CB_Brooklyn

Discussion took place at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth


With Prof Steve Jones and Dr William Deagle - 24th June 2007


Transcript by Andrew Johnson

Footnotes mainly by Andrew Johnson, with additional comments by Prof Judy Wood.


This is quite an extraordinary discussion in many ways - and in my view, clearly demonstrates that neither Jones or Deagle are being completely honest in their discussion.


You will hear them:


· Claiming to be discussing the evidence, but in reality they don’t discuss any evidence.
· Deagle claim Seattle has been pre-wired with mini-nukes.
· Jones suggesting that if there is a nuke-attack, 9-11 truthers should get dust samples and send them to Deagle or Jones.
· Deagle claiming he has evidence of mini-nukes from “contacts” but he hasn’t completed testing his samples - even though he is very concerned to find out what they will use for the next attack.
· Deagle claims he is 100% sure thermate or superthermate was used to destroy the towers
· Deagle describes the effects on toasted cars as being potentially from an EMP pulse, but he dismisses the evidence for DEW.
· Jones gets Deagle to agree that the evidence of no planes hitting the WTC towers is “ridiculous”
· Deagle claims micronukes were used in the Oaklahoma bombing
· Deagle doesn’t know whether they are fusion or fission nukes
· Jones mentions WTC Iron quite a few times.
· Both Jones and Deagle talk about an Isotope of Iodine 110 - but this is extremely obscure (the stable Isotope of Iodine is 127)


Even though Deagle suggests there is going to be a multiple nuke attack in the USA, Homeland Secuirty don’t seem to have expressed an interest in this.


Listen to the audio or read the transcript.


Transcript with footnotes, audio, and video links:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/...ermate-etc.htm


Backup link:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/641


==============================================

CB's opinion:

Steven Jones continues to out himself... first as a Cold Fusion fraud in 1989 who discredited free energy research to keep the world addicted to oil http://www.911researchers.com/node/125 , and now as a 9/11 fraud who distracts us from the real evidence of directed energy weapons at TV-Fakery at the World Trade Center. Is it coincidence that Jones worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapon research is conducted?


Jones/Deagle agreed that the "discussion should be evidence-based". So why did Jones say, just a few seconds later, "I don't think this is the place to go through all the evidence"?

Why didn't they discuss the clean surgical cut on the north wing of WTC 4, in which all the building material on the other side of this cut is missing? Why didn't they discuss the fact that the cut was in the same path as the South Tower's north wall? The South Tower was pulverized, and so was all WTC 4 material on the other side of that cut. Sounds like evidence of a directed energy weapon to me!




Yellow/red box below locates north wing of WTC 4.
As can be seen, the wing was “cut” in the path of the north face of WTC 2:




Nor did they discuss the round cylindrical holes in WTC 5/6, further evidence of directed energy beams!





They conclude that no planes at the towers is "ridiculous". That's some scientific analysis, huh? One must wonder why they didn't discuss the actual evidence for no planes instead of jumping to conclusions.

For instance, they didn't discuss an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone being swallowed up by a steel/concrete building:












Notice how Deagle talks about nukes in Seattle. This is a scare tactic, directed toward the Truth movement. Does the movement really need to lean on his shoulder? Perhaps we should look at information for ourselves instead of trusting "mild mannered sounding" people.....

fastom

Well i hope they don't blow up Seattle until after the Northwest Nationals at least. No mention of the conference in the two major daily Vancouver papers, typical.

Notice in that video the flash to the right of the plane's nose as it enters the building. Very likely a missile being fired. It still does appear the video has been altered.

Makes me wonder if there was a real effort to leave clues behind. Maybe the intent isn't to try and hide the facts. Maybe that's why the official story is so preposterous. It doesn't matter if people know or find out because what can they do about it?

Maybe it's all part of a larger plan?

Martian

I'll outright admit to only having read about a third of the transcript, because that was how long it took me to realize that it's essentially just a bunch of people making some truly extraordinary claims with absolutely no supporting evidence. You want me to believe that half the cities in the United States are wired with nuclear explosives and that the gummint has had the capability to remotely take control of commercial aircraft since the late eighties? Prove it.

