9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Dr Judy Wood Ph.D. (MUST SEE..!)

[jackovesk]

Where Did the Towers Go? The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11..!



I apologise if this has been posted before. I did a search Dr Judy Wood and found some radio interviews but not this Video Presentation. With only 316 You Tube views, this one seems to have flown 'Under the Radar', WHY?

Dr. Judy Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

So if it hasn't been posted before, grab a pot of coffee and put your Thinking Cap on because this information is both Mind-boggling and Thorough in its context and Needs to be Seen!

Part 1

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGsuzNmfdOI

Part 2

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EX45sQhIOI

Dr. Judy Wood has been researching 9/11 since 2001 and has already filed several law suits against NIST's contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST's fraudulent data gets reexamined? Dr. Judy Wood has received more than one threat due to the research she has done and the evidence she has gathered, and one of her students was also murdered in 2006. Surprisingly, Dr. Judy Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth.

I. In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the corporations NIST had contracted to conduct the 9/11 "investigations", many of which are military / defense / weapons organizations involved in Directed Energy research (huge conflict-of-interest). The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act, and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. One of her legal cases made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 2009. She has been actively pursuing 9/11 Truth with her lawyer, despite the lack of support she has received from Dr. Steven Jones and other members of the 9/11 Truth community. The legal documents from her court cases can be viewed at the following links:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/N...Tam_Wood.shtml

II. Dr. Judy Wood has collected an overwhelming amount of evidence which suggests that a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind was used to powderize ('dustify') the primary steel and concrete portions of the WTC buildings, while burning and bending aluminum, yet leaving paper and many other materials unharmed. These characteristics are matched by those of "The Hutchison Effect", and are the result of "field effects" and energy interference. John Hutchison has filed an affidavit in Dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between The Hutchison Effect and the 9/11 attacks.

III. Dr. Judy Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bi-material joints. She has taught courses including: Experimental Stress Analysis, Engineering Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials), Strength of Materials Testing.

...UPDATE...

1/10-Dr Judy Wood & Andrew Johnson-Edge Media TV - 25 Feb 2010

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU

http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/

[applepie]

Thanks for posting this.

Judy Woods was interviewed on the Veritas show some months ago and provided some interesting insights, including the fact that on 9/11 a hurricane was going on. Her claim that a direct energy weapon was used is consistent with what Ashayana Deane writes about in her book Voyagers. The Secrets of Amenti. Ashayana Deane goes into the specifics of this black ops secret weapon and calls it Trumpet Technology. Deane gives the details on pages 407 to 410. The hurricane that Woods refers to is commented on by Deane as a wormhole. It gets rather complicated and convoluted but reading Deane's account throws a totally new perspective of how to look at what happened in 2001. It is worth the read.

[majapahit]

also look at the other post
Richard Hoagland discussing Dr. Booth's data
his latest presentation in Amsterdam, 3rd april 2011

a mp3 download (no pictures)

Richard Hoagland is a very easy talker, and his coaching through the material is an easy ride

Dr. Judy Booth herself did all the work, but her presentation is a lot harder to follow

at
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...eld-Weapon-911

with my synopsis:
disappearing concrete / steel / aluminium
paper not burned
'cold melted' steel
Hoagland makes references to the russian scientists who pioneered the theory of torsion fields

[Calz]

The work by Judy Woods is as close to scientific "evidence" that I have found out there regarding what happened "that day".

Connect her "dots" with a few others and it is quite compelling (though out there for the "I need 100% proof that fits comfortably into my own little box" crowd).

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

[astrid]

Mel has inteviewed her on Veritas also , it was an excellent listen.
First free hour is here.......

http://www.veritasshow.com/guests/20...0910-jwood.php

[majapahit]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

it's hidden in the front of your brain

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by majapahit (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

it's hidden in the front of your brain

No, but really, where is it?

Are you aware of these? All peer-reviewed.

