TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

The Star Wars Beam Weapon, Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds (7 posts)

1. who
   Member

   The Star Wars Beam Weapon, Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds

   Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have composed a highly detailed argument for the possibility that Directed Energy Weapons may have been used to destroy the World Trade Center. The theory is audacious but whatever your initial reaction to this concept may be it is well worth taking the time to read the information on their website. Keep in mind that they felt compelled to publish this theory while it was still in the process of development. I am sure that they would welcome constructive criticsm.

   http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

   (Due to the seriousness of this issue, we felt it was important to present the analysis and data as soon as possible. (Following the murder of my student, Michael Zebuhr, an extraordinary human being, I received an email stating, "we've done it before and we will do it again if need be.") Therefore, expect this website to be added to and updated over the next few days. Michael told me, "Whatever happens, don't ever stop pursuing this. It's too important." Michael, this is for you)

   No one proposes that an earthquake destroyed the Twin Towers from the top down. The theory is contradicted by nearly all the data above. For example, no earthquake can toast cars in inexplicable patterns.

   In fact, the data refute theories a to e–natural, arson, official, conventional and thermite demolition–in particular the intact bathtub, minimal seismic impact, and "dustification" prove nothing close to 1 million tons of material slammed down on the WTC foundation and its sub-basements. The debris stacks left where the Twin Towers once stood hardly covered the ground. The rescue dogs and workers did not climb up a tall pile but had to repel down to search for survivors. The arson and thermite theories fail to explain every data point, but all the unburned paper in particular refute any high-temperature base hypothesis.

   The nuclear theory fails because an explosion powerful enough to turn most of each tower to dust would have seriously damaged the bathtub, probably flooded lower Manhattan, and spiked a high Richter reading. It violates a number of data points, including the observed top-down disintegration. And if a nuke were at the top, it could not progressively destroy lower floors and there were only a few steel beams tossed onto adjacent buildings and none above the 20th floor. Lots of aluminum cladding was tossed onto neighboring buildings’ roofs but no steel beams. How could a nuke be so selective? It could not. Nor can a nuke explain the toasted cars.

   All the data are consistent with a beam weapon. Take the round holes in buildings 5 and 6. A high-energy weapon by definition could cut into buildings, destroy material and leave discreet boundaries in the buildings. We have know of no other explanation that has been offered for these peculiar holes. Similarly, some 1,400 cars were toasted in inexplicable patterns, and no alternative explanation to energy wave reflections has been offered. As Sherlock Holmes declared,

   "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.&quot

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. truthmover
   Administrator

   Those guys again...

   The TruthMove Space Dominance page:

   http://www.truthmove.org/insight/spacedom.html

   makes it very clear what is actually going on when we find a misleading story like this one:

   Conservative media site claims Bush will seek funding of orbital anti-missile satellites http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Conservative_med...

   The administration is trying to get more funding for the orbital weapons system by pulling it back out in the open with the usual face of missile defense. Its already being well funded and developed, but the Pentagon needs the public to start getting more used to the idea that orbital weapons will soon be used.

   Used on 9/11? NO! On many levels, I don't even care if it was. Reynolds and Wood are now infamous for their wild speculation. And they don't get any points in my book for shooting down WMD at the WTC.

   The case has been made. New hypotheses that sound totally scifi are more damaging than beneficial. They most certainly operate as fodder for the MSM framing of our movement as a bunch of fanatics. And furthermore, this hypothisis betrays 'Occam's razor'. All things being equal, the simplest answer is the most reasonable choice. Since there is nothing unreasonable about explosives having been set in the buildings, and there has been no record of these space weapons having been used in the past, it is far more reasonable to assume that the building was brought down with explosives.

   And so then we are left with the question of why Reynolds and Wood are pushing this hypothesis. Sometimes I think they just want a piece of the spotlight, and are reaching for the forefront of 9/11 speculation. At other times I suspect that they are infiltrators. How could these people has such a perfect record of advancing the least convincing evidence. Compelling yes. But ultimately not convincing. And further, why aren't they listening to a good majority of people in the movement who question the benefit of their focus.

   These people are on my no-reference list along with Rick Seigel and Dave VonKleist. Their intentions may be genuine, but their contributions often result in damage control.

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. who
   Member

   "Damage control" or simply gatekeeping? The Wood Reynolds paper is actually more detailed and their theory is more closely documented than the Steven Jones hypothesis. I've been a little surprised by the energetic gatekeeping efforts and outraged criticism of the DEW theory. As I recall, when the controlled demolition theory was first proposed it was similarly ridiculed and scorned. I hope that everyone who finds this this new theory implausible has also taken the time to read it. Even if you don't agree with Wood/Reynolds, there is much information contained in it that anyone who is serious about determining the causes of the WTC annihilation should find very illuminating.

   And I find it puzzling that with so much information available about real DEWs both in the developmental and production stages, that people still react to the notion of beam weapons as though it were something purely fantastical.

   Here is a four year old article from "In These Times" on laser weaponry.

   http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/24/news1.shtm...
   Now You See, Now You Don’t
   The Pentagon’s blinding lasers.
   By Frida Berrigan

   U.S. weapons manufacturers are hard at work developing futuristic precision weapons that promise to keep Americans even further out of harm’s way: lasers.

   Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, who together had $20.3 billion in Pentagon contracts in 2001, are collaborating on development of “directed energy weapons”—powerful 100-kilowatt infrared lasers for use on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

   The JSF program, worth an estimated $200 billion, is Lockheed Martin’s crowning accomplishment. If all goes well, the Pentagon will soon order as many as 3,000 F-35s, making it the largest acquisition program in history. This $40 million fighter plane will be ubiquitous in the U.S. military and throughout the world. England, Norway, Italy, Singapore, Turkey, Israel and others have already expressed serious interest as well.

   The JSF laser system could be used to destroy communication lines, power grids, or fuel dumps, or to zero in on part of a vehicle, like the engine. The weapons, which are scheduled to be ready for testing in 2010, would be covert, powerful and untraceable. “There’s no huge explosion associated with its employment, there are no pieces and parts left behind that someone can analyze to say, ‘this came from the United States,’ ” explains an unnamed Lockheed Martin official quoted in Aviation Week and Space Technology in July. “The damage is localized, and it is hard to tell where it came from and when it happened. It is all pretty mysterious.

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. truthmover
   Administrator

   A little more...

   Here's a quote from a recent post at Rigorous Intuition.

   "These days in the 9/11 Truth demimonde, early and clear-eyed researchers like Scott, Paul Thompson and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed are rarely heard over the likes of Morgan Reynolds and the thermate/"mini-nukes" debate, and rather than contributions such as the discovery of 9/11's concurrent war games we have "scholars for 9/11 Truth" tearing one another new impact holes over speculation on space-based beam weaponry. If you think that indicates progress, and that we're closer to 9/11 justice than we were three years ago, I don't know what more to tell you."

   Jeff Wells has demonstrated that he has an informed and astute view of the 9/11 truth movement, and being independent of the movement, has demonstrated no hesitation in calling out the turkeys. Unfortunately, many people in the movement are far too ego invested to welcome serious criticism. And many people mistakenly believe that it is in our best interest to accept every approach.

   I generally support the efforts of most anyone promoting the truth, recognizing that we are each going to do that in our own way. But those who are leaders in the movement have a heavy responsibility before the public to well represent the best our cause has to offer. And that which is most speculative should be place squarely in that context.

   I welcome our research community, just as I value those who promote. Each group has a different contribution to make. One of the things the promotional wing of the movement does is to prioritize the evidence being uncovered by the research community and summarize that evidence for the public. Of course, people doing this choose different evidence to present. But one thing most of us agree on is that we shouldn't promote the most speculative evidence.

   So I am likely as fascinated as you about this line of research. It is certainly plausible. But until there is more evidence to suggest its likelihood, I wouldn't refer to this hypothesis when promoting 9/11 truth. And all that means is that the hypothesis requires further development.

   However, when our leaders go out of their way to actively promote their own recent speculation, we all have a problem. Those who command great attention have to use that spotlight in a humble manner that serves best to advance the movement at large. We have seen a number of people who have not been responsible in this way. Their actions are either poorly considered, or strategically planned.

   So the debate is not about whether we should support our research community. If Reynolds and Wood stuck to what they do best, doing research, I'd have little critique to offer, and only concern that they are chasing the smoking gun, long after the case has been made. But as they command a great deal of attention and often step into the realm of promoting 9/11 truth, their strategic decisions are open to critique.

   I believe that 9/11 truth is spreading as the public reviews the facts for themselves, and that no amount of distraction or ego conflict could derail our momentum. And I know that enough of the right people do get it, and that they are our most compelling leaders. David Ray Griffin. Barrie Zwicker. Robert Bowman. Nafeez Ahmed. Webster Tarpley. Paul Thompsom. Micheal Ruppert. Alex Jones. All these people are in general agreement about our best evidence, and best practices, with an exception here or there. And none of these people refer to nukes or beam weapons in reference to the 9/11 attack. There is a reason for that. One which everyone should understand and appreciate.

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. truthmover
   Administrator

   We don't need Fetzer, Jones, Barrett, Reynolds, or Wood.

   Not that they haven't helped. I have as much respect as I should for the contribution each of these people has made, and I do think the directed energy weapon hypothesis is fun to consider, if not particularly relevant to our cause. My point is that we knew 9/11 was an inside job before any of the 'scholars' or 'experts' showed up. And, now about one year later, look what we have. Have any of these people really that greatly extended our understanding of 9/11? Before them we had David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Nafeez Ahmed, Webster Tarpley, Paul Thompsom, Micheal Ruppert and Alex Jones, among others. Then the 'scholars' showed up and obviously couldn't decide before they launched the project what their priorities were. And now everyone has their shorts in a bundle about an internal controversy that has already been settled for many in the movement for some time. My comments in the post above touch on this perspective. Let them do their research in peace. But we must not let them distract us from the fact that the case has already been made. We are moving out of the exploratory phase of this investigation. Responsible promotion is now our highest priority.

   Posted 17 years ago #
6. truthmover
   Administrator

   "The Ends and the Means"

   To clarify my position a bit more...

   From George Washington's Blog:

   http://www.911blogger.com/node/4993

   "We all have to get better at judging people by their actions and their fruits, their process and who they are. Because even while we are fighting for heroic and noble goals, we will become as bad as those we are fighting if we adopt an "ends justify the means" mentality."

   To put it in other terms, we should not tolerate bad science or bad strategy, just because its popular, or because those advancing it say they are on our side. That's what FOX News does. But as GW also points out, we can't be overly distracted by this ever present challenge.

   Posted 17 years ago #
7. truthmover
   Administrator

   More from the front lines

   "9/11 Truth: A Simple Formula"

   http://www.911blogger.com/node/5266

   Another worthy attempt at summarizing how we in the movement should keep our eyes on the ball.

   Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.