TerrorStorm: Free movie

[GostHacked]

Judy Wood & Morgan Reynolds are doing a site that shows how the wtc buildings were brought down by a high energy beam weapon.

Minime stop humping the frigian high energy beam weapon

Sorry, thats pretty damn funny, it's like something from Austin Powers.

I know that explosives seems like way to far out there for most of you, and the energy beam weapons is a really big freakin stretch. I know they are in development with the US Military, but. um, I don't think they are at full production yet. That would be one hell of a 'test' for the energy beam to turn the WTC to dust.

POLYNEWBIE, dude please. I am in your camp, but even I know when some of this crap is utter tripe. What I think you should focus on is the money trail. That is where I am looking at things.

Sept 10, 2001, Rumsfeld announces that it cannot account for 2.3 trillian dollars of the military budget, (about 25% that year) back for 98-99, and anothe trillian from 99-2000. The WTC was the finnancial backbone of the American economy. Everyone did business there. Many insurance companies were in the towers. Some high profiles like Arthur Anderson and the Enron scandal. Securitys and Exchange Commissions were at WTC7, ect etc. There was alot of gold/silver held at the base of the towers, and that has been moved or could be still there. But who really knows.

I have shifted my focus from 'demolitions brought down the buildings' to 'who had the most to loose/gain with 9/11'.

Again, 19 guys from Saudi Arabia whom 4 of them had US FAA commercial pilots licenses, and all had valid VISAs to be in the US. So they managed to beat all the security at the time. So simple and easy of a plan, that it can work again. Weather it was total incompetence or if the US assisted in the attacks, both outcomes kind of scare me.

[PolyNewbie]

Having taken courses in microwaves and working with acoustics and having designed phased arrays I don't think the above explanation is unreasonable. Microwave ovens have been around since 1946, one can learn a lot about science in that time period between then and now- particularly if the science is being developed for military. Microwave ovens themselves use "beam energy" as they did in 1946.

[Canadian Blue]

How large was this high energy beam, was it built a mountain fortress?

[PolyNewbie]

I think it was set up in space.

[Led Boots]

Judy Wood & Morgan Reynolds are doing a site that shows how the wtc buildings were brought down by a high energy beam weapon.

Judy Wood is a PhD engineer and Morgan Reynolds is an economist that served as chief economist at the white house in 2001/2002.

Anyone who has seen the video can clearly see that the buildings were converted to dust while they were standing. Others like Jim Hoffman have wondered how this could be done.

Judy Wood states that the buildings did not collapse, they were converted to dust while standing.

Listen to the interview here:http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/

(Polynewbie stands under a light standard pointing up and yelling UFO…UFO… until you point out that it’s not a UFO it’s just the light at the end of the standard. Poly's response: run down to the next light standard, point up and yell: UFO…UFO…LOOK EVERYBODY A UFO…ad infinitum.)

[Led Boots]

Well you sound like a reasonable sort Gosthacked. The issue I personally have with the polynewbie’s out there in cyberland is that every new theory has one common denominator: The Government/Bush/Illuminati/Giant Spice Worms from the planet Arakis did it. This says something important about the theory’s in that every new theory must conform to this conclusion. This severely limits ones ability to research any fact which doesn’t conform to this intended conclusion…(do you agree?). This in no way means that we shouldn’t be critical of, or question the findings of reports such as the FEMA report on the WTC collapse, it just means that when we do question the government’s findings we should do so with facts, not conjecture coupled with pre-determined conclusions.

I was starting to look into who the EPA’s special agent in charge was during the time frame that the attack on New York took place but wasn’t really finding anything useful so I decided to take a different approach. I started to think, “wouldn’t it be interesting to sit in a room full of professionals who actually build high rises and hear what they have to say about what happened on September 11 2001, do they argue about controlled demo’s and free fall speeds of the buildings during collapse”.

As luck would have it I did have a link to an architectural forum which was e-mailed to me by a friend of my wife’s from Seattle who happens to be an architect. She has been helping us through the design phase of our new home and had sent us the link to help answer some of the questions we have about designing an energy efficient house. I tried a search for WTC and low and behold they are talking about it.

What I found out was very interesting indeed. It turns out that when the New York Port Authority built the WTC all building codes were suspended for the project. Could this be why the plans for the WTC were never released to the general public? Could this also be why materials were whisked off site to be re-cycled before a full investigation could be preformed? It doesn’t answer Charles Anthony’s question: Who? But it does partially explain why [materials were removed in haste]?

Here is a couple quotes from professionals who actually design and build the high rises we see in our downtown cores.

As the airplane strikes the tower and fire is started. The elevator shafts acted as a flue spreading the fire to all floors and the top floors will eventually become the hottest. The viscoelastic system is destroyed first because they are made out of rubber. Thereby more rotation between the top chords and the perimeter columns combined with heat leading to the shear plate failure. One floor fails leads to another and so on. This is a progressive failure and a DESIGN FLAW!!! Had the designer paid attention to his detail and the possible failure mechanism, progressive collapse could have been avoided. Had in place of the shear plate a true hinge (such as a door hinge where rotation will not severe its shear capacity) been designed the progressive failure would not happen. Another point well worth mentioned is the effect of heat on certain structural components of the tower

And

1. Up to a temperature of about 100 degree C, there will be no significant loss of chemically combined water even with a prolonged exposure to this temperature. As the temperature rises above 100 degree C, there is a gradual loss of chemically combined water from the calcium silicate hydrates. There is a drop in the strength of the concrete corresponding to the amount of water lost. Above 400 degree C concrete would become powder. At this temperature, the calcium silicates commence to decompose into quicklime and silica. This process is irreversible and there is a progressive loss of strength with time.

2. Artificial lightweight aggregates, such as expanded clay and shale, sintered pulverized fuel ash, and blast furnace slag, are manufactured at temperatures above 1000 degree C and are very stable at temperature below this level.

3. The effect of temperatures up to about 700 degree C on the strength and ductility of mild steel and hot rolled high yield steel is negligible from practical point of view.

4. Most dampers will not survive at the temperatures above 100 degree C.

(Polynewbie may want to pay particular attention to what happens to concrete at certain temperatures)

link

So here we have a forum dedicated to architects and structural engineers talking about what they think caused the collapse and pointing out design flaws which the Port Authority may not want people knowing about.

[Michael Hardner]

I have shifted my focus from 'demolitions brought down the buildings' to 'who had the most to loose/gain with 9/11'.

Ghost - that's logical but you have to look at the big picture.

Whoever had the most to gain also had the most to lose, so there was risk involved - a great deal of risk. The more people involved, the more risk was involved.

[Charles Anthony]

Whoever had the most to gain also had the most to lose, so there was risk involved - a great deal of risk. The more people involved, the more risk was involved.

However, it does not rule it out at all.

There was alot of gold/silver held at the base of the towers, and that has been moved or could be still there. But who really knows.

-- or sent off to be recycled or sent to scrap yards or melted down ....

These things keep me open to the domestic-criminal-element explanation side of the fence.

every new theory has one common denominator: The Government/Bush/Illuminati/Giant Spice Worms from the planet Arakis did it. This says something important about the theory’s in that every new theory must conform to this conclusion. This severely limits ones ability to research any fact which doesn’t conform to this intended conclusion…(do you agree?).

I disagree. You have said this before and it is not valid.

Levels of government are so elaborate that it is not so black and white. Here are simple illustrations:

A government civil servant steals pens from work. Does that mean the government is behind it?

A government civil servant funnels contracts to his "friends" a la AdScam. Does that mean the government is behind it?

A government civil servant is actually a spy for the Soviets. Does that mean the government is behind it?

A government civil servant is actually an infiltrator and works in the building security department but takes orders from a tall bearded millionaire who lives in a cave. Does that mean the government is behind it?

It does not makes sense to automatically say that the conspiracy theories must implicate the Bush administration.

Thanks for sharing this link:

link

So here we have a forum dedicated to architects and structural engineers talking about what they think caused the collapse and pointing out design flaws which the Port Authority may not want people knowing about.

In my mind, it is wise to forget about whether the towers were rigged with explosives or not because as GhostHackEd suggested, it could happen again.

Are we any more prepared?

My impression of you is that you’re a full time devils advocate.

No, no, no! I am better looking than that!

[Michael Hardner]

However, it does not rule it out at all.

CA - you are correct !

If you're a billionaire connected to the defense industry and all levels of power and somebody came to you a few years before 9/11 to propose risking all of it, including possibly your own life if you're caught, for a few extra billion... even doubling your wealth... what is the chance that you'd do it ?

It's probably not 0%, so - you're right - we can't rule it out.

[Charles Anthony]

what is the chance that you'd do it ?

That does not matter because people do not have to act rationally. It does no good to only consider situations that are less risky and predictable. In fact, it would be smarter to consider situations that everybody least expects or that nobody would ever believe.

[Michael Hardner]

That does not matter because people do not have to act rationally. It does no good to only consider situations that are less risky and predictable. In fact, it would be smarter to consider situations that everybody least expects or that nobody would ever believe.

CA - Why is that smarter ?

There's a universe of possibilities if you take what might have happened into account - there's no end to it. If we're looking for answers, then we want to put together a reasonable hypothesis, I would think.

[Charles Anthony]

Why is that smarter ?

The reason is because it minimizes assumptions to: the criminal wants the attack to succeed. If the criminal strategy involved things that you or I or Mr. Security Guard can predict or expect, the plan would most likely be foiled. The least predictable strategy is the one that will slip through.

This reminds me of the fort of Louisbourg -- somewhere in New France. The French kept watch only on the coast because they knew NO army would be able to drag cannons through the mud or up the mountain. What do you think the English did???? The English did both and took the fort.

[Michael Hardner]

The reason is because it minimizes assumptions to: the criminal wants the attack to succeed. If the criminal strategy involved things that you or I or Mr. Security Guard can predict or expect, the plan would most likely be foiled. The least predictable strategy is the one that will slip through.

This reminds me of the fort of Louisbourg -- somewhere in New France. The French kept watch only on the coast because they knew NO army would be able to drag cannons through the mud or up the mountain. What do you think the English did???? The English did both and took the fort.

CA,

The approach you suggest would work if you were plotting, but not working backwards. The reason is that there are too many possibilities.

I suggest that a billionaire would be crazy to risk his life to double his money. Your response seems to be 'that's the key - no one would suspect that'.

If my assessment is accurate, then we can't even begin to look into this, in my opinion. There are too many false leads, and threads to follow. If a crazy billionaire decided to risk his 5 billion and his own life, for another five billion it might be very hard to trace the crime back to him.

But, starting with a crime, you have to follow the evidence to the criminal, beyond reasonable doubt. It's not reasonable to assume that a crazy billionaire rigged the entire thing as a set-up just because it's possible. All of the evidence points to the hijackers, and even most truthers think they're culpable.

Once you start implying that said crazy billionaire risked his own fortune, life and reputation NOT to send planes into the WTC but only for the 'special effect' of the collapse afterwards, then you're really in the twilight zone.

[Charles Anthony]

The approach you suggest would work if you were plotting, but not working backwards. The reason is that there are too many possibilities.

You are kidding. Have you ever played chess? Have you ever played chess well?

Slow down.

I suggest that a billionaire would be crazy to risk his life to double his money.

This is what you are missing: all you have to do is find somebody who is going to lose it all anyway.

[Michael Hardner]

You are kidding. Have you ever played chess? Have you ever played chess well?

Sure.

Slow down.

QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Oct 23 2006, 09:41 AM) *

I suggest that a billionaire would be crazy to risk his life to double his money.

This is what you are missing: all you have to do is find somebody who is going to lose it all anyway.

Well, I didn't consider that but everything I posted still applies.

You would need to find a smoking gun, with thicker smoke than we have now, to implicate the crazy billionaire.

[Charles Anthony]

You would need to find a smoking gun, with thicker smoke than we have now, to implicate the crazy billionaire.

What do you mean? I thought Osama bin Laden confessed to it already.

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly. So we already have a confession, with a motive - all links going to Osama.

You'll need more convincing proof even, if you want to tie the crime to anyone else.

[Charles Anthony]

What if Osama bin Laden kept quiet and did NOT confess? Where would we be?

all links going to Osama.

Actually, no. There is nothing except his confession that ties him.

As far as motives are concerned, he could be lying. He could have been in on the scam.

[Led Boots]

Charles,

so what is your angle on this. Do you think that there was a conspiracy to take down the towers or a conspiracy to cover up evidence after the towers collapsed.

For myself, I'm starting to believe that there was a cover up of the evidence at the scene to thwart critisism of the New York Port Authority and it's decision to not build the WTC site to the building codes in use at that time. I found it interseting to read the comments on that architectural forum concerning this incedent as there is a school of thought that we have out paced the ability of technology to build safe high rise buildings. They call them P.C.s (people crushers). So could this be a cover up to avoid non-payment from insurance companies or something of that sort?

