It is my opinion that theories about directed energy beam weapons are intentionally created disinformation stories that are promulgated in order to discredit those who would question the official story about 911.

I can see where that might be a possibility, but I find it difficult to dismiss someone like Dr Judy Wood and the research she's done at great expense to her professional career.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html

There's also the question of the mysterious hurricane that hovered off the coast of New Jersey on Sept 11 2001 and the possible connection to being manipulated by some of the already in place ionosphere heaters scattered in places around the world with the documented ability to bounce and pinpoint this energy with incredible precision.

I agree that disinformation is plenty around a story like 911 and wished I could someday get some straight answers.

I really don't know, but one thing I'm sure of is the strange spell the event has on some folks. Smart, intelligent people who refuse to take the time to look at the evidence, much less acknowledge that something is fishy with the official story.

That aspect spooks me the most and seems to send a signal to whoever made it happen that perhaps they could've even pushed it a bit further and still been able to sedate the people with fairy tales of melting steel and passports of a specific terrorist neatly laid in the rubble to be found by proper authorities.

Thanks for the comment Doug. I value your perspective on this topic and welcome any more insights you might like to share.

I believe that Dr. Judy Woods has shown herself to be irrationally committed to a theory that simply is not credible. Please take a look at this interview with Dr. Greg Jenkins. Jenkins is a contributor to the Journal of 9/11 studies, a journal dedicated to exploring problems in the official story and developing alternative hypotheses to the official story. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017#

It's important to know that the "Space Beam Theory" was one of the major reasons that the original Scholars for 911 Truth group split. Jim Fetzer's abuse of power within the group Scholars for 911 Truth, along with his continued promotion of Judy Wood's Space Beam theory in the face of politely worded refutations of the theory from his then colleague Dr. Steven Jones was a primary cause of the split. Check out explanations from Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice (Jones' group) for more information.

http://stj911.org/faq.html

Morgan Reynolds advocates the no-plane theory, a theory that again appears to be designed to discredit more well reasoned objections to the official story.

Ok let me first state for the record that I currently do not have a steadfast opinion on the events of 9/11. The planes were clearly present. You could say the "government" knowingly allowed it to happen, and also may have helped it along. Let me play the otherside of the fence here and you can convence me otherwise. First all, Yes metal melts. It does not have to "melt" to bend. I have personnally witnessesed a store fire where the roof collapsed during the fire due to the saging metal roof supports. The way those buildings where built with external support holding near an acre of floor that is all it would take. This exterior support structure can also be why there was a near vertical colapse.

On of the biggest arguements I read is about building 7. How late it fell. This building was smaller and a secondary fire, not jet fuel therefore it can be argued that it took the metal longer to reach its fatigue point.

I am not disputing your belief of events. I know that our "government" and controlling class have been behind some very shallow things. But present your thoughts a few at a time. I will argue some and we can both have a better understanding and some fun.

Also faith shouldn't been influenced by man. How man, organized religion and ruling classes have bent and used Christianity should not change ones belief just their trust in man.

Doug:

Your last comment sent me on a research tangent that has created more questions. I agree that these far out hypothesis's are weighing heavily on the credibility of the whole 911 truth movement. I wished we had some sort of independent detective agency that would check out such personalities and their past associations and report on the findings in a fair and non trivial manner.

My search in this matter has shifted to more of why instead of how in dealing with what really happened.

Maybe you could have Dr.Judy Wood on your Diet Soap podcast sometime in the near future? I think it could be a fruitful discussion and I'm sure you would ask her the right questions as it's obvious you've done some serious homework on the subject.

I would really be interested in hearing what your gut instinct is telling you about what may have actually happened and why?

Thanks again for your input.

Perhaps a bit of back and forth will help us all decrease our distance from the truth?

Erich:

I'm certainly no expert on building design and how it might fall or what effect melting steel really has on the structure.

I try to hear as many "experts" on the situation as possible and weigh the evidence. I must confess I'm starting to feel some fatigue in chasing this particular thread due to all the muddied water that Doug speaks of.

I think you've missed my point about Christianity.

A belief in the particular flavor of Christianity one grows up with is just that....a belief based on words and ideas set forth by a small group of power hungry men.

It's my humble opinion that all the lies and deception are part of the puzzle and it's up to each individual to find his or her own true path.

I have no desire to prove or disprove the bible or anything else within the Judeo Christian set of dogmatic values and guidelines.

For me my early Christian beliefs are directly tied to the men who shaped them and for that reason I decided to dump the whole lot of them out on a table and sort through each one with a fine tooth comb and some new found discernment.

Thanks again for sharing your opinion and helping to keep this conversation lively.

I have a very different perspective than you. I grew up outside of any religion. I was just taught to respect others and to treat people the way I would like to be treated. Hospitality and charity. Respect of but not to be afraid to question authority. It was with this same questioning mind that I approached religion later in adulthood. I still consider my time at church a continuing education and enjoy questioning and talking to others about their beliefs. My wife is in medicine, so I come in contact with people from all over the world. Social events with them and me always turn into discussions of religion, politics and social understanding. It is amazing the different view points a table of 8 can have.

It is hard for most people to do what you have done. Most people brought up that way, will just blindly go through the motions and believe just because they were taught to. That goes for any subject not just religion. Kind of like the idea that you should just water your chickens with a dirty old bucket. {Insert shameless plug here (love them by the way)}

I really enjoy all the different subjects you have been covering and the links to some great sites. Keep it coming.

It seems like we also have a similar upbringing in regard to religion. I went seeking it out at age 16, along with researching Roscicrucian stuff, Nostradamus, or anything else of that type I could get my hands on back in the mid to late 1980's. I settled on a Southern Baptist Church and that's a whole other story.

I agree that it's hard for most people to re-evaluate their beliefs, but for me I'm trying hard to shift to more of a place of knowing.

I salute your curiosity and look forward to hearing more of your comments in the future.

It's funny you should bring up the chicken waterer. You'd be surprised how many folks out there can't bring themselves to believe clean water is better, or somehow they rationalize that if the water looks clean it must be clean enough in that old fashioned gravity bucket system.

My conclusion is that people who use the new nipple based waterer's have more of an open mind than most, which leads me to want to invite them all over for a cook out someday.

Doug:

I'm still researching Dr Judy Wood's material and must say it's noteworthy how she's been effectively shut out from most conventional and alternative outlets.

A good interview was done by Mel Fabregas on his Veritas radio show back in late November 2009 which is worth hearing if you want to know her side of the story.

http://www.veritasshow.com/guests/51.php

More research is called for, but she relies heavily on empirical evidence, and my initial conclusion is that she's definitely not a crack pot.

Stay tuned for a more in depth post on Dr Judy Wood here on CosmicCookout in the near future.

I couldn't say for sure what motivates Judy Wood, but she certainly isn't reputable. I have to wonder if you watched her interview with Greg Jenkins. It seems to me that it's impossible to watch that interview and walk away with the impression that Judy Wood is either sincere or reputable. She makes many absurd claims. For instance she says that no part of the towers fell but simply evaporated, and that's an obviously false claim. I'm more than willing to have people on the podcast to discuss 911, but not Judy Wood. I don't believe I could do a better job than Greg Jenkins has done.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017#

Have a look at this explanation for the Norway spiral. It make sense.

Mr. Hoagland focuses on the horizontal and vertical lines in some very grainy and obviously enlarged photographs of the spiral; there are compression artefacts all over these pictures. I submit that these lines are artefacts of the JPEG compression combined with the enlargement process. If you zoom in on a picture from a digital camara (not in RAW mode, but JPEG), you'll see the image becoming very grainy. Look a bit down at the better picture 'Norway-torsion-overexposed.jpg', and you'll see none of these artefacts. Additionally, the blue corkscrew trace is exactly what you'd expect from a missile spiraling out of control.

As for EICSAT, a peek at their website will tell you that they use radar to study the ionosphere. From their specs, you can see that their "heater" at 1200 kW is much less powerfull than their normal radars, which are capable of sending out 1.6 - 2 MW. But since these radars are powered by cpacitators, they can only send out small pulses between 1 µs - 2.0 ms. The return signal, however is in the order of picowatts (10⁻¹² watt). And while the "heater" sounds omnious, it only works because the gasses in the ionosphere in are already a very thin plasma because of solar heating. The power of these heaters is peanuts compared to the heating power of the sun. (Hint: the solar power in space at the radius of the Earths orbit is around 1300 W/m²!) So even if these experiments caused the ionosphere to give off visible light, it would totally be drowned out by the light from the sun (you can see from the pictures that the sun was just on the horizon). I'm calling bullshit on this one.

I think Wood and Reynolds are reading too much from burnt-out car wrecks.

The missing door handles is easy; those are usually made out of plastic, and would burn away or melt.

As for the completely missing side windows; those are made from tempered glass, which due to its internal stress shatters completely when broken or heated. Windscreens are different, because they're made from laminated glass which would fracture but stick together.

And yes, if your burn a car tyre, you'll be left with what remains of the steel belts inside it. What is unusual about that?

Personally I don't see anything that is inconsistant with burnt out cars.

And don't be fooled by science fiction that beam weapons are inherently superior to bullets. For destroying things, kinetic energy weapons are far superior to beam weapons, because they can deliver a lot of energy on a small area in an extremely short amount of time.

The COIL laser that was fitted in a Boeing 747 is a megawatt (1·10⁶ W) class weapon capable of firing 5 second bursts. So each shot delivers 5·10⁶J on a target. Now this sounds really impressive, but if you have a reflective steel target cooled with around 3 liters of water, you'd not be able to burn a hole in it! Water boils at 373 K, so the plate wouldn't get much hotter than that.

Let's compare that to a powerful rifle cartridge, the 12.7 x 99 NATO aka .50 BMG. This bullet can have a muzzle velocity of around 900 m/s and a muzzle energy of 18.9·10³J. Doesn't sound impressive when compared to the laser, huh? But consider this; the .50 bullet is around 55 mm long. Travelling at 900 m/s it will transfer its kinetic energy to a target in ≈0.00006 s! This is a transfer power of 3.15·10⁸ W. That is 300 times more than the laser, and delivered on a very small spot! Such a bullet will penetrate 19 mm of face hardened steel at 500 meters.

www.wheredidthetowersgo.com

Here we are a year later, and you'll all have to eat your words!

If this is a pageant, Dr. Judy Wood wins! Her book is out, and there is no question. The math is solid. The evidence is complete, not piecemeal like all of these other guys--Reynolds, Gage, Griffin, Hoagland, Jenkins, et al. Please! The Good 'ol Boys club 'aint that great.

If those who are interested in truth are not behind Dr. Wood, they need to have their head examined.