They destroy her theories:

Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...tStudies44.pdf


Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...pplemental.pdf

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ry-Jenkins.pdf


Wood and others have taken part in ad hominem attacks against other in the 9/11 movement which exposed the papers she HAS written as primarily hit pieces rather than scientific papers.

In my opnion she has put years onto the 9/11 truth movement and has set a poor benchmark for 9/11 truth by filing her case.

The case she took to court was deemed "frivolous" thus making any new future 9/11 case twice as hard to get filed.

The judge said:


"Plaintiffs, understandably, offer nothing more than conjecture and supposition to support their claim that the towers were struck by high powered energy beams. Their personal hypothesis about what should be concluded from publicly disclosed information does not qualify either of them as an original source of information in order to sustain an individual FCA claim on behalf of the Government."

There is physical evidence for nano-thermite. Indeed, there is, within the dust, unexploded nano-themite. How can physical evidence be weaker than conjecture?

Look at this list:

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.; SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.; BOEING; NuSTATS; COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.; DATASOURCE, INC.; GEOSTAATS, INC.; GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP; HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJMAL ABBASI; EDUARDO KAUSEL; DAVID PARKS; DAVID SHARP; DANIELE VENEZANO; JOSEF VAN DYCK; KASPAR WILLIAM; ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.; ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.; SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER, INC.; S.K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC.; SKIDMORE, OWING & MERRILL, LLP; TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC.; UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.; WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC.; AMERICAN AIRLINES; SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES; and UNITED AIRLINES.

All these defendants have this dismissal to point to the next time some 9/11 Truth activists come calling in a New York District Court with a legal complaint alleging that something other than airplanes took down the Towers.

J.W is nothing but a hinderence to the truth movement.

She does not follow the scientific method. You have to be able to TEST a scientific hypothesis or theory, but you cannot test a system that you cannot even properly identify.

[majapahit]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by majapahit (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

it's hidden in the front of your brain

No, but really, where is it?

perhaps you are asking a serious answer
so, I'll start an answer, and perhaps that will help

contemporary academics is a scam ..
.. because Nuclear Physics (= military) is the top of the Totempole
.. they are the top of the funding pyramid
.. and they do not tolerate anything but E=MC2 in the public domain
.. and anything beyond is denied, prosecuted, starved from funding, stolen, killed
.. and/or is decreed top-secret and/or classified
.. and guess what
.. is used in black ops
.. before a stupefied and unwitting public

.. thus your question arises
.. in this land of OZ

and in this - particular, and Utterly Unwelcome - case ..

Are you aware of these? All peer-reviewed.

They destroy her theories:
Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...tStudies44.pdf

.. ok, let me take a look at link # one
.. first (1st! .. sic.. ) paragraph:

" .. However, multiple quantitative dust and aerosol measurements show that no significant fraction of structural steel was dissociated into dust or aerosols. A review of the photographic record (flickr) shows no gas, dust, aerosols, or debris moved upwards during the collapse, and physical principles reveal that that no significant fraction of structural steel from the towers could reasonably be supported by air during or immediately after collapse .." etc.

well now ..

and in my post in this forum concerning Richard Hoagland's analysis of Dr Woo's data

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...eld-Weapon-911

I entered a link that goes to this picture:


From left to right:
A huge steel beam from the south tower falters, turns to “dust” and blows away.

now, look carefully what s happening in these pictures
looks like a wooden pole, like burned in a forest fire .. poef, up in smoke doesn't it?

well,
.. that cannot be
(.. quiz: why not ..)
.. so we'd rather must assume it's a steal beam, or (part of) a steel re-enforced concrete beam, or part thereof
.. what?

this concerns the very core of the hypothesis 'a advanced weapon has been used' ..
.. through observation
.. the only academic method that can be used against Thugs and Murderers
.. that will stand up in court
.. if you want to go that route
.. I dont

et voila
"However, multiple quantitative dust and aerosol measurements show that no significant fraction of structural steel was dissociated into dust or aerosols .." etc
.. up in smoke
.. four stills from an unwelcome video

you get the picture?

same thing happened in the Official NIST 911 report ..
(and the Warren Commission Report on the JFK Assassination, manned by killers)

.. orders from upstairs are:
.. you are to be kept dumb (.. and sick, .. and without a pension, and .. etc.)

we're surrounded by evil ..
.. and the higher up the - present - money totem

.. the worse it gets

.. this helps?

(or perhaps, did I ruin your day )

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

If you are going to research 9/11 at least do it correctly. Not only is your logic non-scientific, its also out of date.

Here is video from another angle. The core is ALREADY covered with dust. It then collapses and the dust falls off of it. The end. No "space lazers" required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlRhkn8LLeE

I suggest you download the NIST torrent and get up to date with the available evidence.
http://911datasets.org/index.php/Main_Page
Download torrent 14 for 1000s of videos that NIST kept from the public.


Here is one showing the core very clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bj_gqdi1oI

As you can see, the core falls. It does not turn to dust.

J.D needs to go back to the drawing board. I know she might not like it but little things called "evidence" and "facts" are standing in her way!

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Also, your point about academic repression is moot. The papers show that all the evidence can be explained in other ways. You don't need some exotic weapon to account for what happened to the buildings.

[majapahit]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
If you are going to research 9/11 at least do it correctly. Not only is your logic non-scientific, its also out of date.

says a person who can't read/understand what Dr. Judy Wood is writing ..

she is a ..
.. former professor of mechanical engineering
.. B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),
.. M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and
.. Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

.. and your credentials are?

Here is video from another angle. The core is ALREADY covered with dust. It then collapses and the dust falls off of it. The end. No "space lazers" required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlRhkn8LLeE

what you see is
.. dust

.. you can NOT see 'a core'
.. what you see is a - lot of - dust, and too much of it, at that
.. it is NOT what you SHOULD see (ask Ventura, he's a demolition expert)

Here is one showing the core very clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bj_gqdi1oI

As you can see, the core falls. It does not turn to dust.

nope
.. what you see is a cloud of dust
.. you're not supposed to see a cloud of dust
.. you supposed to see big chunks of concrete and steel girders fall

J.D needs to go back to the drawing board. I know she might not like it but little things called "evidence" and "facts" are standing in her way!

really ..

perhaps your glasses are in your way ..
.. because you seem to see a core in your linked Youtube video's
.. and there's only a cloud of dust to see (and broken-off pieces at it's fringes)

BTW,
as Dr JB points out
.. what you also see in your linked YouTube video's
.. the tower(s) fall in freefall (she timed it)
.. it shouldnt fall in freefall either

.. but of course they taught you that in highschool

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Also, your point about academic repression is moot. The papers show that all the evidence can be explained in other ways. You don't need some exotic weapon to account for what happened to the buildings.

EDIT2:
Reading <Eyes Wide Open>'s post somewhat carefully
I think I see where he is coming from

"There is physical evidence for nano-thermite. Indeed, there is, within the dust, unexploded nano-themite. How can physical evidence be weaker than conjecture?"

<Eyes Wide Open> considers himself a defender of the nano-thermite 'camp'
and the 'competition' of nasty Dr J Wood is a hindrance to their court case, or something

.. thus, "let nothing of Dr Wood findings be heard"

Oh, dear ..
.. where did I hear that 'logic' before
.. <Eyes Wide Open> it not your place, nor anyones, to hinder the research for truth

.. that's what history teaches us
.. wherever it leads, cowards need not apply

(did I mention I hate this 'competition' and foul mouthing within the truth "movement" ..
did I? What, I hadn't yet .. well then.. here then)

[Calz]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

Not a scientist so all I can do is offer my own HUMBLE opinion.

As such my OBSERVATION over the years has led to my HUMBLE opinion that the "peer-reviewed" system means little or nothing more than coming up with the answers that the power structure wants the scientific community to come up with.

Those whose jobs and research depends on grants (directly or otherwise) most times find themselves looking for a new career if they come up with "truths" that don't match the "expected truths" of the "system".

The more such "independent truth" threatens the power structure ... be it military industrial, big pharma or whatever ... obviously the more that would be applicable.

As always ... completely IMHO.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by majapahit (here)
[
nope
.. what you see is a cloud of dust
.. you're not supposed to see a cloud of dust
.. you supposed to see big chunks of concrete and steel girders fall

It DOES fall.
It’s amazing to me to think that Judy Wood has convinced you not to believe your eyes.
It falls straight down.
The dust from the collapse covers the core and that is what you are seeing left behind as the core falls straight down.
For the core to fall straight down, explosives must have been used in the basement.

Watch it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bj_gqdi1oI

Posted by majapahit (here)
Perhaps your glasses are in your way ..
.. because you seem to see a core in your linked Youtube video's
.. and there's only a cloud of dust to see (and broken-off pieces at it's fringes)

I "SEEM" to see a core? Are you seriously telling me that you don’t see the core at 15 secs into this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bj_gqdi1oI

THAT IS THE CORE.
So your argument consists of telling me that what I am looking at and what hundreds of people have commented on all over the internet does not exist. Really? Is that really your argument?

Posted by majapahit (here)
I just saw your profile ..
.. you're making statements about 'scientific' and you ask for a supplier of Jim Humble MMS ?

So you went and checked my profile.
Why?
Maybe so you could dig some dirt on me in the hope that you would find something to use so you that you could fall back onto because you know Judy Wood’s science is weak and you need the distraction to hide behind.




Why is your posting style aimed at those reading rather than addressing me?

Posted by majapahit (here)
Eyes Wide Open> considers himself a defender of the nano-thermite 'camp'
And….

It’s almost as if you want to plant in reader’s minds that I am somehow “bad” or not to be trusted. The truth is, you don’t know what my views are on nano-thermite. I only pointed out that there is physical evidence of nano-thermite and that a paper had been written where as Judy Wood has nothing to prove her ideas and as I said already, they can be explained away in a more conventional manner.

Posted by majapahit (here)
Eyes Wide Open> considers himself a defender of the nano-thermite 'camp'
and the 'competition' of nasty Dr J Wood is a hindrance to their court case, or something

No, I never said Judy was “nasty”.
Stop putting words into my mouth.
I only say that she cannot prove her theories and because of that, the judge threw her out of court.
Whoever goes next in trying to present evidence will have a tougher time doing it because she presented zero evidence for her theories.
After all, the whole point of this is to get a new investigation open for the 9/11 family members.
Presenting zero evidence in a court will not achieve this.
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realise this.
The best option is to follow the physical evidence. Not invisible space lasers.

Plus like I already said, all her theories can be explained in other ways as I pointed out so easily with your “dust” clip.


In my previous post I suggested you download the NIST torrent to look at the hundreds of videos you obviously have never seen to get up to date with the evidence.
Your reply?

Posted by majapahit (here)
EYES WIDE OPEN, believes JFK was killed by a lonely nut

What on earth has that got to do with anything? Who said anything about JFK? Why not just respond to the point instead of creating a diversion? It’s not very adult is it? Stick to the topic. (if you can).

Posted by majapahit (here)
.. What the heck are you doing on this forum?
.. because - my guess - 99% of this forum is convinced 911 was an inside job
(.. and 1% considering themselves not properly educated, I would guess)

Where did I say that I believe the official story?
NOWHERE DID I SAY THIS!

This is the crux of your problem and thinking. You jump to bad and incorrect conclusions based on your desperation to believe that anyone who does not agree with you must be an idiot.
It’s obvious you are blinded by your unwillingness to accept any challenges because you fear you may be proved wrong and so have to say things such as
“I don’t have the time for the likes of you” rather than stick around and debate.

Either that, or you resort to changing the subject:

Posted by majapahit (here)
you're making statements about 'scientific' and you ask for a supplier of Jim Humble MMS ?.. errrrr
.. you do know JH acknowledges it's a detergent?, scientifically speaking
.. Fox news and the BBC say you Really Should Not Use It?, because their science desk says so
.. and btw, I use it

What on earth has that got to do with anything? Stop hijacking this thread. You seem desperate to change the topic to something else. What are you afraid of?
Dont get angry at me for pointing this out. They are your own words after all.

Also, it’s rather childish to get angry at me for having a different point of view from you, don’t you think?

If you can stay on topic and be civilised, we can debate and talk about what is wrong with J.W.s ideas and I will elaborate on where I stand with nano-thermite. Until then stop telling me and others what I think and stop putting words into my mouth. (also I dont have glassess)

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Calz_Avaretard (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

Not a scientist so all I can do is offer my own HUMBLE opinion.

As such my OBSERVATION over the years has led to my HUMBLE opinion that the "peer-reviewed" system means little or nothing more than coming up with the answers that the power structure wants the scientific community to come up with.

Those whose jobs and research depends on grants (directly or otherwise) most times find themselves looking for a new career if they come up with "truths" that don't match the "expected truths" of the "system".

The more such "independent truth" threatens the power structure ... be it military industrial, big pharma or whatever ... obviously the more that would be applicable.

As always ... completely IMHO.

This is true. The peer-system is corrupt in certain areas. But this paper was published in an open journal and the editor resigned over it becuase she could not debunk it in a scientific way. This means the science held up and so she must have left for political reasons. I.E she didnt want to risk her carrier by admitting that nano-thermite was present in the dust.
Also, to say the peer-system is corrupt and therfore the nano-thermite paper must be corrupted and dishonest without actually reading the paper is unfair and biased. Nothing is black and white. Those that reviewed the paper had everything to lose by putting their names to it. And yet, they still stand by it.
Also, for the record, science is not my god as some seem to be suggesting. No offence, but you know nothing about me so please dont project onto me or pressume you have me and my belief systems down. Thank you.

[Calz]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Calz_Avaretard (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

Not a scientist so all I can do is offer my own HUMBLE opinion.

As such my OBSERVATION over the years has led to my HUMBLE opinion that the "peer-reviewed" system means little or nothing more than coming up with the answers that the power structure wants the scientific community to come up with.

Those whose jobs and research depends on grants (directly or otherwise) most times find themselves looking for a new career if they come up with "truths" that don't match the "expected truths" of the "system".

The more such "independent truth" threatens the power structure ... be it military industrial, big pharma or whatever ... obviously the more that would be applicable.

As always ... completely IMHO.

This is true. The peer-system is corrupt in certain areas. But this paper was published in an open journal and the editor resigned over it becuase she could not debunk it in a scientific way. This means the science held up and so she must have left for political reasons. I.E she didnt want to rick her carrier by admitting that nano-thermite was present in the dust.
Also, to say the peer-system is corrupt and therfore the nano-thermite paper must be corrupted and dishonest without actually reading the paper is unfair and biased. Nothing is black and white. Those that reviewed the paper had everything to lose by putting their names to it. And yet, they still stand by it.
Also, for the record, science is not my god as some seem to be suggesting. No offence, but you know nothing about me so please dont project onto me or pressume you have me and my belief systems down. Thank you.

Thank you for your response.

I tried to be clear as I could possibly be I was only offering my own opinion.

I never suggested to know anything whatsover about you (or your belief systems).

My response was *100%* based on my own personal opinion of the "peer reviewed system".

I stated and will repeat I am not a scientist ... my opinion is based entirely on other scientists articles or interviews talking about how "the system" is regarding their profession.

Not sure how you could have read any more into than that ... but I am sorry if that is how you took it.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Calz_Avaretard (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Calz_Avaretard (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

Not a scientist so all I can do is offer my own HUMBLE opinion.

As such my OBSERVATION over the years has led to my HUMBLE opinion that the "peer-reviewed" system means little or nothing more than coming up with the answers that the power structure wants the scientific community to come up with.

Those whose jobs and research depends on grants (directly or otherwise) most times find themselves looking for a new career if they come up with "truths" that don't match the "expected truths" of the "system".

The more such "independent truth" threatens the power structure ... be it military industrial, big pharma or whatever ... obviously the more that would be applicable.

As always ... completely IMHO.

This is true. The peer-system is corrupt in certain areas. But this paper was published in an open journal and the editor resigned over it becuase she could not debunk it in a scientific way. This means the science held up and so she must have left for political reasons. I.E she didnt want to rick her carrier by admitting that nano-thermite was present in the dust.
Also, to say the peer-system is corrupt and therfore the nano-thermite paper must be corrupted and dishonest without actually reading the paper is unfair and biased. Nothing is black and white. Those that reviewed the paper had everything to lose by putting their names to it. And yet, they still stand by it.
Also, for the record, science is not my god as some seem to be suggesting. No offence, but you know nothing about me so please dont project onto me or pressume you have me and my belief systems down. Thank you.

Thank you for your response.

I tried to be clear as I could possibly be I was only offering my own opinion.

I never suggested to know anything whatsover about you (or your belief systems).

My response was *100%* based on my own personal opinion of the "peer reviewed system".

I stated and will repeat I am not a scientist ... my opinion is based entirely on other scientists articles or interviews talking about how "the system" is regarding their profession.

Not sure how you could have read any more into than that ... but I am sorry if that is how you took it.

Hey no problem. If we all agreed, the world would be a dull place! I think I was just a bit touchy from replying to the other posters points. No disrespect was meant towards you. Or indeed anyone.

*admin-edit* - removed no longer relevant quote.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

For the record and so no more conclusion are jumped to, here is where I stand. I think the core was blown up with nanothermite and cutter charges were on key floors. After initiation, the collapse itself was gravity driven. I might strat a seperate thread as we can try and keep this one about Judy wood.

[modwiz]

Thank you Jackovesk for this thread. That it is still needed is sad.

I sometimes feel there are those who know a poo pie when they smell it on one end and the terminally asleep and disinfo agents at the other.

The first group already know they are being lied to and the latter two either don't/can't care or are abetting the the perps; wittingly or otherwise.

To state that those who spread false information are, in fact, doing so maliciously is beyond my purview or desire. The road to hell is paved with good intentions

[majapahit]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
For the record and so no more conclusion are jumped to, here is where I stand. I think the core was blown up with nanothermite and cutter charges were on key floors. After initiation, the collapse itself was gravity driven. I might strat a seperate thread as we can try and keep this one about Judy wood.

The nano thermite theory is well known
It contains valid arguments also, residu of what would be a thermite explosion has been found, I know the case well

There's a problem though, ..
.. that it holds a 'advanced' version of nano thermite responsible, that has unknown super characteristics, above and beyond to the thermite that is known and available to the US Army

.. thus, this constitutes the same problem as Dr JW's arguments, that an 'unknown' quality is introduced before the court, and can be dismissed

.. which is exactly the reason why Black Ops does what they do
.. they thrive on 'plausible deniability'
.. and they can make anything (&not) stick, with - presumed - any present judge
.. forget about the court system, but for propaganda purposes
.. just off there heads

.. Dr JW analysis does not rule out use of any thermite

.. she found 'missing mass' after the incident, and that rules in a whole new approach of what - might - have happened
.. she made a very valid and solid statement, backed by her scientific background

.. bashing her for not backing the thermite camp and their theory in court (and this party, who'se names escape me now here, do this with anyone not totally agreeing with them, I have observed)

.. is a deplorable fools game