WARNING: Some of these videos are disinfo and/or comedy. Titles/videos taken from YouTube.
"Thirty years ago the vision of directed energy weapons, using high powered lasers (HEL) and high power microwaves (HPM), was first seriously engaged by the military. Within a decade the capability of these weapons to destroy or disable targets had been proven, and numerous demonstrations of lethal effect, on increasingly difficult targets, have been carried out since then."
- "New World Vistas," USAF Directed Energy Volume, 1995, p. iv.
Disclaimer Foreward: I don't believe this theory, but...
Directed Energy Weapons, DEW, is a broad generalization that doesn't require the Star Wars space laser or Tesla's death ray, or related armaments in the orbiting arsenal. I'm using the title "Space Weapons" for this page (and including this page at all) for two reasons: 1. As an informative response to mocking of the idea involving "ray beams" from space, not exclusive to 9/11 conspiracy theories. 2. The military industry has its future planned around arming Earth's upper atmosphere. September 11 provided an excellent excuse to forget the missing 2.3 TRILLION Pentagon dollars (video above, "Defense Sec. Rumsfeld Missing Trillions")... and throw more money at the industry. Please see below to skip the perusal of the DEW hypothesis for the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers. That said, I shall present the alleged disinfo artists' info:
WTC-Star Wars Intro
Explosions indicative of controlled demolition were reported by dozens of firemen and TV newspeople. See and hear 911eyewitness.com. However, so the theory goes, these explosions weren't enough to reduce the 2 110-storey towers and everything in them to dust (fine particulates scattered as if from a volcano...not to mention a relatively small pile of debris instead of the full weight of structural steel, metal furniture, concrete and computer parts that should have crushed the train tunnels below, splitting the foundation "bathtub" and flooding NYC but didn't.) "Dustify" is a popular DEW proponent term.
So, if not truckloads of carefully placed "thermite," then what?!
Particle beams? High-energy lasers, chemical lasers, exotic electromagnetic phenomenons like the "Hutchison effect," mirrors on satellites, the "Son of 'Star Wars'," Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), space weaponization by US Space Command, HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program)...? As early as 1989 reports of laser weapons surfaced after Bush Senior's military tested experimental weapons on civilians in Panama. (See part 3 on the Panama Deception page; or see above, Bob Fitrakis) ... DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Lockheed Martin with its "skunk works," Raytheon, V.P. Dick Cheney's Halliburton, General Atomics, et. al., are no doubt FAR more advanced than any of us readers can imagine. (But let's try.)
Dr. Judy Wood?
The most outspoken proponent of the DEW hypothesis is a woman named Judy Wood. Her popularity among so-called fringe conspiracy theorists can be summed up by Ace Baker in his song "Judy Would." (Link dead. He believes in nukes now.) Recently, though, Ace has found fault with Dr. Wood over her affiliation with John Hutchison, reported discoverer of the "Hutchison effect." (see above videos & links at right) Musician/video production expert Baker believes Hutchison to be a fraud, whose admitted practice of video fakery may represent Hutchison's entire career. Judge for yourself. Visit Judy's webpages comparing the Hutchison effect with World Trade Center anomalies.
Both Dr. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood have each filed legal documents citing his/her research, though Judy's technically came first (April 2007, about a month before). We can only hope for a positive outcome for the underdog plaintiffs. Either way, their consciences can be absolved. Action has been taken.
Writings include one at CheckTheEvidence.com, Judy's friend Andrew Johnson's site, where CB implies involvement of Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta in the cover-up of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) not leaving out the famed thermite proponent Steven Jones. The following small text quotes from this link.
International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation: www.inesap.org
A gravely telling popular article: "Space Weapons: The New Debate"
Quote: "Since no argument or foreign threat will likely change the minds of those who are against space weaponization, any change in US space policy, no matter how mild or hedged with caveats, will be portrayed as opening the doors of hell. ... After all, why not fight wars in space? There's lots of room there and not a lot of civilians to get in the way."
Jones ridicules the directed energy weapon and TV-Fakery theories with statements such as "These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers." http://judicial-inc.biz/Steven_Jones_quits_911.htm
Jenkins steered the "truth movement" away from directed energy weapons by conducting an ambush interview of Dr Judy Wood. (However, a read of the transcript reveals Dr Wood won the debate hands down.) http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript...
Official at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Van Romero, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).
Romero is a controlled demolitions expert. Scroll down a little and note the photo. [not here on 911conspiracy.tv] Does Romero actually think this was caused by a "relatively small amount of explosives"? (endquote)
Judy Wood, Kevin Barrett and attorney Jerry Leaphart blast NIST on Truth Jihad Radio Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer discuss WTC destruction FAQs. Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and Jim Fetzer true scholars for 9-11 truth. Judy Wood, Ambrose Lane discuss DEW, Applied Research Associates (ARA) and NIST. Attorney Jerry Leaphart and Judy Wood discuss the Qui Tam (kee-tam) lawsuit against the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. Dr Judy Wood and John Hutchison 9-11 and Hutchison Effect - Jim Fetzer Dynamic Duo 28 Feb 2008 Douglas Beason (Los Alamos National Labs) on Directed Energy Weapons The late Dean Warwick reveals his foreknowledge of infrasound/electromagnetic satellite weaponry allegedly used on 9/11. (And misinfo on 9/11 videos.) See also above, "Paula Gloria Hosts the Pickering Brothers on Black Op Tech" for more on infrasound.
