+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 60

Thread: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

  1. Link to Post #21
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Posts
    1,261
    Thanks
    496
    Thanked 3,874 times in 800 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    I didn't say you ridiculed
    I said you ridiculed her research skills.
    Fair enough. But again, I did not ridicule her research skills.
    I critisised her research as poor.
    My definition of ridicule is name calling. Yours seems to be critisism.
    We disagree. What shall we do about it?

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
    What is wrong with criticizing her anyway? I am just trying to clarify things for myself. Is she beyond reproach on this board?
    No, she's not.
    Thank you for answering my question and clarifying.

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    You're engaging in classic disinformation techniques,
    No Paul, I am not.

    That is how you are reading it and I cant help that.
    Your view of me has been twisted for some time and I held out an olive branch near the bottom of my post here:

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post586978

    You aim this criticism at me all the time and I am sick of it.
    I have gone into great depth about who I am in other posts. Once again see this post:

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post586978

    I don't know what else I can say to convince you but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about me.

    My motivation for posting about 9/11 as I said in previous posts is I worked with the family members in the past.
    They want the truth.
    Woods ideas are unprovable in court, let alone through repeated experiments.
    Maybe that is why she has not done any?
    I really dont know.
    Whist back in court her case was droped because she had no actual evidence.
    Where as Gage and the rest of them at least have something you can hold in your hand and experiments to back up their claims.
    It's no wonder Judys case was dropped from court. The could do little else with it.

    Because there are no experiments or actual science, its up to us to discuss it and work through it.
    Thats all I am trying to do. Her ideas don't add up to me and I am asking for clarification.
    Thats the whole point of this thread paul.
    I just thought the Bush connection was an interesting tidbit.
    Its up to everyone else to make of it what they will. It was news to me so I posted it. The End.
    You don't need to be so hostile with me.

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    feigning outrage over minor, or in this case, non-existent, insults
    I am feigning nothing Paul. I cant help being sensitive.
    Some of us are more sensitive that others obviously.
    Also, this is where our problem lays I feel.
    Where you see "non-existent, insults", I see quite serious insults.
    Please let me explain.
    You agreed with a previous poster I was "casting aspertions".
    That is what I took issue with and explained in depth about.
    To me, this is an attack on my character because it suggests (without actually saying it) I am some kind of disnfo agent.
    You know what these kind of comments mean just as well as I do and how they can help form readers opinions of people.
    We are not on the same page here.
    I type one thing and you seam to read another.
    By saying or agreeing that I am "casting aspertions", its almost like you are trying to sway any readers that I maybe some kind of disinfo agent without actually coming out and saying it.
    That is what hurts me the most.
    People listen to you paul and you have influence so I feel I must defend my honor.
    I consider it an insult even if to you its just a "non-existent insult."

    You only ever seem to suggest things about be and never seem to be able to actually clearly state what you believe.
    Even the phrase you used: "You're engaging in classic disinformation techniques", covers you because although you dont call me disnfo, its just one step away from actually saying it.
    I find it upsetting.
    I am happy to continue this discussion but please, please stop suggesting / hinting I am disnfo.
    There is no reason to think this Paul.
    I think we just misunderstand each other.
    Either just come out and say it or please please drop it. Thank you.

    Now back to the evidence....

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    By the way, EYES WIDE OPEN, nice deflection.

    You have defended your indefensible claim that "185,101 tons of structural steel" was hauled away by making a second indefensible claim, that photographs show that the mass of the towers fell outside the footprint.
    "indefensible claim"? I don't think so...

    There are quite literally hundreds of photos showing that the debris fell outside the footprints of the towers:
    http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=384:384
    Scroll down halfway for the debris pattern image and click on the links on the left for photos of the debris pattern of each area outside the footprint of the towers.
    You will see steel in lots of the photos.
    Here is just one photo: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/..._Photo_id=1787

    They are quite interesting to look at.
    Note that debris from the towers also made holes in other trade center buildings around the twin towers. Debris all fell into these holes too.
    The point here is that this is the logical explanation for why the debris pile is not high.
    There is no need for energy weapons to explain this. Occums razor.

    Quote Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
    Anyway, If ANY structural steel was “dustified,” one would expect to see at least some evidence for partially “dustified” steel in the debris.
    Has Judy shown any evidence of this?
    I dont think there is any I can recall in her book. Unless someone can show me this proof?
    Has anyone got a link for this I can read?

    edit, Paul - If you wish, I will leave the thread for the sake of forum harmony. Is up to you. I just want an easy life.
    Last edited by EYES WIDE OPEN; 24th January 2013 at 15:34.

  2. Link to Post #22
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    2nd January 2011
    Posts
    361
    Thanks
    1,006
    Thanked 1,368 times in 300 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    >>
    Quote Posted by deadfoot (here)
    >>Well, every point she makes, every corner stone of her theory can be explained without space weapons. Plus she is just plain wrong on many points as well.<<

    So 100% wrong? I read the book and think she's got a lot of good points.
    I read it too. I think she is 100% wrong. A little googling will show the errors with her ideas IMO. Obviously I suspect most on here will not agree with me. But that's cool. Each to their own.
    <<

    It's hard to understand where you're coming from when you don't reply with any specifics. I see later in this thread you finally give some details, but you have a long way to go to back up your "100% wrong" argument. Maybe you could lay out your theory instead.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Rex For This Post:

    EYES WIDE OPEN (14th January 2013)

  4. Link to Post #23
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Posts
    1,261
    Thanks
    496
    Thanked 3,874 times in 800 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Well, maybe we can cover various points here? IMO the truth lays somewhere between the ROOSD theory and the demolition nano-thermite theory.
    I have covered what I can but these posts take a long time for me to write as I have to write them at work and I am supposed to be working.
    Also putting down point after point on why I think she is wrong will be seen by some as suspicious (its not - its criticism) and to be honest I have had enough of that.
    Her theorys should be able to stand on their own without people taking aim at me.
    But I guess as we progress more points will arise?
    Which points of Judys would you like to see me address?
    Last edited by EYES WIDE OPEN; 14th January 2013 at 19:03.

  5. Link to Post #24
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Posts
    1,261
    Thanks
    496
    Thanked 3,874 times in 800 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by The Truth Is In There (here)
    anyway, i'm not as concerned with HOW it was done as opposed to WHY, and after reading this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/193...ls_o00_s02_i02 i can say that "false flag" is a gigantic understatement.
    I lost a couple nights sleep reading that book .

    Fortunately one main prediction it makes, of a false flag event destroying Phoenix, Arizona (USA) on Christmas of 2012, did not transpire.
    Just got this for my Kindle. Looks good. gotta finish life of pi first!

    on a related note, check out trineday publishing. loads of good books! http://www.trineday.com/
    Last edited by EYES WIDE OPEN; 14th January 2013 at 20:05.

  6. Link to Post #25
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,581
    Thanks
    30,501
    Thanked 138,438 times in 21,490 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Quote Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
    The point here is that this is the logical explanation for why the debris pile is not high.
    Absolutely, some of the debris is scattered about for a couple of blocks, and wedged in the side of adjacent buildings.

    But not most of it.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Kristin (25th January 2013)

  8. Link to Post #26
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    20th November 2012
    Location
    gone
    Age
    40
    Posts
    4,873
    Thanks
    15,814
    Thanked 18,722 times in 4,284 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    I have a question: how does one go about building a portable TWTA, traveling wave tube amplifier, strong enough to emit a helical wave that can affect the magnetoelasticity of a building?

    Quote A 13-inch-long tube, called a Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier, is making it possible for scientists to receive massive amounts of images and data from the orbiter at an unusually fast rate. It is the first high data rate K-band transmitter to fly on a NASA spacecraft.

    With this new amplifier, LRO can transmit 461 gigabytes of data per day. That's more information than you can find in a four-story library. And it transmits this information at a rate of up to 100 megabytes per second. By comparison, typical high-speed internet service provides about 1 to 3 megabytes per second.

    L-3 Communications Electron Technologies built the amplifier under the supervision of NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. The device uses electrodes in a vacuum tube to amplify microwave signals to high power. It's ideal for sending large amounts of data over a long distance because it provides more power and more efficiency than its alternative, the transistor amplifier.
    Quote A traveling-wave tube (TWT) is a specialised vacuum tube that is used in electronics to amplify radio frequency (RF) signals to high power, usually as part of an electronic assembly known as a traveling-wave tube amplifier (TWTA).

