Who was the first to push the Space Beams/ No Planes Memes?

Discussion in '9/11' started by l4zarus, Jul 2, 2014.

?

Who was the first to promote Space Ray/No Planes theories about 9/11

  1. Alex Jones

    1 vote(s)
    14.3%
  2. Morgan Renolds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Judy Wood

    5 vote(s)
    71.4%
  4. Nico haupt

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Christopher Bollyn

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Jim Fetzer

    1 vote(s)
    14.3%
  1. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    in whatever form it may take, speculation is still speculation and as such has NO place at all in the discussion. What we really need is a focus on the physical reality that is documented, and also noting the voids in documentation..... but speculation is futile!
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again,if speculation is futile,Why,oh why do you continually engage in it?
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    it is the supporters of the official story who speculate so much, the problem is that whatever it was that destroyed three WTC skyscrapers that day, it was NOT simply fire + gravity & damage caused by aircraft crashes. What we have is a HUGE logical disconnect between what people were shown on TV and what the explanation for what happened by the mainstream media. The huge voids in actual evidence are ripe for speculation and with that speculation all sorts of things will crop up, like allegations that the towers were destroyed by Hydrogen bombs ( or? ) Personally, I refuse to speculate, the bits that I KNOW, are based upon hard evidence & logic.
     
  4. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Name one thing we speculate about............


    Name another...

    We KNOW planes were hijacked and flown into buildings on 9/11,there is NO speculation on our part that they were somehow 'faked'
     
  5. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since there is no accounting for the physical wreckage of any of the 4 alleged airliners, there is NO proof that the planes existed at all, note also that photographs of an Arabic looking guy at an airport is NOT proof that this person hijacked an airliner. The logistics of accomplishing the hijacking + flying to the target and scoring direct hits on 3 targets is simply out of the question. The various crash sites are NOT consistent with airliner crash sites and in fact, one veteran news reporter stated upon viewing the Pentagon scene that "no airliner crashed anywhere near the Pentagon" ( and given the common usage of the term, this is inclusive that is no airliner at the Pentagon or anywhere around it) the network cut to a commercial break and when they returned the reporter had to very seriously back-peddle and explain that the airliner crashed into the Pentagon and entered the building leaving only little bits on the Pentagon lawn.
    Note that this is highly uncharacteristic of airliner crashes, and is most improbable that it could have happened as described in the mainstream media.

    The airliner crashes is one point of speculation, and for another
    the demise of WTC1,2 & 7 complete & total destruction of all three skyscrapers and exactly what was alleged to have been the cause? "progressive collapse"
    in the case of all three buildings, ALL of the connections, welds, bolts, etc.... would have to fail exactly on-time as if on schedule, to achieve the result as seen.

    In short, the official story has no legs.
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's bits of the planes in the 9/11 museum,they've had to document they came from the two jets,your standards of proof,as I said,are impossible to meet..


    And your incredulity goes off the page in this post...It was MORE than photo's of an 'Arabic looking guy at an airport'



    How you can be so wrong about so many things,and still claim them,frankly amazes me,You assume facts NOT in evidence,and just plain assume all over hell on this board
     
  7. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is there a figure available for any of the 4 crash sites that states anybody measured/weighed the aircraft wreckage and can account for X tons of stuff?
    Where are the flight recorders for "FLT11" & "FLT175" and in response to this question, the standard bit is "oh but they had entire 110 story skyscrapers fall on them, what do you expect to find?" HOWEVER, in the case of the alleged airliners, "FLT11" only had some of the top 17 stories of the skyscraper fall upon it and at that, given that other sturdy metal objects ( ie: firearms ) were recovered from the rubble, where are the flight data recorders? or for that matter any recognizable piece of a flight data recorder?

    For that matter, there was a restaurant at the top of the North tower, and in the artifacts recovered, why wasn't any trace of said restaurant recovered, heavy metal cookware, metal counter-tops, refrigerators, stoves, where are the artifacts? Why is it that first responders noted the absents of bits like even recognizable remnants of desks, chairs, telephones, even doorknobs, and all of this total destruction was allegedly attributed to the "collapse" event?
     
  8. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There you go again with those impossible standards for proof

    the cockpit voice recoder and the flight data recorder are designed to be strurdy,and are placed in the taiol sections of planes,because that seems to survive most crashes


    the fact than ANYTHING recognizable was found in the rubble is a miracle in of itself.
     
  9. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is energy, and then there is focused energy, the problem with the total destruction of major artifacts such as tons of kitchen gear from the restaurant, is that there would not only have to be energy available, but that energy would have to be focused in order to completely destroy the bits that are known to have been completely destroyed. What magic provided the FOCUS to make the energy do the work as was alleged?
     