[Wilber]

Charles,

so what is your angle on this. Do you think that there was a conspiracy to take down the towers or a conspiracy to cover up evidence after the towers collapsed.

For myself, I'm starting to believe that there was a cover up of the evidence at the scene to thwart critisism of the New York Port Authority and it's decision to not build the WTC site to the building codes in use at that time. I found it interseting to read the comments on that architectural forum concerning this incedent as there is a school of thought that we have out paced the ability of technology to build safe high rise buildings. They call them P.C.s (people crushers). So could this be a cover up to avoid non-payment from insurance companies or something of that sort?

Finally a conspiracy theory that might be believable.

[Charles Anthony]

so what is your angle on this. Do you think that there was a conspiracy to take down the towers or a conspiracy to cover up evidence after the towers collapsed.

I agree with Wilber and your recent posts now make me suspect the cover-up of the construction as the most likely deal. However, I will not rule out that the planning of the attacks included a domestic infiltrator.

Ultimately, I will not assume the complete motive and intent of the attacks.

[Led Boots]

B.2 Mechanical Properties

Nearly all of the steel plate was produced in Japan to ASTM standards or their equivalent. None of the mill test reports were available that describe the mechanical properties and chemical composition of the steel used in the WTC structures. Approximately 100 potentially helpful steel pieces were identified at the four salvage yards that had contracts to obtain and process the WTC steel debris. These pieces have been removed and transported to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland,

for storage and further study. No coupons were taken or tested to check material conformance with specification of any plate, rolled section, bolt, weld, reinforcing steel, or concrete. Visual examination of the debris did not identify any apparent deficiencies in the structural materials and connectors.

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxB.pdf

…and the plot thickens…

Pay particular attention to the bolded areas here. As someone who deals with codes, standards and all the related documentation everyday I find this troublesome and here’s why:

1) 0% Traceability of building materials (assuming the manufacturer of the steel [in Japan] has not kept records stating the heat and lot numbers of the material shipped).

2) No attempt was made to confirm the chemical or mechanical properties of the steel used in the construction of a building which fell down and killed many innocent people.

To summarize;

We have a structure which was exempted from existing building codes that has 0% traceability of materials (assumed) get hit by two fully fueled jets and collapse killing thousands of innocent people. The institution investigating this tragic event has no interest in the mechanical or chemical properties of the materials used (tensile strengths of the materials is soooo crucial here).

I’ve got no problems with that….do you?

[PolyNewbie]

Not legally responsible for their work either.

[Michael Hardner]

So are we saying now that the cover-up is about reducing exposure of the buildings' owners and builders to lawsuits ?

If so, that makes much more sense.

[PolyNewbie]

Led Boots: The Government/Bush/Illuminati/Giant Spice Worms from the planet Arakis did it. This says something important about the theory’s in that every new theory must conform to this conclusion. This severely limits ones ability to research any fact which doesn’t conform to this intended conclusion…

No, the central bankers do it. The movie The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz is a movie that allegrically shows the central bankers. The man behind the curtain is an allegory for people like Rockefeller and Rothschild.

The world runs on money and not nonsense about some guy in Afganistan in a cave or some little girl being murdered in Iraq. The world runs on money and that is a well illustrated fact in mainstream history books. Once you understand that war is about money (even Plato said it) and you understand what a debt based fiat currency is and how money gets created then it all becomes very clear.

But you don't see the man behind the curtain because the establishment doesn't want you to. The TV is never ever going to explain to you what a monetary reformist even is and I bet wiki would even be unclear.

There is a deliberate effort in our society to prevent you from understanding the power structure. Its like we are kids and we are curious about how babies are born. The parent just changes topic or buys candy so the kid can't talk while candy is in his mouth. Our mainstream media shows us pic of Britney Spears on the news instead of giving us important details on stories.

The author of the Wizard was a journalist who supported monetary dieas of Bryan- who ran for president around the 1900's.

We know that Bryan didn't get elected. Other presidents & leaders that stood for monetary reform were assasinated. This is Kennedy, Caesar, Jackson (attempted) and someone else. Jesus Christ said "throw the money changers from the temples".

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.