    The bandwidth of a broadband TWT can be as high as one octave, although tuned (narrowband) versions exist, and operating frequencies range from 300 MHz to 50 GHz. The voltage gain of the tube is on the order of 70 decibels.

  9. Link to Post #27
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Posts
    1,261
    Thanks
    496
    Thanked 3,874 times in 800 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Sorry for not replying earlier, life gets in the way and so on...

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
    The point here is that this is the logical explanation for why the debris pile is not high.
    Absolutely, some of the debris is scattered about for a couple of blocks, and wedged in the side of adjacent buildings.
    But not most of it.

    Sorry to labour the point but this is just plain wrong and Judy is incorrect about this.

    I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Paul.

    Looking at the site I linked for you in my previous post, the debris field was 20 about times the area of the footprint of the two towers and as stated before, FEMA also said the debris field is 1,200 ft. in Diameter and 90% of the debris is outside the footprint.
    This is not "some" of it. Its almost all of it.
    This is backed up by mathematics which cannot be denied and which prove Judy wrong.
    Its a bit long winded so I will try and be brief.

    You have to remember that the towers were mostly empty space.
    The debris pile should therefore be about 50 metres tall as only about 12% of the building was solid which means that the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of their original height. However, you have to remember that the debris also filled the basement so the resulting mound would be even less than 50 metres high. In addition to this, debris was flung all over the place too.
    This more or less matches what was left at ground zero.

    Its simple maths and Judy needs to answer this criticism and others like it rather than attack those who point them out.


    Judy says the reason for the supposed lack of debris (even though as can be seen above - there is no actual lack of debris) is because the steel was turned into dust or "dustified". If this were the case the chemistry of the dust would reflect this. Unfortunately, she offers zero proof or evidence for this and has not made any attempts I am aware of to test world trade centre dust to back up her claims.
    The dust is out there and should be easy enough to acquire.
    But she has not done this.
    Why?
    Surly testing her theory would give substance to her claims.
    However, she need not break with her tradition of doing no science because its already been done by the USGS.
    They found the concentration of iron in the dust was about 1.6%.
    Iron makes up about 5% of the earths crust so its no surprise there is iron content in the dust.
    There have been no studies showing ANYWHERE NEAR THE AMOUNT OF IRON that would be expected to be found had large amounts of iron been "dustified".
    In addition to this the USGS also found iron rich spheres which can only be created with temps over about 1500ºC. This is also backed up by report by a FEMA report of corrosive metal burning.
    All signatures of Thermite.
    The next scientific step was to look at the dust and perform experiments to confirm this hypophysis.
    FEMA did not do this but independent scientists did.
    This was done and indeed, unexploded nanothermite and its residue was found.
    Bottom line, there is zero chemical or physical evidence for dustified steel. Besides which, as already stated, all the steel was recovered from the trade centers.

    Every aspect of this corner of her theory can be explained with simple logic and actual science.
    (This is just one aspect of her theory. The same thing applies to almost every other part of her theory too IMO)
    As I said previously, when occams razor is applied to Judys work, it cuts straight through it. Ouch!

    To be honest, I just wish that she would at least do some experiments to back up her work. I would not be so skeptical of her ideas then.
    I find it confusing that she did such great work a few years back prooving that the Pile driver theory from NIST was wrong but still manages to fail to take into account the very obvious points illustated above.
    Also, I wonder how much point there is to this as her case as been thrown out of court once already and the whole point of these investigations is to get justice for the families via proof that the official story is a lie.

    I promise I will get onto the subject of the burned cars for those interested as I mentiond before. Just very busy at the moment!

  10. Link to Post #28
    United States Deactivated
    Join Date
    25th August 2011
    Age
    60
    Posts
    1,128
    Thanks
    4,191
    Thanked 4,049 times in 934 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    The Op video is gone.



    "AlienScientist and Aidan Mo..." This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Dr. Judy Wood.

    Sorry about that.

    Last edited by gooty64; 25th January 2013 at 22:00.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to gooty64 For This Post:

    EYES WIDE OPEN (25th January 2013)

  12. Link to Post #29
    Avalon Member noprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Location
    206
    Posts
    874
    Thanks
    2,878
    Thanked 2,709 times in 676 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Quote Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
    Quote Posted by The Truth Is In There (here)
    the buildings WERE turned to dust, completely,
    Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. This alone proves her wrong. She MAY be a genunie researcher but not a good one. I just proved her wrong with 5 seconds of googling.
    Could you cite this source?

    --edit

    nvm, I posted too soon.

    Quote The source is the N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02, and the larger quote (copied from here, but available elsewhere) is:
    “Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.”
    Some quick research:

    Daily News
    http://www.nydailynews.com/
    Quote The Daily News of New York City is the fourth most widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States.[2]
    The first U.S. daily printed in tabloid form, it was founded in 1919, and as of 2013 is owned and run by Mortimer Zuckerman. It has won ten Pulitzer Prizes.
    Not sure why 2013... a little ways down it says:
    Quote After Maxwell's death in 1991, the paper was held together in bankruptcy by existing management, led by editor James Willse, who became interim publisher. Mort Zuckerman bought the paper in 1993.
    I find the wording in the initial paragraph misleading as it seems to imply he just acquired it; but that may just my misrepresentation.

    Mort Zuckerman
    Quote Zuckerman serves on the boards of trustees of several educational and private institutions such as New York University, the Aspen Institute, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the Hole in the Wall Gang Fund, and the Center for Communications. He is a member of the JPMorgan's National Advisory Board, the Council on Foreign Relations,[24] the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He has been a president of the board of trustees of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
    Oddly I didn't see him listed with the rest of the board for Aspen Institute...
    Last edited by noprophet; 25th January 2013 at 20:13.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to noprophet For This Post:

    EYES WIDE OPEN (25th January 2013), Referee (6th February 2013)

  14. Link to Post #30
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Posts
    1,261
    Thanks
    496
    Thanked 3,874 times in 800 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Quote Posted by gooty64 (here)
    The Op video is gone.



    "AlienScientist and Aidan Mo..." This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Dr. Judy Wood.

    Sorry about that.
    This is another example of how she operates. She has done this DOZENS of times before. She only does it to videos that critisize her. Not the ones that promote her. Its dishonest and speaks volumes about her ideas IMO. Like I said many times before, answer the critics - don't hide from them.

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    Quote Posted by noprophet (here)
    Quote Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
    Quote Posted by The Truth Is In There (here)
    the buildings WERE turned to dust, completely,
    Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. This alone proves her wrong. She MAY be a genunie researcher but not a good one. I just proved her wrong with 5 seconds of googling.
    Could you cite this source?

    --edit

    nvm, I posted too soon.

    Quote The source is the N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02, and the larger quote (copied from here, but available elsewhere) is:
    “Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.”
    Some quick research:

    Daily News
    http://www.nydailynews.com/
    Quote The Daily News of New York City is the fourth most widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States.[2]
    The first U.S. daily printed in tabloid form, it was founded in 1919, and as of 2013 is owned and run by Mortimer Zuckerman. It has won ten Pulitzer Prizes.
    Not sure why 2013... a little ways down it says:
    Quote After Maxwell's death in 1991, the paper was held together in bankruptcy by existing management, led by editor James Willse, who became interim publisher. Mort Zuckerman bought the paper in 1993.
    I find the wording in the initial paragraph misleading as it seems to imply he just acquired it; but that may just my misrepresentation.

    Mort Zuckerman
    Quote Zuckerman serves on the boards of trustees of several educational and private institutions such as New York University, the Aspen Institute, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the Hole in the Wall Gang Fund, and the Center for Communications. He is a member of the JPMorgan's National Advisory Board, the Council on Foreign Relations,[24] the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He has been a president of the board of trustees of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
    Oddly I didn't see him listed with the rest of the board for Aspen Institute...
    Nice research. So does that make the maths wrong?
    Last edited by EYES WIDE OPEN; 25th January 2013 at 20:17.

  15. Link to Post #31
    Avalon Member noprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Location
    206
    Posts
    874
    Thanks
    2,878
    Thanked 2,709 times in 676 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Quote Nice research. So does that make the maths wrong?
    Depends on where the numbers came form. Where did the article get that number?

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to noprophet For This Post:

    EYES WIDE OPEN (25th January 2013)

  17. Link to Post #32
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Posts
    1,261
    Thanks
    496
    Thanked 3,874 times in 800 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Im referring to this:

    Quote Looking at the site I linked for you in my previous post, the debris field was 20 about times the area of the footprint of the two towers and as stated before, FEMA also said the debris field is 1,200 ft. in Diameter and 90% of the debris is outside the footprint.
    This is not "some" of it. Its almost all of it.
    This is backed up by mathematics which cannot be denied and which prove Judy wrong.
    Its a bit long winded so I will try and be brief.

    You have to remember that the towers were mostly empty space.
    The debris pile should therefore be about 50 metres tall as only about 12% of the building was solid which means that the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of their original height. However, you have to remember that the debris also filled the basement so the resulting mound would be even less than 50 metres high. In addition to this, debris was flung all over the place too.
    This more or less matches what was left at ground zero.


    Its simple maths and Judy needs to answer this criticism and others like it rather than attack those who point them out.
    I will try and find original sources for the steel removal amounts but that still does not change the solid volume of the building or the photographic evidence.

  18. Link to Post #33
    Avalon Member noprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Location
    206
    Posts
    874
    Thanks
    2,878
    Thanked 2,709 times in 676 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Quote Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
    Im referring to this:

    Quote Looking at the site I linked for you in my previous post, the debris field was 20 about times the area of the footprint of the two towers and as stated before, FEMA also said the debris field is 1,200 ft. in Diameter and 90% of the debris is outside the footprint.
    This is not "some" of it. Its almost all of it.
    This is backed up by mathematics which cannot be denied and which prove Judy wrong.
    Its a bit long winded so I will try and be brief.

    You have to remember that the towers were mostly empty space.
    The debris pile should therefore be about 50 metres tall as only about 12% of the building was solid which means that the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of their original height. However, you have to remember that the debris also filled the basement so the resulting mound would be even less than 50 metres high. In addition to this, debris was flung all over the place too.
    This more or less matches what was left at ground zero.


    Its simple maths and Judy needs to answer this criticism and others like it rather than attack those who point them out.
    I will try and find original sources for the steel removal amounts but that still does not change the solid volume of the building or the photographic evidence.
    There is no math there. There is reference to math as a model of this presumption, but no actual numbers.

    I had an economy teacher who used to use math the same way. Just because you explain things with proportional rhetoric does not math make.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to noprophet For This Post:

    EYES WIDE OPEN (25th January 2013)

  20. Link to Post #34
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Posts
    1,261
    Thanks
    496
    Thanked 3,874 times in 800 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    I just gave you the numbers. I don't understand what you want. Can you explain and we can get into it.

    edit. Im off out in a bit. Its friday night here. Will try and get back on it at the weekend.

  21. Link to Post #35
    Avalon Member noprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Location
    206
    Posts
    874
    Thanks
    2,878
    Thanked 2,709 times in 676 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Quote Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
    I just gave you the numbers. I don't understand what you want. Can you explain and we can get into it.
    It'll take me a bit to gather the info, and I'm not asking you specifically for it, though your welcome to join me in the search. I realize it is asking a lot.

    Gross weight of the tower material and gross weight of the wreckage (w/o "dust").

    The issue we'll have is the actual numbers for the wreckage material. The source of this number is very important as, assuming there is a cover-up, the fabrication of the latter number would be important. The fabrication of the former would be harder as I'm sure it was calculated during construction and would be fairly obvious to people working in large-scale construction industries.

    If the source of the latter-wreckage-number is in fact the newspaper mentioned above; then I do not trust it on account of some of the strategic/defensive/military associations and am dismayed to say I may be suspect of any production of said number.

    Please realize it is not an attempt to be stubborn as much as a noted suspicion towards the event on the whole.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to noprophet For This Post:

    EYES WIDE OPEN (25th January 2013)

  23. Link to Post #36
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Posts
    1,261
    Thanks
    496
    Thanked 3,874 times in 800 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Great post. This is what I was hoping this thread would be like. Working together to clarify.
    I think I just found the perfect document that breaks everything down the way you want. I need to read it first...
    I really must dash now....

  24. Link to Post #37
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,581
    Thanks
    30,501
    Thanked 138,438 times in 21,490 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Quote Posted by noprophet (here)
    Quote Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
    I just gave you the numbers. I don't understand what you want. Can you explain and we can get into it.
    It'll take me a bit to gather the info, and I'm not asking you specifically for it, though your welcome to join me in the search. I realize it is asking a lot.

