25 U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11

25 out of thousands is indicitive of your idiocy!

911truth.org ::::: Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age ...NEW ZOGBY POLL REVEALS OVER 70 MILLION VOTING AGE AMERICANS DISTRUST OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY AND SUPPORT NEW INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE US GOVERNMENT ROLE IN THE ...

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

You're being small minded. There have been many times we know of and we can interpolate many more that never came to light, when few of many knew the real score on matters of global significance.

What troubles me is that someone jumped right in and defended the 'Official Account'. I doubt that you're on the G's payroll, but what does it say about our society? Is something wrong with questioning authority?

A statement from someone who did not see with his own eyes, what I saw.

"As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there."

I SAW the second plane hit the WTC.

Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect

by

Judy Wood and John Hutchison

http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/


Excerpt:

=======================
In considering how the WTC complex was destroyed, many people have criticised the research posted here because it does not state or describe the exact technology employed.

These pages include data which strongly implicates a class of technology as being one of the main ones used.

The data below seem to strongly tie up with features of what has become known as "The Hutchison Effect". The Hutchison Effect actually seems to describe a range of observed characteristics, some of which are listed below. John Hutchison is a Canadian inventor and experimental scientist who has been experimenting with "field effects" for almost 30 years. There is a great deal of information about him on the internet, and a selection is linked from this set of pages.

The table below lists effects and events seen at or in the vicinity of World Trade Center and compares those with observed characteristics of the Hutchison Effect. Clearly, the posting of this material is quite controversial, but even in the various documentaries that have featured John Hutchison, he has suggested that the techniques he has discovered and developed have been further refined by places like Lockheed Skunkworks, S.A.I.C. (Science Applications International Corp.), and also by perhaps other defense companies.
=======================


My comments: Although still under construction, the new paper gives many clues to the technology that was used to destroy the World Trade Center. Take a look at the many pictures and see for yourself! People can no longer claim that this technology does not exist. It definitely DOES exist!

Also note the two companies mentioned in the excerpt above (Lockheed Martin and SAIC). Both are sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society! The government even contracted with SAIC for the NIST Report.



Dr Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, and John Hutchison on WPFC - We Ourselves 14/18 Jan 2008
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/#ambrose


See the "News" section of Dr Wood's website for more interviews.
http://drjudywood.com/#news


For proof that the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were all orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media, see my new article:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151&Itemid=60


Also note the two Court Cases in the US District Court, Southern New York, with attorney Jerry Leaphart:

Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case

Aha, holding out on us were you? Did you see it in person or via the media?

Anyway, The thrust I'm getting from the article is not that it went one way or another but that the popular version of the events has some plot holes.

Seems like anymore conspiracy theorists are looked at as the enemy, like maybe they're not as cosmopolitan as they should be, when people ought to just thank their stars someone somewhere is still interested in making sure the G isn't getting cute.

What part of I SAW do you NOT understand?

A couple of months ago, I ran an experiment at work. Before running the experiment, I put together a detailed experimental model, achieved buy-in from the local technical community and forecasted the expected results. Then we ran the experiment - and the results did not look anything like I expected. At this point, I suppose there are two possible ways to look at this. First, I could say that the government sabatoged my experiment. After all, I am an expert on this new process and I modeled it and others with technical experience in the area agreed. The second option is that my model was wrong. I went with the second option, took the new data into account and devised a better model. (You'll be happy to know that I have good fundamental understanding and a great model now.)

This is a fairly common occurance in science and engineering. That models don't show the trade centers collapse is not surprising. That people assume the models must be correct and the towers were brought down with secret, advanced government super weapons in laughable. I'm not cracking on the engineers and scientists working on this stuff, I'm only saying that models must be verified and models are OFTEN WRONG. Just ask the folks trying to forcast hurricanes.

Well, since you've repeated it as if it's highly material I assume now that you witnessed it in person. The part I did not understand about "I SAW" is whether the electromagnetic stimulus required for visual experience was coming to you from the tower and plane themselves or an image thereof on your trusty Zenith or whether you used the term 'SAW' in a more general sense altogether.

Either way, I assume then you weren't on deck for the one that hit the Pentagon. What I'm thinking is even though you were there you still got about three quarters of the dirt on the whole thing (going by plane-count, government activity, and events leading up to it), just the way the rest of us sheep did; by being told what happened by the G. So why's the idea that the accounts don't hold water putting enough whiz in your rice crispies to call someone an idiot for repeating it?

If you want to buy into the "theory" from those who where not there, go ahead.