Must we dwell on theories that may possibly be accepted by ten percent of people.... yet push away 50%+ of others? We are in a struggle right now for those riding the fence. Those who question us more than everything they believe..... everything they have been told. Yet you insist that these theories need be discussed. A discussion that may lose us this fight.

If you choose to push this theory at this point in time.... I'm sorry but you are off base..... and by you being off base... all who are associated with this are going to be tagged out.

I can not express the need to drop this theory..... not forever..... just for now. If we get this to the point we need to be.... if we convict those who are guilty..... then go for it.... have space beam parties if you want. This in no way forwards this movement or our cause.

60% of people don't even know what year the attacks occured and you think you can prove it was some advanced technology.... some space beam that brought these towers down? Let's get real. Lets move away from this as fast as we can. This theory is like a grenade with the pin pulled. We have so much that we can prove and we insist at grasping at straws..... Ideas that may never be proven.

Please stop!

This will prove nothing. This will solve nothing. This will set this movement back if not completely dismantle it.

What are we doing?

I can explain nearly everything you see in those collapses with the use of conventional explosives.... but I don't need to. The other evidence will speak for itself.

We don't need to explain how it happened exactly to get this to be investigated. We need to prove that the prior investigation was a lie and a cover-up. We need to get the information in the hands and the minds of the people.... let them decide.

Imagine yourself as a media informed American.... searching for answers.... and the second or fifth or even the 50th thing you read is by a researcher who is supposed to be respected in this movement.... talking about "SPACE BEAMS"!!!!

WAKE UP!!!..... you are not crazy if you think their logic id good......you are crazy if you think this is helpinjg this movement

People seeking the truth about anything should not be primarily concerned with "helping the movement" or worrying about who may be turned off by certain lines of inquiry. If full investigation al ALL hypotheses is controlled by such concerns, then you have a purely political movement, not a truth seeking movement.

I get really uneasy when people try to tell others what they can and cannot look in to. I want facts and logic and truth.

Always question authority and speak truth to power.

Quote:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Blessings from Dachsie in Austin.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that any theory is good theory as long as is questions authority?.... get real!

Are you honestly telling me that this "Space Beam" theory is good for this movement?

Are you telling me that you honestly believe that this Theory is something that will sway those who are new to this movement or those riding the fence not knowing who to believe?

I'm sorry..... but I find little logic in your arguments.

Too much flouride in your water.

I have studied these technologies and I do believe that they may exist.... I have spent an extensive amount of time studying Nicola Tesla amongst other obscure inventors. I'm aware of many of their discoveries and experiments. I love this subject.

but would I try and explain this to Joe Blow at the corner bar.... or Sally home maker at the local ice cream social?

F*#K NO!

and it is these people whom we are trying to reach right now..... GET IT?

You don't see Steven Hawking teaching first graders about the complexity of the universe because thet'd be eating glue after the first five minutes.

This is not a argument that needs to be associated with those who are our leading authority.

they told us Oswald shot Kennedy.... they have Oswald... a gun .....and a dead President

now explain to them that he was killed by a laser beam.

JJJ, you are the one who is logically challenged. Your comments are totally inconsistent with all that I have posted on this subject. You exagerate and twist and redicule.

I have never suggested that any of the scientific explorations of the scholars to seek out what did happen on 9-11 should be used to convince people who are "on the fence."

As for people on the fence. Maybe people who are on the fence at this point in time do not intend to entertain any facts at all. Maybe a large percentage of those fence sitters are in denial. And of course maybe some of those you are so intent on catering to in your prescribed way are people who just call names and cause trouble and want to siphon off good energy from the movement.

All of us should use the material in "Why Doubt 9-11" in the very top upper left of st911.org when discussing and presenting 9-11 truth to anyone.

None of us non-scientists can even discuss in depth any scientific hypothesis that is explored by the scientist scholars, because as Dr. Jones believes, we just do not belong in that arena. Okay, I'll go along with that. But Dr. Jones seems to want to stifle even discussion among the scientists. Very unscientic indeed.

But as an American citizen with rights of free speech, I can jump in to a peripheral discussion of the ideas of what the sholars are considering. I do recognize illogical and ill-intentioned speech and writing when I see it and every one of us of the "unwashed masses" need to press for truth in every arena of discussion of this topic.

Blessings from Dachsie in Austin.

If I could combine Fetzer and Jones and toss out the "Space Beam"

I'd be very content.

If Fetzer would lose the "Space Beam" argument.... I'd be much happier but it's too late.

They'd have been in a much better place if they had said that they were exploring the possibility of advanced technology ... possibly gamma ray technology...assisting in the implosion of the towers.... they could have kept it on the down low while keeping the government guessing..... if the had used this technology for this means.... the government would have let it be know that they were onto something...

Right now we have our main people attached to something that the average person can not grasp.... and something that we can not prove.... yet we still push it.

Will I pitch this to newbies... No.

will anyone researching both sides of this argument stumble upon this..... you can bet your ass!

and which side do you think they will hear it from first?

Get it?

I have seen the articles and the video... the video was very impressive for shooting missiles out of the sky.

but blowing up a building?? I'm sorry.... I don't see it

If you could harness the energy of the sun and heat the water molecules within these materials and radically excite them causing them to seek escape... It would not cause this devistation.

Causing a missile to explode and causing a building to dissentigrate are completely different.

Burnt cars?... they could have placed explosives in cars much easier than using advanced technology.

Just because the building came down from the top does not mean that this could not have been done using conventional explosives

A building this size would have to come down in this manner... especially when built amongst other structures.

It was a perfect demolition.

I can explain the philosophy if you insist.... It's not hard.

I need to do a detailed explanation..once and for all

Do you know how microwaves work?

thats exacly waht those directed energy weapons are..... the react with water molecules... the human body is 70% water... if you direct this energy at someone.... it's going to hurt.... and if you can focus this energy on them long enough... you will cook them.

you ever put metal in a microwave? I don't reccomend it but you will see sparks. Electrical disturbance.... didn't see that on 9/11.

and you are assuming that this energy weapon vaporized steel and glass and concrete? Vaporized them .....as in they were gone... and this lessened the impact and the siezmic reading?... no

they demolished that building but they left the lower floors intact for the most part.... this would cushion the impact of the debris..... these people who do this for a living know exactly how to do this to lessen the damage to surrounding structures. They left enough resistance at the base to slow the falling debris.

Did you watch the video posted about the demolitions company CDI and all their record implosions.... there are many telling things in that video.... watch the implosions... even the one of the tallest antenna demolition... how they used the explosives to make it fold.

The holes in the other structures could have been caused by explosives as well.

You are living in a Val Kilmer movie..... how much energy do you think it would take to operate a weapon of this magnatude?... could this energy source be housed in a plane or a space sattelite?

Was this weapon used on building 7 as well?

"Must we dwell on theories that may possibly be accepted by ten percent of people...."

1. I will follow any theory if I think it is correct, even if it is accepted by no one but me.

2. Premature attack and a prior assumptions of implausibility create a self-fulfilling prophecy that a theory is not not acceptable.

Are you really arguing that if a person reads 49 argument he agrees with, he will reject them all because of the 50th?

Truth is not a brand.

I see your point on timing -- that is a different argument. Many think that talking about it at all is obvious disinfo. Actually, many say that. I don't know what they really think. Timing is a valid concern on which a reasonable argument can be hide without need for thought policing.