    Gross weight of the tower material and gross weight of the wreckage (w/o "dust").

    The issue we'll have is the actual numbers for the wreckage material.
    So far as I know, there are no trustworthy numbers for the amount of solid wreckage material removed from the World Trade Center (WTC) after 9/11.

    Moreover, it seems that a lot of dirt was trucked in to the site, for years following 9/11, and then trucked out again. This would complicate the numbers (if there were any trustworthy numbers to complicate.)

    The best evidence that I know of regarding the amount of such solid debris (meaning recognizable pieces of concrete and steel, for the most part) is the photographic evidence, showing an insufficient amount of solid debris to account for the roughly 1.25 million tons of concrete and steel in the several WTC buildings.

    Judy Wood does a good job of summarizing that evidence in the first two segments of her recent 9/11 presentation, which I posted at Excellent Judy Wood Presentation - Where did the towers go? (Penzance, Nov 2012)
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 25th January 2013 at 22:34.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    noprophet (25th January 2013), Referee (6th February 2013)

  26. Link to Post #38
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Posts
    1,261
    Thanks
    496
    Thanked 3,874 times in 800 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Quote Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
    Great post. This is what I was hoping this thread would be like. Working together to clarify.
    I think I just found the perfect document that breaks everything down the way you want. I need to read it first...
    I really must dash now....
    Still not had time to reply in depth but I will.

  27. Link to Post #39
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Posts
    1,261
    Thanks
    496
    Thanked 3,874 times in 800 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    So far as I know, there are no trustworthy numbers for the amount of solid wreckage material removed from the World Trade Center (WTC) after 9/11.

    Moreover, it seems that a lot of dirt was trucked in to the site, for years following 9/11, and then trucked out again. This would complicate the numbers (if there were any trustworthy numbers to complicate.)

    The best evidence that I know of regarding the amount of such solid debris (meaning recognizable pieces of concrete and steel, for the most part) is the photographic evidence, showing an insufficient amount of solid debris to account for the roughly 1.25 million tons of concrete and steel in the several WTC buildings.
    Been doing a bit of research and here is what I have come up with.

    See what you think of this:
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ssAndPeWtc.pdf
    Pages 27 - 34 are the relevant ones.

    Quote
    6.4 Comparison to Amount of Debris Removed from Ground Zero
    6.4.1 The Amount of Debris

    Martin Bellew, Director of the Bureau of Waste Disposal, New York Department of
    Sanitation states in an article on the AWPA website:
    “200,000 tons of steel were recycled directly from Ground Zero to various
    metal recyclers. The Fresh Kills Landfill received approximately 1.4 million
    tons of WTC debris of which 200,000 tons of steel were recycled by a
    recycling vendor
    (Hugo Neu Schnitzer).” 22

    Phillips & Jordan, Inc. reported:
    “The last debris was processed on July 26, 2002, day 321 of the project. At
    the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission: 1,462,000 tons of debris had
    been received and processed, 35,000 tons of steel had been removed
    (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero
    ).” 23
    That's 200,000 tons.
    The exact amount the towers had in them. The full paper I linked to goes into more depth about the debris.

    Now I fully except people will be suspicious of these numbers but its the best we have.
    The photographic evidence is still helpful but its lunacy and unscientific to try and eyeball the photographs to work out steel weights.
    What the photos can be used for is to prove how the majority of the towers fell outside their footprint.
    There is no getting away from that fact when viewing a photo like this:

    http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...1_regions3.jpg

    The main point here is this explains the lack of height of the debris pile (as I pointed out previously) without the need for energy weapons.
    It also proves that the steal was not dustified, vaporised or whatever. (plenty of steel in that photo)
    Because Judy has missed the obvious reason for this lack of height, she uses it as another (incorrect) proof of energy weapons.
    Bad information goes in = bad information comes out.


    Quote Posted by Akasha (here)
    I'm in no way trying to be confrontational here but can a "Wood Skeptic" point me to material which sensibly and comprehensively (and conventionally) explains the bizarrely partially melted vehicle phenomena? This is an aspect of 9/11 that has continued to bug me, the attempted explanations that I have come across being nowhere near satisfactory. Cheers.
    I will give it a shot!

    Many of the photos Judy uses on her site of "melted cars" have another quite obvious explanation.
    She says they are melted but a more truthful assessment is that she has looked at the photos and missed the obvious.
    Namely, that SOME of the cars have been CRUSHED by debris and moved after the event. (Some are burnt out and some are burnt out AND crushed.)

    There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for cars that have been burnt / crushed being some distance from the towers. You don't need energy weapons for this.

    A little googling finds this:

    articles.philly.com/2001-09-13/news/25313784_1_body-bags-rescue-workers-world-trade-center/2

    Quote “Workers removing debris – and bodies” states, “Mangled or burned vehicles littered the disaster scene. … Cars mangled by the explosion were towed away to make room for recovery efforts. At the corner of Duane Street and Broadway, about eight blocks from the World Trade Center, a car burned beyond recognition was stacked on top of a flattened Cadillac Seville. Next to that steel sandwich were a bent Port Authority Police van and charred police, fire and emergency vehicles.
    A few other quotes on this subject that I found:

    CourtTV News reported that
    QuoteAbandoned and damaged cars were being towed away. Cars parked closest to the trade center were crushed.”
    Also From an American Public Works Association article.

    Quote 1,400 vehicles were recovered from the disaster area and“carefully stockpiled in a separate area near the edge of the Fresh Kills Landfill, which is located in Staten Island.....
    .....Materials that were transferred to Fresh Kills went through temporary transport stations located at Pier 25 and Pier 6
    .

    The cars depicted near FDR Drive in Wood’s pictures on her website were towed there as FDR drive runs right past Pier 6.
    In the photos there is dust all over the cars but not much on the floor / sidewalk. This backs up that the cars have been moved.
    She attributes all this to possible energy weapons.
    As seen above there is a rather more mundane explanation.

    Now, some of the cars were also damaged by some form of intense heat. Were DEW responsible for this? In my personal opinion, no, they were not.
    Remember that in the dust of the towers was found thermite residue in molten metal samples obtained from Ground Zero.
    This is chemical proof of what may have happened to the metal on the cars.

    This video demonstrates exactly what thermite can do to a car: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rdCsbZf1_Ng

    How about this... Un-reacted or still reacting thermite was blown out and away from the buildings. The thermite fell on the cars and burned them exactly as seen in the thermite video referenced above. Still another reasonable hypothesis is that burning debris was blown out of the towers and set alight to the cars and the fires spread in the same manner that the video below shows:

    https://youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=UHoIyk5Df58

    Note the following:

    • The car in the immediate vicinity of the van catches fire demonstrating how
    an entire parking lot or underground parking garage of cars parked close together, can burn serially.
    • The driver-side front tire of the minivan is completely burned off.
    • The driver-side door handle is missing.
    • The burnt minivan resembles many of the same characteristics as burnt vehicles at ground zero including missing headlights and deformed hood.

    Many of the above characteristics are claimed as proof of DEW-demolition, but are common in vehicle fires.
    Burnt cars in no way prove the use of DEWs and saying that DEW are responsible for burnt cars is a massive leap in logic which is simply not required as once again, the more mundane explanation fits all the evidence.
    That's in my humble opnion of course.

    To recap:

    There cars were melted, burnt and crushed some distance from the towers. What could account for these things?
    • There was falling debris present. (crushing)
    • There was debris on fire present. (burning)
    • There were military chemical explosives / propellents present (burning / melting)
    • Many vehicles were towed to various locations (vehicles far from towers)

    Using Occums razor, which is the simplest explanation? DEW or what has been layed out above?
    Last edited by EYES WIDE OPEN; 6th February 2013 at 11:56.

  28. Link to Post #40
    United States Avalon Member Referee's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th May 2011
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,833
    Thanks
    10,136
    Thanked 7,978 times in 1,576 posts

    Default Re: Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

    IMO EYO, Some sort of cold fusion weapon was used as Dr. Wood expresses, In some of the videos you can see burnable objects sitting right next to and on top of what appears to be molten steel. How can you account for that? The only explanation that makes any sense to me is some type of TTA that creates cold fusion.

    Here is a short video showing the dustification of the steel in progress. Please forgive the heavy religious overtones, however the video is a good example.

    "A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten. "John F. Kennedy


    Peace, Love and Consiousness
    Referee

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Referee For This Post:

    EYES WIDE OPEN (6th February 2013)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts