Beam weaponry on the WTCs?!????

[Ry]

lazer beams are real I saw them used in the 80s. That doesnt matter. they didnt use them in the WTC.

So park all the jumping-up-and-down schoolboy shit that they couldn't have used beam weaponry

Not saying they couldn't have I am saying they wouldn't have because it doesn't work for what was done. Thermite maches the science and beams do not. Period.

[aucuneconnerie]

--

[aucuneconnerie]

Ry,

Thermite maches the science and beams do not. Period.

I couldn't agree more, but I dont discount anything I dont know about yet. I simply dont know. I just fear that Balkanization of POVs can be harmful to getting at the truth.

And that's what I want to come out: the goddam truth.

[ledskof]

cassanovafrankenstein, I have no clue what they are working on now. I do know about stuff long ago. And I can tell you that the digital piece of shit I am using to write this on was relegated to the military techno morgue over 35 years ago. Black ops military engineers had an expression about it that I forget, but it was entirely derisive about digital computing.

Can you go into detail on where this military technology is being used then? Because it isn't being used in field hardware, including jets. It isn't being used in guns. It isn't being used in personnel gear. And it's not needed in any of those places. Those things work just fine with the real computer equipment in them instead of the imaginary bs you are talking about. The only place you would need such a piece of science fiction is in big super computers in labs where information is being collected and processed... You really need to come up with what the application of such a super-advanced-magical-bunny computer tech would be instead of just saying it exists.

If you really had a clue you'd realize that where the military and OGAs are making real technological advancement is in software -- not hardware. And there is plenty of places that this software is being applied.

[aucuneconnerie]

ledskof,

You need to read between the lines. If you were someone in the know, you would know I'm making sense.

[ledskof]

ledskof,

You need to read between the lines. If you were someone in the know, you would know I'm making sense.

Actually I am someone in the know and I don't get you. If you have something to add then add it not all this mystery and crap.

Reading between the lines is my function. Writing fiction, not to mention Science Fiction, between the lines is not my MO.

[cassanovafrankenstein]

radio transmissions over a quarter of a million miles IN REAL TIME? Is that possible? Anyone want to weigh in on that possibility?

I don't know about real time. Radio waves travel 186,000 miles a second, so there's a second and a half to 2 second delay. I'd like to watch your video but since I'm poor & on dialup, I can't, but thanks for posting it.
I'll look into holographic technology, I'm not familiar with it.

[aucuneconnerie]

cassanovafrankenstein,

Computers 'could store entire life by 2026' (December 13, 2006)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... life13.xml

A device the size of a sugar cube will be able to record and store high resolution video footage of every second of a human life within two decades, experts said yesterday.

Holographic computing now going retail.

Here's a drawing of the concept:
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/holog ... memory.htm
Which also states

Polaroid scientist Pieter J. van Heerden first proposed the idea of holographic (three-dimensional) storage in the early 1960s.

But the military version used three laser-reading heads for redundancy, speed, and accuracy (cuz of the laser angle issue). What they did was exponentially levels of accuracy beyond what you read of the concept here.

[rory5]

this nonsense it put out on purpose and we all know it. I think it is great because it lets us redflag people. It lets us know who the moles are.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Anything but the truth.
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/exp ... ig_con.htm

Suspicions are further compounded when we discover that these same people who want us to suspect Saudi Arabia and to believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon, combine their promotion of this "party line" with vigorous condemnation of the "Israel did it" crowd. There is much to explore on the Israel question and much evidence, going way back, that Israel, to all intents and purposes, calls the shots in the US.

Just how far does the power of the Pro-Israel lobby go? Powerful enough to play a leading role in 9-11?

It is definitely NOT beyond the realm of possibility, and it is NOT for Ruppert Hopsicker or anyone else to assert outright that it is, particularly when they refuse to fully investigate the matter. Their position is similar to that of the Bush gang who also rule out, a priori, that it was something other than a conspiracy hatched by a man living in a cave and carried out by 19 crazed "Arab terrorists" several of whom happen to have been confirmed to be still living.

The truth is that the real reasons for the events of 9-11 are much more insidious than any of the theories that have to date been proffered. As part of the process of investigation, most 9-11 investigators have, at least once, suggested that if everyone were just to look to "who benefits", the solution to the whole enigma would quickly present itself. The important thing to remember about the "who benefits" approach however, is that, having identified the party that benefits the most from an event, that lead must be doggedly pursued, regardless of the lack of evidence of that party’s involvement in the event. Indeed, in such a case, a lack of evidence can constitute the most important piece of evidence if we consider that those with the most to gain often have the most to lose if their involvement were to be revealed. And in this case, the wherewithal needed to pull off such a major attack and deception is so vast, that those responsible would certainly have the means and know-how to plant evidence to blame it on others while eliminating the evidence that points back to the truly guilty parties.

As the twin towers crumbled to the ground, the average Western citizen’s perception of Arabs, already suffering from long years of subtle propaganda by the Western press, took an equally disastrous nose-dive. In one fell swoop, millions of people in that big nebulous area of the world known to many Americans as "the Middle East" became "dangerous terrorists" and the soon-to-be recipients of the whipped-up fury and indignation of the American people, conveyed on their behalf by the "world’s most awesome military machine". 9-11 then, certainly secured the enthusiastic consent of the American people for an invasion of whichever country the US government decided to frame for the attacks.

However, it is our contention that Ruppert’s argument that the 9-11 attacks were carried out to facilitate an oil grab by the US government in the face of "peak oil" also makes little sense.

As a result of the first gulf war and under the oil for food program, any Iraqi oil resources that were required for American consumption had already been secured by US interests, so there was therefore little to be gained by the US government embroiling its military in what was always going to be a costly and unwinnable guerrilla war. One has only to look at the pre-eminent global position of the US over the past 50 years to see that its policies were already working quite nicely. So why risk military and economic catastrophe by invading Iraq? Indeed, there was little to be gained from the most recent US invasion of the Middle East if it is understood only in terms of securing oil for consumption. The invasion, in fact, uses up VAST quantities of oil, to what end?

Imagine that, for whatever reason, you were planning a radical reshaping of the Middle East, and you had concluded that, to get the job done, war and the destruction of an entire race of people therein was necessary. Imagine also that you are well aware that you cannot just unilaterally set off a major conflagration, principally because public opinion and certain other nations would not stand for it. Realising that you need some way to mould public opinion towards accepting war and at the same time render impotent those nations that pose a threat to your plans, what might be the best way to do it?

By far the most effective tool for shaping public opinion is fear. And by far the best way to control other nations is economically, or rather, through the control of their oil supply. Hence, 9-11 and the "war on terror".

Unless the US actually physically controls Middle Eastern oil reserves, however, they have no way of controlling to whom those reserves are sold. The only way to do so is to fabricate a reason for invading each oil-rich country in turn and either permanently occupy them or install a proxy government that will do your bidding. This, it would seem, is the process we see unfolding currently with the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq. Iran is probably next. Venezuela may follow. Of course, the public must be given a plausible reason as to why the wells have "run dry", which is the reason for the dissemination of the peak oil myth.

However, maintaining the military necessary for such a task demands tremendous economic and human resources. The costs are driving the United States further and further into debt. At the same time, Bush is giving tax breaks to his wealthy support base, narrowing the income base within the US to pay for his military follies. This makes the US more and more dependent upon foreign governments to shore up the US debt, to the cost of nearly $2 billion a day. The day that the rest of the world decides to take a hit on the value of their dollar reserves in order to bring the US predator to its knees, is the day the war machine will begin to collapse, bringing down with it the fabled "American Way of Life".

But what can be the motivation behind such an insane plot? What can drive a group of people, against all reason and logic, to risk the economic destruction of their own country and therefore their power base?

Such a question cannot be answered without looking at the one country for which successive US governments have bent over backwards to accommodate; which takes us back to Israel.

There is much evidence to warrant an in-depth investigation of the role played by agents of Israel in the 9-11 attacks. Yet the ubiquitous, tiresome and completely baseless threat of being labelled "anti-Semitic" for criticising the actions of the Israeli government effectively prevents all but the most courageous from following the leads. Coincidence? We think not.

[aucuneconnerie]

--