  10. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <sigh> how many times must we tell you about gravity,before it finally sinks in?

    Are you being purposefully obtuse,or what?
     
  11. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you are saying that GRAVITY focused the energy exactly to the points needed to cause the complete & total "collapse" ( that is destruction ) of the towers? is that what you believe?
     
  12. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    N
    What, now you don't believe in Gravity?
     
  13. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You are correct. This discussion is about the "space beam" theories invented by fringe racist political groups promoted by the "truth" movement years later.

    It is a FACT, not speculation, that the space beam/DEW/disintegration ray theory was invented by Nazi apologists in 2002.

    It is a FACT, not speculation, that when "truther" JIm Fetzer intoduced Judy Wood in 2006 with her DEW theory this was understood to be her theory.

    It is a FACT, not speculation, that Steven Jones, also in 2006, was supportive of Woods "research": 911blogger.com/node/4449

    "Following is Dr. Steven E. Jones' request that the Scholars for 9/11 Truth "take a close look at these ideas.""

    Steven "Nanny Thermite" Jones wants people to take a closer look at an idea invented by Bollyn and/or associates.

    It appears to be a FACT niether Jones, Fetzer, or their supporters want to admit DEW is not an invention of Judy Wood.

    Therefore, in consideration of these FACTS that show deliberate deception, a reasonable conclusion is DEW is a deliberate fraud.

    And here's a kicker: Bollyn claims to be the founder of the "truth movement."
    http://www.meetup.com/lonelantern/messages/52801292/

    From: AMERICAN UNDERGROUND NETWORK
    Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:30 PM
    Subject: ccc-6th ANNIVERSARY SHOW - CHRIS BOLLYN -5-9-2013 (9PM)

    Link for THURSDAY's Show # 300
    6th ANNIVERSARY BROADCAST
    Christopher Bollyn - Star Reporter from the American Free Press
    Founder of the 9-11 Truth Movement
    Week Number 300 5-9-2013


    Double kicker: not one "truther" leader is contradicting him.
     
  14. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is GRAVITY, and then there is a requirement that in order to do what was observed on 9/11/2001 there would need to be focused energy.
    GRAVITY alone does not focus. in order to do what was observed on 9/11/2001 there would have to be ALL of the bolts/welds ( etc... ) give-way at the correct time, not too soon, or too late but on time.
     
  15. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18

    Gravity, whether or not you believe in it, is not the topic of the thread.
     
  16. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The topic is space beam weapons & who was the first to assert the use thereof.
    however, the tangent got started on the bit about the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers and if not weaponized energy beam, then what did destroy the buildings? I prefer to not speculate on the subject of what sort of explosive or other source of energy was invoked, it was obviously an additional source of energy involved in the process.
     
  17. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Less "started", and more hijacked, as was pointed out.

    That is not the subject. The subject is pushing a fraudlent theory.

    However, if you don't want to discuss the subject, as per forum rules, you can simply not comment on this thread.
     
  18. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    what makes it relevant to any discussion of 9/11/2001
    that is the question of who first asserted that an energy beam weapon
    was used to destroy the towers & 7?
     
  19. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First one I remember promoting the theory of Directed Energy Weapons was Judy Woods.....
     
  20. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So instead of addressing my question, witch was why should it matter
    who first promoted the idea of an energy beam weapon in use on 9/11/2001
    you present the theory that Judy Woods was the first...... whatever?!?!?!?!
     
  21. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's the topic of the thread. Stop de-railing.
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You asked the question in post #43 Bob...kindly remember what you've posted......Or can you?
     
  23. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is what I asked, and an "answer" that is your opinion about who was the first to promote the energy beam weapon theory isn't an answer.
     
  24. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    16,858
    Likes Received:
    5,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude. You are "out there" Those people who say planes were not involved, when we clearly saw them crash into those two buildings is just too straining of credibility.

    There are far too many mysteries involved to create mysteries that do not exist. When people invent ray guns, when they say that planes did not crash into those buildings, this clouds up already cloudy waters. Why would one do that?

    It just looks like to me that some of these truthers wear tin foil on their heads. Some of these scenerios are sheer nonsense.
     
  25. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Look at the video that alleges to show the "crash" of "FLT175"
    that is the Evan Fairbanks or Michael Hezarkhani Video, do you see a CRASH?
    where is it? The "aircraft" simply disappears into the building! This is clearly B movie special effects. Don't give me incredulity about how it was impossible, the fact is that this video was presented to the world as being an airliner crash, where is the CRASH? The ONLY way it could have been as seen in the video, would be if the WTC wall was made of cardboard. Give me a break!
     

Share This Page