Individuals willing to be contacted for information and/or leading groups of activists striving for truth around the crimes of 9-11-2001. To request your name be added to this list, or to change or remove your information, please utilize the Contact form linked at the righthand column.

Saturday, June 16, 2012

What Does and Doesn't Lead to Truth?

What Does and Doesn’t Lead to Truth?

by James Hufferd, Ph.D.                                                                                Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization


     In America’s creed (the commonly-acclaimed beliefs or preferences that distinguish us as Americans – in our own minds), there are five tenets. (See my e-book on entitled Troublesome Country. I know this sounds shameless, but read it! Read it! Much pertains to 911 Truth and will astound.)

     The five tenets of America’s creed are: 1) The people should control the government. (In practice, a sham: In practice, what the people want means nothing). 2) The government shouldn’t control the people. (The government/establishment-controlled media in fact controls the public’s thinking), 3) All people are created equal. (Laws prod and punish the poor and weak by design; the powerful are abetted, and in practice exempted, and subsidized), 4) Liberty and justice for all (i.e., due process, to be routinely and invariably applied for all crimes whatsoever), 5) National and personal independence (Our abundance ought to permit us all to provide well for ourselves). The fact is, if we would but practice and really insist upon these five tenets we all say we favor, everything would be much different. (And that’s why their promulgation was properly called a Revolution).

     Instead, the people control nothing. The government/establishment has us all practically in a death-hold. Ordinary people are ruled and controlled (in effect, practically herded), while the powerful walk unaccountable and uplifted. Criminal law is applied or not, depending on who did it. While foreign-controlled banks keep us buried in debt and very exorbitantly sell us our own currency, backed by nothing and costing us 100% of all that is collected in taxes, despite a clear but roundly-ignored Constitutional prohibition precisely forbidding that, because it was already being urged.

     So, you might say, as bad as all that may be, what does any of it have to do with 9/11? Well, did anybody ever ask your permission (or, for that matter, use of your taxes) for a predatory, bullying, and murderous foreign policy to cow the world, or for black operations to pump up, by deceit, public demand to run amok murdering and maiming? Did you say you wanted a government/establishment that would clog the airwaves and the majority of brainwaves in America with disinformation designed for thought control? Do you want to see white-collar mass-murderers and extortionists walk, while clueless pot-puffers rot in lock-up and suspects who can’t afford a decent lawyer are there for fried?

     Does big, smug central banking, mostly invisible, ultimately controlled by a single family that hordes in excess of half of all the world’s money and, fittingly, owns both wire-services emitting what passes for our world news, deserve to eat your lunch, keep you poor in a fabulously-rich country and, of late, cancel and cash out your future?

     So now, do you think we should compromise and only hold the vassal 9/11 perps to answer in so many slick words for a few “indiscretions” they might agree to admit to, and then reconcile and give them a big, wet national hug some week in passing? Or, must we insist steadfastly on finding the full truth and exacting full justice for unmitigated mass-murder and treason – just as if those √©lite murderers were your average Joe Blows down the road?

     I heard a good new slogan for us on an edition of Dateline the other night: “We just need a fair judge.”  That’s about it.

     And, if this be a rant, make the most of it!

     Can we change any of it at all? If enough won’t support the way it is, if we insist on practicing what we always say we believe instead, I’m thinking it will have to give way. No contest!

     Spread the word!


Sunday, June 3, 2012

Enver Massud on the Directed Energy Theory

June 2, 2012
The Wisdom Fund

A Note on the Technical Feasibility of the Destruction of World Trade Center 1 and 2 by a Directed Energy Weapon

by Enver Masud SUGGESTION: Read the FREE ebook "9/11 Unveiled"
Watch author's rebuttal of The 9/11 Commission Report
Some in the 9/11 truth movement have advanced the theory that a directed energy weapon was used to destroy World Trade Center 1 and 2. Before one entertains this theory, one must determine if this is technically feasible.
For example, if I were to state that I will transport 1000 people, 3000 miles, in my BMW z3 Coupe, in one week, it would immediately be obvious that this is not technically feasible.
Similarly, when one considers the possibility of a directed energy weapon having been used to destroy World Trade Center 1 and 2, a little research (undertaken between 3:00 am and 4:00 last night) shows that this too is not technically feasible.
The goal of the High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System, launched following a research breakthrough by DARPA in 2003, was to fabricate and demonstrate a system with an output power of 15 kW. "Based on the results of this demonstration, additional laser modules [would] be developed... to produce a 150 kW laser weapon system demonstrator."
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons in its December 2007 report proposed 1-3 MW (i.e. 1000 to 3000 kW) Free Electron Laser prototype in 2020.
Note that a few years after the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, directed energy weapons of the order of 15kW, to 3000 kW by the year 2020, were targets for development. A 15 kW system was yet to be "fabricated and demonstrated".
Could a 15 kW directed energy weapon (not yet developed in 2001) have brought down the World Trade Center?
To put this in perspective, "Measurements show a house will occasionally use as much as 15 kilowatts for short intervals".
In other words, the 15 kW directed energy weapon (not yet developed in 2001) is equivalent to the maximum demand for a typical house. Even a 3000 kW directed energy weapon (a target for 2020) would be equivalent to the maximum demand for 200 homes.
One doesn't need to do any calculation to conclude that directed energy weapons available in 2001 were not sufficient to bring down the World Trade Center. Even directed energy weapons that were targeted for development by 2020 would not be sufficient to bring down the World Trade Center.
Therefore, one may safely conclude that a directed energy weapon having been used to destroy World Trade Center 1 and 2 is not technically feasible.


"What Really Happened on September 11, 2001," 2002 - 2012

[Whether Tesla's idea was ever taken seriously is still a mater of conjecture. Most experts today consider his idea infeasible. . . .

In 1958 the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated a top-secret project code-named "Seesaw" at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to develop a charged-particle beam weapon. More than ten years and twenty-seven million dollars later, the project was abandoned "because of the projected high costs associated with implementation as well as the formidable technical problems associated with propagating a beam through very long ranges in the atmosphere." . . .

In the late 1970s, there was fear that the Soviets may have achieved a technological breakthrough. Some U.S. defense analysts concluded that a large beam weapon facility was under construction near the Sino-Soviet border in Southern Russia.

The American response to this "technological surprise" was the Strategic Defense Initiative announced by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. . . .

Today, after a half-century of research and billions of dollars of investment, the SDI program is generally considered a failure--"A Weapon to End War," PBS

[One major problem with laser weapons . . . is their high electric energy requirements. . . .

This problem could also be lessened if the weapon were mounted either at a defensive position near a power plant, or on board a large, possibly nuclear powered, water-going ship. A ship would have the advantage of water for cooling.--"Directed- energy weapon," Wikipedia]

back button