To address two specific points...

Right. The video footage from dozens of independent sources and all the eyewitness accounts are forgeries. It's not possible that they called it ridiculous because it actually is ridiculous.

So you're presupposing that an aircraft made out of aluminum alloys (which, for the record, is not the same as one made from aluminum) couldn't penetrate a building face made out of steel, glass and concrete?

Of course that must be true, because aluminum is soft and steel is hard. Also, it's equally impossible for a high pressure jet of water to cut through metal, including steel and titanium. Velocity isn't a factor at all.

This is all the same pap as always; I won't even address the directed energy bullshit, since it's already been discussed in an earlier thread (although I am rather fond of the image of Rumsfeld standing on the Sears Tower with a blaster). The so-called truth movement would be much easier to get behind if any of it's supporters could come up with one solid, incontrovertible piece of evidence. I still believe it's more about people's desire to mistrust the government and catch them in the act of screwing the people than anything that actually happened.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

CB_Brooklyn

Well, I think your attitude shows what you're going to believe no matter what!!

But regardless, let's say you're driving your car toward a mesh of steel girders. What would happen on impact?

1. Would your car glide into the mesh of steel girders as if the girders weren't even there?

Or

2. Would your car crash against the steel girders causing great damage to the car and the girders?



Have you seen this article?

Technology Review Magazine Discusses How the Military and TV Networks
Can Insert Prerecorded Images Into Live News Feed to Alter World Politics:

http://www.911researchers.com/node/174

The_Jazz

If your car weighed several thousand tons and were moving at over 500 mph, it would glide through the beams.

This is simple physics.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Martian

The_Jazz beat me to your car analogy, so let's take a look at this. It is fascinating technology and the article mentions it's application in live football highlighting the line of scrimmage. A similar technique is used in hockey, creating a 'halo' around the puck to make it more visible. Fox has been doing it for years.

Which is fascinating. And it is true that a single piece of video footage is no longer incontrovertible proof any more than a single photograph is. A savvy viewer is right to question what he sees.

However, this has nothing to do with the attacks of September 11th. While such video editing finesse could throw the news coverage of the event into doubt, it does not discredit eyewitness accounts of aircraft striking the towers, nor the debris that was later found. Thus, if one is going to assert that video trickery was employed, one must assume one of two positions.

1) That there were no aircraft. This in no way deals with the above issues; in order to explain eyewitness accounts, amateur video footage and physical evidence of the aircraft, one must resort to theories so implausible as to be ludicrous. I would therefore argue that this position is untenable.

2) That the aircraft striking the towers were edited to appear to be a different type. One could potentially make a case for this argument; eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable and may well be unable to tell a Boeing 767 from a Cessna 172. Further, once the planes struck and were subsequently disintegrated, it would border impossible for the layman to make any sort of qualified statement as to exactly what type of craft was used. The issue here, however, is twofold. First, it violates the principle of parsimony. This does not discredit the hypothesis in and of itself, but it does inform a bias towards simpler explanations, if any are available. Further, it raises a question of motive. If we assume for the sake of expediting the discussion that the United States government did have reason to crash two aircraft into one of it's major symbolic landmarks, we would still have to answer the question of why they would go to the trouble of manipulating the images. The two planes that were allegedly used in the attacks did exist; they had tail numbers, itineraries, flight schedules, rosters and manifests. The two planes no longer exist and do not now have any of these things. If we assume that the government made these craft disappear to lend a degree of authenticity to the ruse, why wouldn't they just fly them into the towers? Why go to all the extra trouble? Thus, I would argue that scenario two is also highly implausible to the degree of being untenable so long as a simpler solution exists. Conveniently enough, we have a simpler solution in the official story.

It's important to note that something being possible doesn't necessarily mean that it's likely to have occurred. The footage could have been edited, as the technology exists. It's still a bit of a leap to assume that the footage was edited.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame