who's been on his knees worshipping the man for the last ten years. LOL.

[John White]

Of course it impacts. You admit that probable energy systems exist that allow all sorts of weirdity to take place but refuse to consider this a possibility in the biggest event of the last decade. Have you seen a UFO/ionisation/anti-grav propulsion system first hand? Nor me. Neither have I seen a directed energy weapon destroy anything bigger than a rather large missile BUT i'll assume they are around and in use based on what I know - ergo they are a possibility

Thats fine if we want a pet theory that makes us feel good, but useless if we want to expose the biggest crime so far this century

BUT i'll assume they are around

That's the trouble right there mate: I could assume anything: but that only makes it true inside my head

Sorry. Not for me. I want to know what really happened, and to do that I need to go to facts, not assumptions. Weve got credible evidance that fits the established facts and provides many answers: or "no Planes" and "Beam weapons" literally hanging in thin air on a slender string of belief, with blind spots to the obvious worthy of any religous dogma

At the end of the day, if we settle for that, we sell short the 3000 victims in NYC, the 100,000 victims in afghanistan, the 700,000 victims in Iraq and the who knows how many poor b****** still to be murdered as a result of this crime

And thats what I mean by get your focus straight

Do you want to argue with that? Go right ahead

Who's ridiculed questioners? Not me

Nor me

[John White]

I feel a slight contradiction coming on John...

Expect nothing less from a Icke fanatic who's been on his knees worshipping the man for the last ten years. LOL.

A new low from you there Ally. Everything from prejuidce to a crude attempt at character assasination all in one sentance. But then, I'm not suprised, and your hardly unique in any way. It's never worked before mate and it won't be working now: but if Icke supported "No Planes" you'd be licking his boots no doubt

[Ally]

I feel a slight contradiction coming on John...

Expect nothing less from a Icke fanatic who's been on his knees worshipping the man for the last ten years. LOL.

A new low from you there Ally. Everything from prejuidce to a crude attempt at character assasination all in one sentance. But then, I'm not suprised, and your hardly unique in any way. It's never worked before mate and it won't be working now: but if Icke supported "No Planes" you'd be licking his boots no doubt

prejudice, sentence, assassination

You deserve a PHD (with honours) in drivel my friend.

But I award you an E in O-Grade English.

[paul wright]

Of course it impacts. You admit that probable energy systems exist that allow all sorts of weirdity to take place but refuse to consider this a possibility in the biggest event of the last decade. Have you seen a UFO/ionisation/anti-grav propulsion system first hand? Nor me. Neither have I seen a directed energy weapon destroy anything bigger than a rather large missile BUT i'll assume they are around and in use based on what I know - ergo they are a possibility

Thats fine if we want a pet theory that makes us feel good, but useless if we want to expose the biggest crime so far this century

BUT i'll assume they are around

That's the trouble right there mate: I could assume anything: but that only makes it true inside my head

Sorry. Not for me. I want to know what really happened, and to do that I need to go to facts, not assumptions. Weve got credible evidance that fits the established facts and provides many answers: or "no Planes" and "Beam weapons" literally hanging in thin air on a slender string of belief, with blind spots to the obvious worthy of any religous dogma

At the end of the day, if we settle for that, we sell short the 3000 victims in NYC, the 100,000 victims in afghanistan, the 700,000 victims in Iraq and the who knows how many poor * still to be murdered as a result of this crime

And thats what I mean by get your focus straight

Do you want to argue with that? Go right ahead

Who's ridiculed questioners? Not me

Nor me

I agree John. It's obvious to me that some kind of 'extra' technology and one that was described a century ago was involved in wtc 1 & 2
But why fall out about it?
It doesn't make sense. I see David S covertly mention the hologram theory towards the end of that Sky interview. I agree with him there, but why mention it? It doesn't add anything to, and may possibly subtract from a perfectly good interview
What's all this disappearing up your own ass stuff

[Ally]

I agree John. It's obvious to me that some kind of 'extra' technology and one that was described a century ago was involved in wtc 1 & 2
But why fall out about it?
It doesn't make sense. I see David S covertly mention the hologram theory towards the end of that Sky interview. I agree with him there, but why mention it? It doesn't add anything to, and may possibly subtract from a perfectly good interview
What's all this disappearing up your own ass stuff

I liked the Freudian slip by the presenter at the start of the Sky News interview, "This is David Shayler, counter-intelligence officer for MI5..oh, I mean former...."

[John White]

I agree John. It's obvious to me that some kind of 'extra' technology and one that was described a century ago was involved in wtc 1 & 2
But why fall out about it?
It doesn't make sense. I see David S covertly mention the hologram theory towards the end of that Sky interview. I agree with him there, but why mention it? It doesn't add anything to, and may possibly subtract from a perfectly good interview
What's all this disappearing up your own ass stuff

I liked the Freudian slip by the presenter at the start of the Sky News interview, "This is David Shayler, counter-intelligence officer for MI5..oh, I mean former...."

OK Ally: but here's what your missing: if your snide digs a Shayler add up to anything, all your doing is proving "No Planes" is dis-information, becuase everything else Shayler said is credible and checks out

Make you mind up which way you want it

[John White]

Of course it impacts. You admit that probable energy systems exist that allow all sorts of weirdity to take place but refuse to consider this a possibility in the biggest event of the last decade. Have you seen a UFO/ionisation/anti-grav propulsion system first hand? Nor me. Neither have I seen a directed energy weapon destroy anything bigger than a rather large missile BUT i'll assume they are around and in use based on what I know - ergo they are a possibility

Thats fine if we want a pet theory that makes us feel good, but useless if we want to expose the biggest crime so far this century

BUT i'll assume they are around

That's the trouble right there mate: I could assume anything: but that only makes it true inside my head

Sorry. Not for me. I want to know what really happened, and to do that I need to go to facts, not assumptions. Weve got credible evidance that fits the established facts and provides many answers: or "no Planes" and "Beam weapons" literally hanging in thin air on a slender string of belief, with blind spots to the obvious worthy of any religous dogma

At the end of the day, if we settle for that, we sell short the 3000 victims in NYC, the 100,000 victims in afghanistan, the 700,000 victims in Iraq and the who knows how many poor * still to be murdered as a result of this crime

And thats what I mean by get your focus straight

Do you want to argue with that? Go right ahead

Who's ridiculed questioners? Not me

Nor me

I agree John. It's obvious to me that some kind of 'extra' technology and one that was described a century ago was involved in wtc 1 & 2
But why fall out about it?
It doesn't make sense. I see David S covertly mention the hologram theory towards the end of that Sky interview. I agree with him there, but why mention it? It doesn't add anything to, and may possibly subtract from a perfectly good interview
What's all this disappearing up your own ass stuff

Cheers dh. Its a poser isnt it? I'm not sure which position dave is curently backing, TV fakery or Holograms, becuase his comment was too vague to tell on the Sky programme, but he's backed Holograms before so I assume he's still "there"

As for what's it all about, well we really can't know, and we can't stop people speculating (that other fella was bang on the money, wasnt he?) but one thing I am sure of, if he'd hit them with "press for truth" instead he would have totally blown that presenter away AND been backed with solid gold fact

But then, were not the ones getting invited to sit in Sky studios

[IronSnot]

Make you mind up which way you want it

[Ally]

Cheers dh. Its a poser isnt it? I'm not sure which position dave is curently backing, TV fakery or Holograms, becuase his comment was too vague to tell on the Sky programme, but he's backed Holograms before so I assume he's still "there"

As for what's it all about, well we really can't know, and we can't stop people speculating (that other fella was bang on the money, wasnt he?) but one thing I am sure of, if he'd hit them with "press for truth" instead he would have totally blown that presenter away AND been backed with solid gold fact

But then, were not the ones getting invited to sit in Sky studios

TV fakery is FACT but PressForTruth's framing of Pakistan not.

Makram Chams owned a convenience store in Florida, where Mohamed Atta and the other 9/11 terrorist received huge wire transfers and cashed huge money orders. How many convenience stores can cash a $70,000.00 money order? After 9/11 he closed down the store, and went to Saudi Arabia as a contractor for Titan Corp.

You might have heard of Titan Corp. They were the defense contractors involved in the Abu-Ghraib tortures. They were involved in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal. They were big investors in SkyWay Aircraft, which owns a plane that a few months ago was busted in Mexico with 5.5 tons of cocaine on it. The plane was painted to look like a US Homeland Security plane. BTW...on January 10th, 2005 the State of Florida selected SkyWays to "Provide Integrated Airport Security System to the State of Florida Department of Transportation." Skyway is in DU's demopedia: (http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Al... ). Also, Titan was fined over 28 million dollars by the SEC for trying to fix an election in Benin.

Makram Chams partially-owned a casino ship called Vegas-in-Venice. One of the other partial owners was Max Burge, who was a partial owner of Hoffman Aviation. Huffman Aviation is the flight school Mohammed Atta learned to fly at.

All this in Florida while Jeb Bush was governor, and was a close associate of Wally Hilliard, who was also part-owner of Huffman Aviation.


How deep does the rabbit hole go?

LINK

[John White]

I agree John. It's obvious to me that some kind of 'extra' technology and one that was described a century ago was involved in wtc 1 & 2
But why fall out about it?
It doesn't make sense. I see David S covertly mention the hologram theory towards the end of that Sky interview. I agree with him there, but why mention it? It doesn't add anything to, and may possibly subtract from a perfectly good interview
What's all this disappearing up your own ass stuff

I liked the Freudian slip by the presenter at the start of the Sky News interview, "This is David Shayler, counter-intelligence officer for MI5..oh, I mean former...."

OK Ally: but here's what your missing: if your snide digs a Shayler add up to anything, all your doing is proving "No Planes" is dis-information, becuase everything else Shayler said is credible and checks out

Make you mind up which way you want it

Ignored as only you can Ally

[rodin]

I have a (very contrarian) theory that the WTC core was taken out by a fusion micronuke that had been tamped to produce radiation specially attuned to the iron atom. Ferro Concrete in the path of a blast from the basement up would be pulverised by superheated iron rods. This theory would explain the elevated tritium levels found in WTC sewers, and also why the trees are still standing in this astonishing picture...

[rodin]