Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
if i hear you give your stupid bathtub theory again I'm gonna puke.. no shit sherlock. they preserved the bathtub... but you don't have to spend twenty minutes stating it so that it looks like you have some theory equally as relevant as Judy wood's. I can't even believe you give those other two douches equal air time. get over your damn self and stop ego tripping. please.
ReplyDeleteNo nukes did this alone (or with explosives and/or thermitic mixes as a speculative unproved-to-be-explosive-power). This was partly DEWs, for which we have plenty of anecdotal but not mere urban myth evidence, plus physics exclusions: the cars, properly understood, were not nuked, or not alone; neither was the "explosive"/"collapse" directionality a nuke, or not alone; and same about the non-coal-ified paper in the "melted" steel cabinet from a nuke heat because the steel could not have been very hot (the paper didn't need oxygen for a flame fire if it was near melted steel, for it would have coal-ified); nor is a nuke a possibility (without DEWs) as an explanation for possibly the only truly fully genuine footage of the dustifying spire falling yet leaving a column of its own dust to blow away as it falls.
ReplyDeleteTritium and deuterium could be FALSE POSITIVES for nukes (as a residual effect of changed plasma-matter or some similar effect as a DEW) or CO-EVIDENCE of a nuke with DEWs, since we know thermite was present but didn't do the whole thing: same thing, for our explanandum to be explained by only nukes as a main culprit -- IMPOSSIBLE AS A SOLE MAIN CAUSE WITHOUT DEWS.
Let me clarify: I thought DEWs were "just frequency", like a singer hitting high C and breaking a glass with resonance, so that DEWs would be material-specific. This is probably a development "they" (black op military) have, if they have DEWs.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the physicist Dr Andrea Puharich has made a point (in one of the few physicist statements directly seriously critical, in the positive sense of reasoned analysis, about Tesla's late-life claims). His point is that plasma high state energy is also material (somewhat a quasi-state of electro-energy-massive material), and high-electrical charge acts therefore more like QUANTUM MECHANICS, not like "mere" Classical Electromagnetic action.
As such, he says, it is fully possible that if Tesla achieved such an effect, the charge could have travelled without pushing its way along in a forceful sense, but rather by converting itself, along the distance (in the earth, since Puharich was commenting on the claimed Wardenclyffe Tower's distance-energy transmission through the earth, which normally does NOT transmit electromagnetism easily).
If this is what Tesla did, or even if it isn't, Puharich says it is POSSIBLE.
How does this relate to DEWs? Well, if plasma physics "transforms" electromagnetism into more of an atomic-subatomic physical effect on the matter, it could perhaps have SIDE EFFECTS of changing the matter's atomic structure enough to leave Deuterium or Tritium as a side effect, it would seem.
Thus, it could act not merely as a substance-specific disintegrator, but a breakdown and CHANGER of molecules and even atoms.
If so, Tritium and Deuterium could be results from DEWs and nukes, whereas nukes alone would not account for the non-(significant) heat and the weird melting which doesn't burn.
Does it mean that Judy's trust in Hutchison is well founded? Not necessarily. But it does mean that at least the general sense, some of Hutchison's general line of claims might remain open, pending further confirmation, whether he achieved them or not personally.
But GREAT job, Jim, about Bin Laden. I'd never heard some of the things you brought up (though I'd heard some, plus a few others you didn't mention).
ReplyDelete"Clare"..Where do we read more?!? You are connecting dots like I wish...
ReplyDelete... and Jim, the stuff about plane parts being used as scrap at the pentagon and showing up later; (when don rumsfeld was hanging out on the lawn trimming the hedges), is good stuff too. where is there more of that?! Great nuggets! bring us some new info and stop repeating the old!
Peace!
Well, there are plenty of papers, stevie.t , in physics, which do NOT support the idea that all atomic structures remain "normal" in their qualities (characteristics) when subjected to specific electromagnetic conditions at high frequency. However, these papers are usually only compiled for COMPARISON on the odd implications, in ODD BOOKS! So, if you are willing to sift through a mixed bag, then try "Angels don't play this HAARP" for the quotations of Dr Puharich's comments on the Wardenclyffe Tower -- but the relationship to other atomic changes without "atomic blasts", such as in the DEW postulate, is not specifically drawn.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the physics papers talking of "unusual and significant" but over-specific papers from physics journals, look at the bibliography at the end of "Is Artificial Gravity Possible?" by Moray B. King, and at the article by T. Townsend Brown.
Both items are reprinted by an author often called a nutball for some of his interests and, what's more valid, for his uncareful approach at times, David Hatcher Childress. They are reprinted in Childress' compilation book, called "Anti-Gravity and the Unified Field".
King's annotated bibliography is extremely instructive: for instance, C.F. Brush, in 1928, in the American Philosophical Society publication, the scientists describe that aluminum silicate falls more slowly than other materials. What would that normally mean to you or me? Or would we hear of it? No. And what would the average scientist make of it, if anything at all: scientists often can gloss over weirder implications of that result, suggesting that "some day we might find a reason" and then keep their general Idea intact instead of moving forward. But King gives some contextual items which shed some implications which must at least be investigated.
What's happened is not that the papers are illegitimate, or the comments by Puharich meaningless, but that one wouldn't tend to HEAR of them outside some specific study, unless culled and reprinted in such "strange" contexts.
Does that help?
Sorry, I meant to write: "HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy", by Jerry E. Smith. Puharich's comments on Tesla's Wardenclyffe claims are on page 44 (no index in the book, unfortunately). The paragraphs about this matter and Puharich are as follows:
ReplyDelete"Dr. Andrija Puharich [I misspelled his first name, in my post above; sorry], in 1976, was the first to point out that Tesla's power transmission system could not be explained by the laws of classical electrodynamics, but [could], rather, in terms of relativistic transformations in high energy fields. He noted that according to Dirac's theory of the electron, when one of those particles encountered its oppositely charged member, a positron, the two particles would annihilate each other.
"Because energy can neither be destroyed nor created[,] the energy of the two former particles [of opposite charges electrically] are transformed into an electromagnetic wave. The opposite, of course, holds true. If there is a strong enough electric field, two opposite charges of electricity are formed where there was originally no charge at all.
"This type of transformation usually takes place near the intense field of an atomic nucleus, but it can also manifest without the aid of a nuclear catalyst if an electric field has enough energy.
"Puharich's involved mathematical treatment demonstrated that power levels in a Tesla transmitter were strong enough to cause such pair pair production.
"The mechanism of pair production offers a very attractive explanation for the ground [']transmission['] of power. Ordinary electrical electrical currents do not travel far enough through the earth. Dirt has a high resistance to electricity and quickly turns currents into heat energy that is wasted.
"With the pair production method[,] electricity can be moved from one point to another without having to [']push['] the physical particle through the earth -- the transmitting source would create a strong field [in Puharich's assessment of Tesla's claims] and a [charged] particle would be created at the receiver [to which Tesla was sending the charge from Wardenclyffe, through the ground].
"If the sending of currents through the earth is possible in modern physics [as Puharich says it is], the question remains of whether Tesla actually demonstrated the weapons application of his power transmitter or whether it remained an unrealized plan on the part of the inventor."
Now, stevie.t, what is salient as regards DEWs here, is the fact that REACTIONS and CHANGES which "usually occur only" close to an atomic nucleus can occur under strong electromagnetic fields from outside. Add to this our knowledge of plasma (a semi-material, semi-electrowave state), and you begin to open up the possibility that something in this change-state application of Quantum Theory, atomic nuclei could be "created" without a "blast" bomb in the conventional sense. If such nuclear effects can be induced on electrons and other atoms and change their effect from particle to "plasma", then Deuterium and Tritium might be side effects in some way from DEW use. Maybe they came from "mini nukes", and DEWs explain only the other effects. But it is possible that DEWs have been developed, and they MAY throw off odd effects on particles, changing atoms during the process. But even if the DEWs did NOT throw off Deuterium and Tritium, nukes cannot explain the non-heat of the air in any significant level, the weird car effects, the "melted" steel cabinet with paper inside not only not burned in an oxygen fire, but also un-coal-ified -- for no oxygen is required for coalification of paper next to near-molten metal, and the dustification of the spire in mid-air.
P.S., stevie.t, I am the same Clare who's appeared on Jim's show. So no need to put my name in quotation marks. :)
ReplyDeleteWhere to read about it? It's in Dr. Wood's book. perhaps "Clare" has begun reading Dr. Wood's book.
ReplyDeleteRemember, if they can't cover it up, they try to muddle it up. If they can't muddle it up, they hijack it and run it into the ditch.
I have not read Dr Wood's book (it is unavailable at a wholesale price because she fell out with her publisher or something, so the bookseller here who should carry it, at "Conspiracy Culture Bookstore" can't afford to ship it, and I can't afford to buy it). I am familiar with her main arguments and quite a few details, however, from her Website, interviews and others' treatments (in reaction to her, positive and negative).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I am not "Clare" in quotation marks. It's my name.
Finally, what stevie.t was asking was about the physics supporting DEWs, not merely about 9/11. And for THAT, you need to do some sleuthing, if you wish to get beyond the hypothesis that DEWs would always be "note specific", i.e., frequencies to blast specific materials only. Instead, they might seem to render states of plasma in objects' electrical fields and it seems that this brings about more than a polarity change or inducement: a number of atom/particle-changes seem to be possible.
Hence, my reference to the summation by Moray B. King, about "zero point energy" as a shift in the qualities of the vacuum-energy-space around objects, and T. Townsend Brown's work demonstrating same, as well as Dr. Andrija Puharich's comments about plasma and electromagnetism.
Oh, sorry, I meant to say the shipping to Canada is what's exorbitant for getting Wood's book here, for the bookseller. Needs wholesale price to not actually sell at a loss. And I don't want to pay shipping to Amazon either, as I do not have a lot of $. :)
ReplyDeleteSomehow my comment was lost. Here's the comment (and the comment above was to clarify about the bookseller's conundrum, mentioned below):
ReplyDeleteI have not read Dr Wood's book (it is unavailable at a wholesale price because she fell out with her publisher or something, so the bookseller here who should carry it, at "Conspiracy Culture Bookstore" can't afford to ship it, and I can't afford to buy it). I am familiar with her main arguments and quite a few details, however, from her Website, interviews and others' treatments (in reaction to her, positive and negative).
On the other hand, I am not "Clare" in quotation marks. It's my name.
Finally, what stevie.t was asking was about the physics supporting DEWs, not merely about 9/11. And for THAT, you need to do some sleuthing, if you wish to get beyond the hypothesis that DEWs would always be "note specific", i.e., frequencies to blast specific materials only. Instead, they might seem to render states of plasma in objects' electrical fields and it seems that this brings about more than a polarity change or inducement: a number of atom/particle-changes seem to be possible.
Hence, my reference to the summation by Moray B. King, about "zero point energy" as a shift in the qualities of the vacuum-energy-space around objects, and T. Townsend Brown's work demonstrating same, as well as Dr. Andrija Puharich's comments about plasma and electromagnetism.
where are bin ladens family?
ReplyDeleteThey (ISI) keep saying they will be released, but nothing happens. Is the ISI run by the CIA?
Or is Pakistan blackmailing USA with witnesses to the fake raid killing innocent people?
And interesting how some 30 navy seals get blown up, the Osama posse perhaps?
Clare: Your comments on the book publisher, about the wholesale prices, about the Where Do the Towers Go facts in that book that you admit you have not read leads me to only one conclusion being that you have supplied by your own admissions vial your posts proving benighted cognitive dissonance exists.
ReplyDeleteI suggest that you purchase the book wherein your posts will have some appearance of veracity of empirical facts or debunking same. Name calling is a trick used by many for PsyOps, obfuscation and just plain muddling. Sorry, no cigar.
Clare: PS. As a suggestion try "http://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com into your web browser to purchase the book.
ReplyDeleteAlso Amazon. com has the book, which hopefully you have heard of from someone.
Just trying be helpful. Enjoy.
Great show, I like the way you hit several topics and brought up alot of facts that were new to me on the History side, very interesting
ReplyDeleteThe bad news is the audio of Jack was terrible and so is his interviewing intellect. The good news is Jim's audio was fine and he can carry a conversation with an amoeba just fine.
ReplyDelete