Funding the Future: State Sponsored Terror
David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor is the most acclaimed 9-11 Truth - some say conspiracy - book yet written. As you probably know, the title is taken from a "neo-conservative think-tank" document Rebuilding America's Defenses. The neocon planners called themselves the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC), and included Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, numerous members of the "military-industrial complex," Paul Wolfowitz (Undersecretary of Defense, World Bank advocate and Northrop Grumman investor), Donald Rumsfeld.... Remember that last name. On page 51 (63 of the PDF) we read:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.
This document mentions Iraq 25 times. The phrase "revolution in military affairs" appears 19 times. On the same page as the Pearl Harbor quote, not coincidentally, it mentions space and "space-based components."
The September 11, 2001 "terrorist" attacks launched a defense spending bill to the tune of 318 BILLION dollars much of which went toward "classified projects" that even President George W. Bush didn't know about...which isn't saying much. And 318 billion wasn't enough. "[T]he estimated costs for the development of major weapons systems for the US military have doubled since September 11, 2001, with a trillion-dollar price tag for new planes, ships, and missiles that would have little direct role in the fight against insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq."1
9-11, the new Pearl Harbor, helped. Listen to George W. Bush say so:
"Recent studies have championed the use of laser systems transmitting beams from and through space to enable 'global virtual presence' for both warfighters and peacekeepers. Such systems could also enable precision engagements, anywhere and
anytime, supporting the full-spectrum dominance..."
- LASSOS, American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics, 1999
Here is where a "Space Pearl Harbor" comes into Griffin's text, p. 96 in the updated version. "It is important to realize that the centerpiece of the 'revolution in military affairs' is a program to weaponize and hence dominate space. This program will require much of the massive increase in funding for 'defense' for which Brzezinski and the Project for a New American Century have called."
A 1998 document called "Vision for 2020" speaks largely of US Space Command, though it verges on the sinister by saying "[T]he globalization of the world economy...will continue with a widening between 'haves' and 'have-nots.'" The billions of dollars being spent with no mention from the media are by no means for homeland defense or welfare. As the mission statement reads: "US Space Command - Dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment."2
Now remember Rumsfeld. Griffin writes on p. 99: "Shortly before becoming Secretary of Defense in January of 2001, Donald Rumsfeld completed his work as chairman of the Commission to Assess US National Security Space Management and Organization. This 'Rumsfeld Commission,' as it was informally known, published its report..." that says:
"History is replete with instances in which warning signs were ignored and change resisted until an external, 'improbable' event forced resistant bureaucracies to take action. The question is whether the US will be wise enough to act responsibly and soon enough to reduce US space vulnerability. Or whether, as in the past, a disabling attack against the country and its people a "Space Pearl Harbor" will be the only event able to galvanize the nation and cause the US Government to act."
It's no surprise that months before 9-11 a news release read: "This afternoon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is announcing plans for a major boost in the importance of space for U.S. military strategy." It's also no surprise that he avoided saying how it would be funded.
What's next, when the public approval for the War on Terror dwindles? Was 9-11 really the "Space Pearl Harbor," like Griffin suggests?
Or would this quote from Ronald Reagan have more bearing?: "I couldn't help but say to Mr. Gorbachev just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from another planet." Reagan had the Cold War to fund Star Wars. Bush and his puppeteers have the War on Terror. Will the leaders of the North American Union - the "New World Order" Bush 1 first mentioned on Septmember 11, 1990 - will they years from now use an alien threat?
1. "Major Arms Soar to Twice Pre-9/11 Cost Systems to Have Little Direct Role in Terror Fight" by Bryan Bender, Boston Globe, August 19, 2006. Found at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0819-01.htm.
2. "Vision for 2020," US Space Command, 1998, p. 3.
UFO Threat in History (see "Threat Hoax" video above) Famous quotes:
"Someone remarked that the best way to unite all the nations on this globe would be an attack from some other planet. In the face of such an alien enemy, people would respond with a sense of their unity of interest and purpose."
- John Dewey, Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University, 1917, excerpted from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Publication No. 15," p. 105. (Reprinted in William Cooper's Behold a Pale Horse, Light Technology Publishing, Sedona, AZ, 1991, p. 470.)
"Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the 'last, best hope of peace,'* etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by 'creatures' from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat...."
- "Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace," authors unknown, The Dial Press, New York, 1967, Section 6. *"last, best hope" quote is here noted as from an unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Real Enemy by Robert R. Harris, circa 1963.
"History is replete with instances in which warning signs were ignored and change resisted until an external, 'improbable' event forced resistant bureaucracies to take action. The question is whether the US will be wise enough to act responsibly and soon enough to reduce US space vulnerability. Or whether, as in the past, a disabling attack against the country and its people a 'Space Pearl Harbor' -will be the only event able to galvanize the nation and cause the US Government to act."
- Donald Rumsfeld, shortly before becoming Secretary of Defense in January of 2001, in his report as chairman of the Commission to Assess US National Security Space Management and Organization
"But I've often wondered, what if all of us in the world discovered that we were threatened by an outer - a power from outer space, from another planet? Wouldn't we all of a sudden find that we didn't have any differences between us at all, we were all human beings, citizens of the world, and wouldn't we come together to fight that particular threat?"
- President Ronald Reagan during a question-and-answer session after a Chicago speech, when asked what he thought most important in international relations (Reported by the Associated Press May 5, 1988)
-Quote by Noam Chomsky taken from Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9-11, by Barry Zwicker, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2006, p. 180. Zwicker's source is listed as Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky, Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel, eds., The New Press, 2002, p. 26.
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science and technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information please visit: