ULTRA ALTERNATIVE 9/11 theory.

[empathy]

Alright, now I can't remember how my uncle came across this. But I haven't found anything resembling this kind of research before or since.

I should have titled this thread, MOST OVERLOOKED 9/11 theory
Because that's what it has amounted to.

The pictures are what gets me..... Yeah, i will not say anything more.

Without further Ado.

http://www.drjudywood.com/


Please view responsibly ^_^

*edit*
it just occurred to me that i saw this years ago, and virtually no attention was given to her research.
I think more people should have access to this, so please rate this thread, so people won't overlook it.
*edit*

[draconine]

I believe John Lear mentioned this. A lot of interesting data she's gathered.

[OMDoodlebug]

A lot of interesting data she's gathered.

I'll second that. Very interesting indeed.

Thanks for this, OP.

[ad.johnson]

Make sure you check it all - and check out some of the reaction to it.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/

Keep your wits about you.... you wouldn't want to lose them.... would you?

[Whitewolf]

The woman is a joke. She'd be considered comic relief among the 9/11 truth movement if she wasn't so dangerous to the movement. Check out this interview with her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgN591u3MhQ

[eris]

have to agree with whitewolf there...

[Whitewolf]

And the same goes with James Fetzer, who endorses her as well as her insane theories.

The truth about 9/11 is that it was planned and conducted by western intelligence agencies and their leaders. But those who promote ridiculous claims such as lazer beams and television holograms cannot possibly be trying to get at the truth of what really went down on 9/11. Disinformation is everywhere and common sense goes a long way.

[pilot]

And the same goes with James Fetzer, who endorses her as well as her insane theories.

The truth about 9/11 is that it was planned and conducted by western intelligence agencies and their leaders. But those who promote ridiculous claims such as lazer beams and television holograms cannot possibly be trying to get at the truth of what really went down on 9/11. Disinformation is everywhere and common sense goes a long way.

I just took a look at some of the photos of cars that were damaged, I never thought it was out of the ordinary for cars to have caught fire near the trade center, but on the FDR?? Uh uh, not possible. Why are these theories "insane" the whole 9/11 business is insane brother, I don't think the whole truth will ever be available to the public anytime anywhere, ever. If we agree it was a false flag, that is enough.

Nothing is more insane than 19 arab hijackers with boxcutters baby.:biggrin2:

[Whitewolf]

Very true pilot. I think the explanation given (the "sane" one at least) about why the cars on the street next to the twin towers were blown up or on fire prior to the collapses was due to the blasts that resulted from the explosions that were placed in the base of the buildings which many witnesses have attested to. Of course these witnesses have been silenced by the corporate media.

[rugbyzhg]

Make sure you check it all - and check out some of the reaction to it.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/

Keep your wits about you.... you wouldn't want to lose them.... would you?
Not only that, remember: Do you believe people who tell you what they have found without being able to see how it ties in to the physical evidence that is all the pictorial evidence, seismic data, magnetometer data. Can you verify what you are being told or is all of the data put in front of you as it is in Dr. Wood's website and papers for you to decide for yourself based on your own research. That is the only peer review that is above reproach. Think for yourself and ask yourself: Do I trust folks that could make me look foolish (just like the official story) or do I finally say enough and think for myself?

Finally, can someone hide a hurricane?

[CB_Brooklyn]

Not only that, remember: Do you believe people who tell you what they have found without being able to see how it ties in to the physical evidence that is all the pictorial evidence, seismic data, magnetometer data. Can you verify what you are being told or is all of the data put in front of you as it is in Dr. Wood's website and papers for you to decide for yourself based on your own research. That is the only peer review that is above reproach. Think for yourself and ask yourself: Do I trust folks that could make me look foolish (just like the official story) or do I finally say enough and think for myself?

Finally, can someone hide a hurricane?


100% correct. All the data is on Dr Wood's site, along with source information, just waiting for people to look at and examine. This is completely contrary to Steven Jones' approach, who has released no information whatsoever proving the authenticity of his thermate samples.

[empathy]

It is just another piece to the puzzle guys and gals. Nothing more, and no less than Loose change in my opinion. The whole scenario is buggered to begin with. And no good has come of it before or since.

Well I am glad this sparked some interest. It has been over 7 years now...


Oh yeah, anyone here McCain say he would reopen the 9/11 commission?

..... I don't know wether to laugh or cry.

[Orion11]

The woman is a joke. She'd be considered comic relief among the 9/11 truth movement if she wasn't so dangerous to the movement. Check out this interview with her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgN591u3MhQ


:mfr_omg: :mfr_lol:

wow. she really IS a joke!! You cannot call her "Doctor" after seeing this. :lol3:

This woman knows absolutely nothing. wow.

thanks WW.

[CB_Brooklyn]

:mfr_omg: :mfr_lol:

wow. she really IS a joke!! You cannot call her "Doctor" after seeing this. :lol3:

This woman knows absolutely nothing. wow.

thanks WW.


The followers are distinguishing themselves from the thinkers.

[ad.johnson]

What I find peculiar is that people won't check what has actually been written and said about things like the AWOL Greg Jenkins. That video is 18 months old and doesn't have the newer evidence in it.

Here's some help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7PC95XGEk

Check out the background:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=60


So many, many anonymous internet posters. Why? My name is Andrew Johnson and you can find out quite a lot about me on my Web Site.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/

What about you other guys? It's almost always the same on these forums. The pattern is repeated, over and over again - and almost no one mentions things like court cases, disclosed identity, current activity etc etc.

Perhaps people might like to consider these issues as well, or perhaps they will just post more emoticons in their search for truth...?

[pilot]

Very true pilot. I think the explanation given (the "sane" one at least) about why the cars on the street next to the twin towers were blown up or on fire prior to the collapses was due to the blasts that resulted from the explosions that were placed in the base of the buildings which many witnesses have attested to. Of course these witnesses have been silenced by the corporate media.

Right, that still doesn't explain the cars on the FDR that were damaged in the same manner. Explosions at the base of the towers could not possibly have affected that area-it's just too far away. The only thing I could come up with to explain those cars on the highway is that they were towed there at some point, but when and by whom? The damage itself is very strange. Honestly I had never seen the photos of cars on the bridges and the FDR so now I'm intrigued by the possibility but it doesn't matter-if you or I or anyone else comes to a conclusion about what happened and how it all went down, what's the diff? There are so many people out there who still buy the official swill, the media who could possibly give them a little hint is not covering the truth movement except to ridicule it, and short of some whistleblower who gets some serious consideration by the media, most people will think you are as nutty as you think this Dr Judy is. What a brilliant plan it was. They fixed so no matter how reasonable you are, you are still an unpatriotic and dangerous nut. I'm not talking about republican fox zombies only, thoughtful and progressive lefty types still won't look at the evidence objectively because it's too fringe.

[Orion11]

The followers are distinguishing themselves from the thinkers.

riiiight.

[swordsmith]

Andrew, I've watched your lengthy presentations on Dr Woods lectures/theories , many many thanks.
Calling Judy Wood a joke just betrays ones own ignorance, though she is kind of funny, for example, I like the "fuzzy blobs".

I do not at all have a science background but showed this material to two physics PHDs in the family and they were dumbfounded yet begudgingly impressed.

Her work answers many questions and covers the strange anomolies, like the far away burnt out cars, rapid rusting, twisted metals, etc. Moreover, the question of energy directed weapons leading to free energy technology, and the supression thereof.

Yes, firstly people must understand 911 as a total psy-op crock, but when you really want to understand something, you look at the details, because the devil is in them.

[Realview]

911 seemed to me to be the third attempt at triggering events significant enough to bring out the patriot act and the false image of presidential dictator authority. First was the 1st WTC bombing, second was Oklahoma City. After those didn't work so good, the perpetrators decided to overkill the action to guarantee success. So, a combination of control demolition, fake video and perhaps other technologies was used. What tools did the job doesn't matter much except it indicates who didn't do it like some kids with airplanes.

[feeler]

100% correct. All the data is on Dr Wood's site, along with source information, just waiting for people to look at and examine. This is completely contrary to Steven Jones' approach, who has released no information whatsoever proving the authenticity of his thermate samples.


I am 100% in support of CB_Brooklyn's analysis of the 9/11 events.

Those who can accept extraterrestrial visitations as factual events should have no problem in realizing alien technology such as electro-magnetic driven particle beam weapons (either back-engineered, or obtained as a "gift").

The proof is solid and on record, recorded utilizing scientific instruments. Any attempt from the government agents to cover up the existence of this category of not-so-secret "top secret weapons" (e.g. by calling it "insane") is a waste of tax payers' money. The time has passed. -feeler


http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/mpics/H5.jpg

[Whitewolf]

Well just understand that the vast majority of the 9/11 truth community who questions the official government version of what took place (which is now a global phenomenon) has serious problems with the "Theories" put forth by Judy Wood. A more reputable source of information regarding the physics of 9/11 is Kevin Ryan as well as Dr. Steven Jones.

Now start googling. :thumb_yello:

[feeler]

Well just understand that the vast majority of the 9/11 truth community who questions the official government version of what took place (which is now a global phenomenon) has serious problems with the "Theories" put forth by Judy Wood. A more reputable source of information regarding the physics of 9/11 is Kevin Ryan as well as Dr. Steven Jones.

Now start googling. :thumb_yello:


Yes I am aware of the current sentiment of the majority. However I'd rather focus on the scientific aspect instead of being politically correct; I am not part of the popularity contest. The truth movement has been compromised/infiltrated to steer the attention away from the classified weaponry, still considered to be "TOP SECRET" by the PTB.

Now your turn sir to google "Steven Jones cold fusion" and learn about Jones' "accomplishment" in killing the cold fusion movement.


-feeler

[zorgon]

Redacted

[zorgon]

Redacted

[swordsmith]

Thanks Zorgon, some people just seem to suffer from thinking they have it all wrapped up .
The energy directed weapon aspect needs to be exposed as much as the more basic 911 truth/lies.
I always wonder what makes people stop in their investigations, its kind of like "i'll believe this but I won't believe that ....."

google indeed....

[dayzero]

>

[GoingToFast]

Judy D. Wood is NOT a joke, she is absolutely right in saying that Direct High Energy Weapons where used at 9-11, there where no "micro nukes" being used at 9-11 simply because they do not exist that is the real myth. And why is she being attacked so fiercely from all directions, simply because she is right. This is an excellent thread make it sticky.


dayzero, your link did not work but this does.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7726031384917866364&ei=KTwISefwI4-w2ALu6aijCg&q=From+the+Wilderness+-+The+CIA+Connection

[feeler]

Judy D. Wood is NOT a joke, she is absolutely right in saying that Direct High Energy Weapons where used at 9-11, there where no "micro nukes" being used at 9-11 simply because they do not exist that is the real myth. And why is she being attacked so fiercely from all directions, simply because she is right. This is an excellent thread make it sticky.


dayzero, your link did not work but this does.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7726031384917866364&ei=KTwISefwI4-w2ALu6aijCg&q=From+the+Wilderness+-+The+CIA+Connection

Good point GoingToFast.

Bill Deagle believes the use of “micro nukes” on 9/11 but in my opinion the evidence of such use is not compelling (e.g. no radiation burn/sickness was reported, no sensation of heat wave was reported by surrounding pedestrians, Judy Wood’s observation, etc.). So the verdict on that is still out.

On the other hand, the evidence (both visual and scientific) supporting the use of particle beam weapon on 9/11 was very solid. Serial, floor by floor explosions on the lower section were arranged to create the illusion of a “collapse.” But there was no evidence to support explosion of any type on the upper section of each tower. Then the BIG question is: What turned the upper section into dust? Dr. Judy Wood has the answer.

Dr. Wood points out to the mini pole shift (magnetic shift) detected at the time when the plane-holes were cut out on the façade of the towers, and at the time when the upper section of each tower was severed. After the recent major earthquakes in China and Japan, many researchers also started paying attention to the effects of HAARP. This particular aspect of the truth movement is gaining interest. -feeler

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/mpics/H5.jpg

[ad.johnson]

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/White_Sands/27-C03-20%20NPG.jpg

Can you say Disintegrate? :tongue2:


Oops - looks like people haven't looked at all the data. Dr Wood has posted more information - isolating certain characteristics or fingerprints of the weapon. Particle beams don't seem to enter into it. Technology related to the Hutchison Effect does. Why isn't anyone talking about this on this thread?

http://www.drjudywood.com/artciles/JJ/

Also, few people are talking about other topics related to 9/11 which are talked of elsewhere:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/

I have seen Richard Hoagland talk about Hurricane Manipulation, but he hasn't talked about 9/11 in relation to this. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...............

[swordsmith]

I have also seen Richard Hoagland say in his last PC talk "Thank god for the people behind HAARP" and continue to say it is more or less saving the planet. What do you think of THIS Andrew?

Hard for me to think of Hoagland as a straight up guy after this, well, he is from NASA....

[stal]

imo not so far fetched. theres plenty of evidence for directed energy and holograms, just as there is evidence to support other thoeries. an ultra-alternative theory would be timeline convergence. but thats just crazy talk now isnt it?

[ghglenn]

I would suggest that there was more than one method utilized to take down the towers. If they wanted it to go off without a hitch, so to speak, they would have created a redundant fail-safe. Previous to 9/11, it was documented that "maintenance" was done on the building by outside contractors for more than a week. Explosives had to be used to sheer some of the steel with thermite...with the particle beam exciting the rest of the structure. I am not an expert on beam tech but I have a hard time imagining the structural steel sheering under a large beam shooting down from space. The densities of the various materials are so varied. Just my .02

[ad.johnson]

I have also seen Richard Hoagland say in his last PC talk "Thank god for the people behind HAARP" and continue to say it is more or less saving the planet. What do you think of THIS Andrew?

Hard for me to think of Hoagland as a straight up guy after this, well, he is from NASA....

Hi,

I think we should all look at as much evidence as we can and draw our own conclusions. Here's a bit, anyway....

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Richard%20Hoagland%20on%209-11%20Coast%20to%20Coast%20-%20Apr%2016%202008.mp3

I have been a little surprised at how few people are looking at the hard data that Dr Wood has assembled - especially those who normally talk about such topics.

[GoingToFast]

imo not so far fetched. theres plenty of evidence for directed energy and holograms, just as there is evidence to support other thoeries. an ultra-alternative theory would be timeline convergence. but thats just crazy talk now isnt it?


The controlled-demolition of the Twin-towers and the two planes hitting the towers are two separate events at 9-11, proofing that there where Directed High Energy weapons used at the demolition does not automatically prof that the planes where holographs. It is my firm belief that the planes where real live and physical (no holographs) and that there where High Energy Weapons used at the controlled-demolition.

[Love/Light 13]

a particle beam weapon seems plausible to me.

A youtube clip was posted by someone trying to discredit Judy D. Wood. Why would anyone from the 9/11 Truth movement be working so passionately to discredit a fellow believer of the "inside job" theory, ie Ms. Wood? Clearly that guy is a disinfo agent trying to humiliate an unsuspecting Wood. Yellow journalism at it's best.

I believe that if truth about 9/111 were released, a transformative positive event would take place on this planet. In America, cops, firefighters, and soldiers would be infuriated, and finally dismantle the "old boys network" for good.

As sad as the truth may be, it must be made known to all...............

L/L 13

***************************

may WISDOM guide COMPASSION

"out of MANY, we are ONE"

[ad.johnson]

It is my firm belief that the planes where real live and physical (no holographs) and that there where High Energy Weapons used at the controlled-demolition.

By studying the evidence, you can move from a "belief" to a conclusion. It's simpler than you think....

1) Newton's 3rd law states "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

2) Is steel harder than aluminium wing struts?

3) What would happen if a BUILDING travelling 500 miles an hour hit a stationary plane? (What would come off worst)?

If you think carefully about these answers - taking what you know about metal, speed and their behaviour, you will conclude that a regular plane CANNOT possibly have caused the holes in the WTC towers. You don't need anyone or any other information to reach the correct conclusion about this particular issue.

You then go on from there and decide what might've happened (now that you have established an important thing that CANNOT have happened).

Part of the "journey onward" can involve watching "September Clues"

[Providence]

I haven't posted in a while, but this topic is intriguing. My question is, if some time of particle beam was used on the towers, then are we then to consider the pentagon and PA planes a distraction from the test? Who were all of those people calling on their cell phones as the planes went down? Can someone make a connection for me here?

[dataeast]

:mfr_lol:

By studying the evidence, you can move from a "belief" to a conclusion. It's simpler than you think....

1) Newton's 3rd law states "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

2) Is steel harder than aluminium wing struts?

3) What would happen if a BUILDING travelling 500 miles an hour hit a stationary plane? (What would come off worst)?

Based on what you have provided anyone with high school level physics could conclude: compounding logical fallacies resulting in insufficient data to make any conclusion.

In short...

Not enough parameters for any equations concerning kinetic energy and mass.

No dimensions or thickness of steel plate in hollow steel sections.

No volume or description of aircraft fuel. No analysis of combustion or kinetic energy of blast.

Further, unknowingly you have provided two leading questions to which the answers are "Yes" and one claim all of which are irrelevant here. This is the structured of NLP, albeit poorly done.

If you think carefully about these answers - taking what you know about metal, speed and their behaviour, you will conclude that a regular plane CANNOT possibly have caused the holes in the WTC towers.

If you think carefully about the above questions they do not in fact have anything to do with the scenario in question.

You don't need anyone or any other information to reach the correct conclusion about this particular issue.

Evidently, the layman needs you however. And yes you need a mechanical engineer and a lot more information to draw any conclusion.

You then go on from there and decide what might've happened (now that you have established an important thing that CANNOT have happened).

Wrong and contradictory, you haven't established anything.

Part of the "journey onward" can involve watching "September Clues"

Then google "September Clues Debunked" to make your own mind up instead of someone telling you what the 'correct' conclusion is.

Oh, here it is:
http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

And google video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550&q=september+clues+busted&ei=SkmGSNrjF5O0rgLNsNTDCg&hl=en

[Sunrider]

Dr. JudyWood is #1 for how? You must learn why?...why?...why?
What did those towers represent?
What does the pentagon represent?
Twin Towers were the "Gate"-Pentagon is the "Star"
911 was an illuminati satanic ritual!!!
More important is WHY?

[Sideshow Shaman]

...been keeping an eye on this thread. So far the comments seem generally ok. A few things come to mind,

It is nice to see that some people can read the materials provided by Judy Wood and look at the evidence. It has always been amazing how the loudest voices of the 9/11 truth groups chose to ridicule her, considering how they were ridiculed by the general American public, on pretty much the same grounds. At first I thought the 9/11 truth community would be rather enlightened. And many individuals are, but the loudest voices seem stuck at a certain level of understanding.

There are really two aspects to the 9/11 truth phenom. Those that seek all knowlege and perhaps certainty of how it happened. And those concerned with disseminating basic knowledge directly to the public. The general trend is that she is ridiculed by the later.

A large amount of evidence is available to actually establish the truth of one particular theory or another, as well as names of those involved. In the end, or even the beginning, the exact details do not matter on a societal level. Once the 'inside job' nature of the events is clear, so is the solution.

Of course I do have some opinions and eyewitness info, which I do not generally disclose when interacting with the public. To begin with I would argue in favor of the idea that a high level explosive was used at the initiation of the North Tower implosion, near the top. Probably not a micro-nuke because of radiation readings, but something comparable. Any suggestions?

My reason for thinking that is that i felt a strong shockwave from that blast at a distance of about 3 miles. It is important to note that I was on a rooftop with a clear view and no obstructing windows. The presence of the shockwave was confirmed by another witness present. Pedestrians on the street would not have been in a position to feel it.

Oh, and I took pictures of the explosion at the top of the tower. It really is true that anyone with the ability to see what is in front of them can clearly see the basics of 9/11. For instance, those airplanes were incapable of bringing down the towers. FEMA even admitted that the jet fuel had burned away 5 minutes after impact. The explosive nature of the North Tower's demise is visually obvious. The explanations keep shifting, but at one point the government was saying that these explosions resulted from burning "office materals"!?

While I would not 'argue' in favor of the idea of energy weapons being used that day, it seems likely to me. It was a mix and match kind of operation, big explosions here, little ones there, fake phone calls where needed. Certainty an opportunity to field test new techniques and machines. Also, another eye witness I've known for a few years took a walk down the West Side Highway that morning, among other places. One thing he saw stood out to me. Some of the cars parked there had all the non-metal parts gone. He saw steel belted car tires without the rubber.

That's about it for special trivia I know. If anyone has questions about the North Tower explosion, I could elaborate.

and...
Yo! to CB
i've seen you around the web :cheers:

[stal]

The controlled-demolition of the Twin-towers and the two planes hitting the towers are two separate events at 9-11, proofing that there where Directed High Energy weapons used at the demolition does not automatically prof that the planes where holographs. It is my firm belief that the planes where real live and physical (no holographs) and that there where High Energy Weapons used at the controlled-demolition.


fair enough. my mistake. this thread is about directed energy, not planes. i was trying to point out that there is evidence for and against every version of the story, some better than others of course. i'll go back to lurking now.

[Bleep!]

(The simplest explanation is usually correct)



Let them* rest in peace now.

Suggestion:
Live in the now or try to learn how.


*Them. - those of 911 and their families. Life goes on.

[feeler]

In short...

Not enough parameters for any equations concerning kinetic energy and mass.

No dimensions or thickness of steel plate in hollow steel sections.

No volume or description of aircraft fuel. No analysis of combustion or kinetic energy of blast.




In the absence of the above listed criteria, should we be convinced that the planes (and the plane crashes) that we saw were real?


John Lear already pointed out that the video/photos of the 9/11 planes are suspect due to the missing navigation lights (which we should have seen).

http://911review.org/images/net/wtc.pkl.net/plane1.jpghttp://www.newsnet14.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/9-11-plane.jpghttp://www.jimkukral.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/911_plane.jpg


For your comparison:


http://www.ganpatielectricals.com/images/aviation-product-1.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2046/2143200206_9ca44b0622.jpg?v=0


-feeler

[dataeast]

In the absence of the above listed criteria, should we be convinced that the planes (and the plane crashes) that we saw were real?

First, you should reframe the question originally posed (by ad.johnson) with relevant data before jumping to any conclusions.

John Lear already pointed out that the video/photos of the 9/11 planes are suspect due to the missing navigation lights (which we should have seen).

They are not evident in these photos either, which are more appropriate due to the position of the sun (time of day).
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Chile---Air/Boeing-767-3Y0-ER/1410483/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-India-(Euro-Atlantic/Boeing-767-3Y0-ER/1400588/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Canada/Boeing-767-3Y0-ER/1400126/M/

Also, the photos for comparison where taken too late in the day to be compared with the video of the event.

Learn how the aperture, gain and shutter speed of CCD (video cameras) influence the moving images in video. The resolution of the video presented would not even capture lights under those conditions even if they were on.

Learn how aperture, shutter and film speed (ISO) influence photographs.

[ad.johnson]

Then google "September Clues Debunked" to make your own mind up instead of someone telling you what the 'correct' conclusion is.

Wow - you're working pretty hard with this! Well done! Validity of September Clues or lack thereof does not affect Newton's laws. Also, there is much other reason to question the planes at the WTC stories - check what the witnesses said (and had recorded for New York Times)

http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=60

I don't like the word "Debunked" how about "An analysis of September Clues"? Wouldn't that be more balanced?

Who are you Dataeast? What is your real name? What do you do for a living? I'd be quite interested to know.

Have fun!

[trainedobserver]

What has happened to John Hutchison? I can't find anything current on him.

[feeler]

First, you should reframe the question originally posed (by ad.johnson) with relevant data before jumping to any conclusions.



They are not evident in these photos either, which are more appropriate due to the position of the sun (time of day).
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Chile---Air/Boeing-767-3Y0-ER/1410483/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-India-(Euro-Atlantic/Boeing-767-3Y0-ER/1400588/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Canada/Boeing-767-3Y0-ER/1400126/M/

Also, the photos for comparison where taken too late in the day to be compared with the video of the event.

Learn how the aperture, gain and shutter speed of CCD (video cameras) influence the moving images in video. The resolution of the video presented would not even capture lights under those conditions even if they were on.

Learn how aperture, shutter and film speed (ISO) influence photographs.


Typical message from the shills: "Don’t believe your lying eyes. Believe us!"

We aren't supposed to see... Too typical...


-feeler

[dataeast]

Typical message from the shills: "Don’t believe your lying eyes. Believe us!"

We aren't supposed to see... Too typical...


-feeler

Your comparison was inappropriate.

Formulate an argument and refute mine, otherwise your argument doesn't hold water.:wink2:

[ad.johnson]

Your comparison was inappropriate.

Formulate an argument and refute mine, otherwise your argument doesn't hold water.:wink2:

Oops - I wonder if the anonymous and mysterious Dataeast in an unreal place (where is terra austalis - wouldn't you normally call it Australia?) if Dataeast has missed my post, or does he have no arguments for the points I raised? Can he comment on my 500 witness study? Or does he just like to "debunk" stuff (in other words says "it's wrong because I say so and everyone else is dumb or stupid for not agreeing with me"?)

[dataeast]

Oops - I wonder if the anonymous and mysterious Dataeast in an unreal place (where is terra austalis - wouldn't you normally call it Australia?) if Dataeast has missed my post, or does he have no arguments for the points I raised? Can he comment on my 500 witness study? Or does he just like to "debunk" stuff (in other words says "it's wrong because I say so and everyone else is dumb or stupid for not agreeing with me"?)

Who are you talking to? :lol3:

You have completely surrendered your power over to me.

You demonstrate the very things you accuse me of.

As you have dismissed the evidence I presented, which is intrinsic if you are to understand how you have it wrong, there can be no debate of subsequent arguments which basis are dependent on those base assumptions.

I am under no obligation to respond to you, nor do I feel the need to "defend" my position. You are free to speculate as you will, but bear in mind that that is all that it'll be: speculation and innuendo without any evidence.

--"the anonymous and mysterious Dataeast" :lmao:

[feeler]

Who are you talking to? :lol3:

You have completely surrendered your power over to me.

You demonstrate the very things you accuse me of.

As you have dismissed the evidence I presented, which is intrinsic if you are to understand how you have it wrong, there can be no debate of subsequent arguments which basis are dependent on those base assumptions.

I am under no obligation to respond to you, nor do I feel the need to "defend" my position. You are free to speculate as you will, but bear in mind that that is all that it'll be: speculation and innuendo without any evidence.

--"the anonymous and mysterious Dataeast" :lmao:



"You have completely surrendered your power over to me." <== Words from a psychopathic control shill


-feeler

[dataeast]

"You have completely surrendered your power over to me." <== Words from a psychopathic control shill


-feeler

:lol3:

It's no surprise that you misunderstood that statement, particularly as you've take it out of the context it was given. The alarmist bold & red was quite a nice touch though.

Hint: surrender implies a voluntary effort.

--"psychopathic control shill" :tongue2:

Obviously, according to you as well, I'm also a force to be reckoned with. Quite a compliment, otherwise why would you even bother? You give me more power than I have or deserve.

:naughty:

[fitzy3400]

All the time investigating 9/11 for myself, I never heard this theory before. It is interesting. My only problem with this is why would they use planes to crash into the building? They could have just used the weapon and blamed the terrorists the same way and started the war in the same way with the same amount of TV coverage. There is a lot I don't understand surrounding 9/11.

-34

[feeler]

:lol3:

It's no surprise that you misunderstood that statement, particularly as you've take it out of the context it was given. The alarmist bold & red was quite a nice touch though.

Hint: surrender implies a voluntary effort.

--"psychopathic control shill" :tongue2:

Obviously, according to you as well, I'm also a force to be reckoned with. Quite a compliment, otherwise why would you even bother? You give me more power than I have or deserve.

:naughty:


"Obviously, according to you as well, I'm also a force to be reckoned with." <== More words from a psychopathic control shill


-feeler

[dataeast]

"Obviously, according to you as well, I'm also a force to be reckoned with." <== More words from a psychopathic control shill


-feeler

You have no arguments left so you resort to name calling, lame. :lol3:

--"psychopathic control shill" :tongue2:

[feeler]

All the time investigating 9/11 for myself, I never heard this theory before. It is interesting. My only problem with this is why would they use planes to crash into the building? They could have just used the weapon and blamed the terrorists the same way and started the war in the same way with the same amount of TV coverage. There is a lot I don't understand surrounding 9/11.

-34



fitzy, but the psychopaths were itching to try out their alien-technology toys. Can you blame some fertilizer bombs after two 110-story buildings were turned into dust? You can't; nobody will buy your story. Might as well cut out some plane-shape holes and blame the "planes," the "crashes," and the fires. -feeler



http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/groundzero%20from%20noaa.jpg

[dataeast]

fitzy, but the psychopaths were itching to try out their alien-technology toys. Can you blame some fertilizer bombs after two 110-story buildings were turned into dust? You can't; nobody will buy your story. Might as well cut out some plane-shape holes and blame the "planes," the "crashes," and the fires. -feeler

The WTC 1&2 buildings were built with wiring in place to allow such a demolition, it's part of it's design. The next step would be to place the explosives, which as someone mentioned before, there was an opportunity prior to do so. Who said fertilizer bomb? Why use something so arcane when any high grade explosive could be used and I don't mean "thermite."

The problem with proving some space based weapon is that it's two layers of complicity, one being 9-11 as an inside job, the other a weapon that would not be disclosed even if it did exist as it would fall into the realm of national security. Good luck with that. It's an academic exercise if you want to pursue it that way.

A real avenue of pursuit might be the paper trail (money) which was omitted in the original 911 Commission.

[feeler]

The WTC 1&2 buildings were built with wiring in place to allow such a demolition, it's part of it's design. The next step would be to place the explosives, which as someone mentioned before, there was an opportunity prior to do so. Who said fertilizer bomb? Why use something so arcane when any high grade explosive could be used and I don't mean "thermite."

The problem with proving some space based weapon is that it's two layers of complicity, one being 9-11 as an inside job, the other a weapon that would not be disclosed even if it did exist as it would fall into the realm of national security. Good luck with that. It's an academic exercise if you want to pursue it that way.

A real avenue of pursuit might be the paper trail (money) which was omitted in the original 911 Commission.



More disinfo from the shill to cover up the application of DEW.

Folks, take a look at the detached (and deformed) top section of the South Tower; the top section did not explode (yet seconds later the concrete of it became dust nevertheless). What could this detachment and deformation do to the alleged "built-in wiring" of the top section? The answer is clear. -feeler



http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/img/TopOfSouthTowerBreaksOffAndExplodes.jpg

[dataeast]

More disinfo from the shill to cover up the application of DEW.

Folks, take a look at the detached (and deformed) top section of the South Tower; the top section did not explode (yet seconds later the concrete of it became dust nevertheless). What could this detachment and deformation do to the alleged "built-in wiring" of the top section? The answer is clear. -feeler

Deformation of the upper floors through the detonation of explosives around the internal load bearing members prior to the orchestrated severing of the upper floors by timed explosives?

[K626]

have to agree with whitewolf there...

Agreed.

[Sol Invictus]

All the time investigating 9/11 for myself, I never heard this theory before. It is interesting. My only problem with this is why would they use planes to crash into the building? They could have just used the weapon and blamed the terrorists the same way and started the war in the same way with the same amount of TV coverage. There is a lot I don't understand surrounding 9/11.

-34

Shock and awe.

Watch what my left hands does and pay no attention to the right hand or what its intention is.

DEW used on 9-11? yes. Thermate and Thermite? yes. Planes hit the building? yes. Worlds biggest ever Gold Bullion robbery? yes. US Inside job? yes - however the why and who will stun you.

Think not of them and us, but 'them' against 'those' with us caught in the middle of a push me pull you warfare strategy.