+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 4 8 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 145

Thread: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

  1. Link to Post #61
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,126
    Thanks
    4,565
    Thanked 7,280 times in 1,094 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    It wasn't a traditional demolition. Tower seven was conventional and piled up just like a CD. The question is why would they not use the same dis-assembly method in the towers? Answer: Because you had planes involved in the psy-op to contend with. You have to CD from the top down and that resulted in the towers peeling open and wide distribution over a huge footprint--much larger than the 208 feet square originals.

    Have you studied the steel inventory of NIST to see what members they saved and where they came from in the towers? That might shed some light on just how inefficient (or impossible) Ms. Wood's weapon of choice actually was. Granted the NIST samples are only a small fraction of the debris that was recycled, but it might hold a representative accounting of where the pieces came from.

    The destroyed structure was spread well over and outside of the 16 acre site. You are looking at two towers rising above a 75 foot sub-basement that absorbed much of the pile your eyes have convinced you should be there.

    I've shown you recycling figures, photos and videos of the debris which refutes what Ms. Wood says. She cannot cite one solid piece of evidence for steel being "dustified". If this were true than the dust samples should have contained a high percentage of steel residue.

    Yes I have studied the NIST's reports regarding 9/11. I have also read the 9/11 Commission Report, so called. Post #9 in this thread provides the link to an article I wrote on the subject of 9/11. The article was published by The Journal of 9/11 Studies in March 2015, re-published on Global Research and cited in other works. (David Ray Griffin commented that he considers my article to be a very important development on the subject of 9/11.)

    NIST is not charged with the responsibility of cleaning up disaster sites and it played no role in cleaning up the destruction in the wake of 9/11. It has no first hand, personal knowledge of the clean up and it does not know the extent or characteristics of the debris that was there, or what debris was not there that one would have expected to find. Rather, NIST ostensibly relied on representations of others involved in the clean up; others who had varying and often conflicting interests and some who had reasons to flat out ensure that incriminating evidence was destroyed. As you correctly note, at most, NIST evaluated a small fraction of the debris. Further, while NIST claims that explosives played no role in destroying WTC 1, 2 and 7, NIST also admits that it never tested for any type of explosives. Hardly a scientific approach to such an incredibly important subject.

    Some people chose to accept the NIST reports on the subject of 9/11. After much study and careful thought, I chose not to. I find that as a general rule those who accept the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 have spent little, if any, time doing their own study and analysis of the available evidence and information. That goes for the official theory concerning the cause of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7. (To be clear, I am not saying or even implying that you fall into that group. Indeed, I am reasonably confident that you do not.) As my article makes clear, I find NIST's work and conclusions to be unreliable and, in my legal opinion as a trial lawyer for nearly 40 years, NIST's ultimate conclusions on the subject of the cause of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 (which is plane impact and jet fuel) would be inadmissible into evidence by an impartial judge under the rules of evidence that apply in the federal courts of the United States and virtually all, if not all, of the state courts. If an impartial judge did admit the official version of the cause of the destruction of these buildings into evidence, e.g. (or, i.e.), NIST's opinions, he/she would also admit into evidence an alternative scientific explanation of the cause(s) of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

    I have no hesitation in saying that if the official version of the causes of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 where presented to an impartial judge or to a jury, along with the alternative explanation (which is that explosives and incendiary devices were used that had been planted prior to 9/11/01), the judge or jury would conclude that NIST's conclusions do not hold up to scrutiny and would conclude that explosive devises were used. That would be a disaster for those responsible for 9/11 and all that followed in its wake.

    I am not advocating here or in my article that Dr. Wood's opinions would be admissible into evidence. They may, in whole or in part. If you read my article you will see that I did not advance one alternative explosives theory over another, but rather I provided information and links to enable readers to do their own research and reach their own conclusions. (In all candor I did not include a direct link to Dr. Wood's work, but some links will eventually link to her work if one does his or her own research.) I am saying, however, that if one desires to stay within the realm of what is scientifically and physically possible under the laws of physics as we know them, only an explosives hypotheses can account for what occurred and was observed on 9/11 vis-a-vis the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7.
    Last edited by Satori; 10th June 2016 at 23:02. Reason: fix a typo

  2. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Curiosity (10th June 2016), DaveToo (4th December 2018), Eram (19th June 2016), Hervé (11th June 2016), Paul (11th June 2016), PurpleLama (11th June 2016), Shannon (13th June 2016), winstonsmith (11th June 2016)

  3. Link to Post #62
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,171 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    It is Dr. Wood's burden to produce scientific evidence. Photos are not chemical analyses.
    It's the burden of any of us analyzing this to produce evidence.

    Refusing to admit photos as evidence because they are not a scientific chemical test is arbitrary and capricious.

    Of course photos are evidence ... but like all evidence, their value depends on what you make of them, on the analysis.

    Joseph P. Farrell has an excellent analysis of "Where the Towers Went", and what sent them there, in Chapter 7, "The Mystery of the Mechanism", pps 174-222, of his latest book Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery: The Fascist International, 9/11, and Penetrated Operations.

    Farrell rules out conventional explosives and nano-thermite as having any where close to enough energy to have caused what we can see in the videos taking during the collapses of the towers, and the photos taken subsequently of various strange effects in and around the WTC complex.

    The large, dark, rapidly expanding pyroclastic cloud and the resulting thick layer of dust left on lower Manhattan make it clear that at least almost all the concrete in the towers was converted to fine dust, in about 15 seconds each per tower. The various analyses by chemists that Farrell quotes figure that this would have required a few million kilowatt-hours of energy.

    Breaking big rocks into little rocks is hard work ... as many a prisoner has learned the hard way. Breaking rocks into fine dust is even harder work, much harder. To get that much energy, in 15 seconds per tower, would have required a truly immense amount of conventional explosives, even of the US Military's finest. To get almost all the concrete uniformly converted to dust, top to bottom, would have required dispersing that explosive all over the place, with little more than tens of feet between charges. That much I suppose might be possible, if the building had been evacuated and prepared for days or weeks before the demolition.

    But ... here's the first kicker ... that much conventional explosives, all going off in the same few seconds, would have blown out the sidewalls of the building, with a truly immense over-pressure, like setting off a stick of dynamite in a wooden box. Sure, some beams and items were shot sideways at high speed, but mostly the exterior walls of WTC 1 & 2 appear to remain visibly as walls, until they are hidden by the expanding pyroclastic cloud, to vanish forever, never to be seen again in any form resembling a wall, but for a few stories in one corner of WTC 1, and a few other random pieces, hither and yon.

    And the second kicker, seen in Judy Wood's book, is the variety and extent of the "strange" effects seen, such as in wrecked cars, in a number of places in lower Manhattan, following the destruction of the towers. These effects too are not explained by conventional explosives, not even thermite.

    There ... see? Photos are evidence, and with the proper analysis, can be very incriminating evidence. To just reject them out of hand, and to insist that only "scientific" "chemical" evidence is admissible, is an untenable proposition. Good luck with that notion.

    Do read Farrell's latest book and Judy Wood's "Where Did The Towers Go?", and do so with an open mind. They will change your understanding of 9/11.

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    NIST is not charged with the responsibility of cleaning up disaster sites and it played no role in cleaning up the destruction in the wake of 9/11. It has no first hand, personal knowledge of the clean up and it does not know the extent or characteristics of the debris that was there, or what debris was not there that one would have expected to find. Rather, NIST ostensibly relied on representations of others involved in the clean up; others who had varying and often conflicting interests and some who had reasons to flat out ensure that incriminating evidence was destroyed. As you correctly note, at most, NIST evaluated a small fraction of the debris. Further, while NIST claims that explosives played no role in destroying WTC 1, 2 and 7, NIST also admits that it never tested for any type of explosives. Hardly a scientific approach to such an incredibly important subject.
    Excellent points, well stated. Thanks.
    Last edited by Paul; 11th June 2016 at 02:27.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Bingo (11th June 2016), Hervé (11th June 2016), Satori (11th June 2016), Shannon (13th June 2016), Sierra (15th June 2016)

  5. Link to Post #63
    Avalon Member winstonsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th November 2015
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 184 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote: "The various analyses by chemists that Farrell quotes figure that this would have required a few million kilowatt-hours of energy.."

    Inquiring minds want to know. What was the source of all that energy?

    Studies of the electrical grid revealed no spikes in relation to the towers' destruction. I believe that eliminates a ground-based weapon system.

    So how does this directed energy weapon get its energy?

    How does the weapon attack only the damaged areas of the twin towers and the base of WTC7 and not other sections?

    How does the weapon stay focused on the demolition zone with all that debris falling and rising which obscured every angle?

    How does this weapon only target the concrete and leave the heavy steel and flimsy aluminum facade alone, for the most part?

    It is very easy to propose a catch-all solution (DEW) and then not be able to point to any solid evidence. Pointing to anomalies such as toasted cars or lots of paper not burning or people ripping their clothes off before jumping is not solid evidence. Aerial photos do not reveal depths properly and street level videos compress the view. People forget that there was a honeycomb of sub-basements that absorbed much of the debris before it piled up above street level.

    At least the CD advocates can point to convincing videos showing isolated waves of squibs racing down the sides faster than an internal collapse could be occurring. The nanothermite advocates can point to chemical analyses showing still reactive nanocomposite chips in the powder that was rescued from surrounding buildings. At least they can point to higher than normal iron microspheres that appear to be related to the result of nanocomposites being consumed. (they are not rusty).

    More investigation is needed. We have not connected all the dots.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to winstonsmith For This Post:

    Curiosity (13th June 2016), Eram (12th June 2016)

  7. Link to Post #64
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,033 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Let's reduce the factors to minimum... there are two 110 stories buildings and their whole contents gone missing... and the only thing that has been witnessed to leave the scene have been humongous clouds of dusts... akin to volcanic pyroclastic flows!

    HOW ?

    ... is, indeed, the question.

    If CD and/or (nano-)thermates/thermites can account for WTC7, with which one could still play a Mikado game at the end of the day, no such "luck" with WTC1 and WTC2.

    See?

    It's right in the face of anyone looking at these pictures for comparison:
    47 stories WTC7 and its CD debris pile showing above ground level vs virtually nothing left as remnants of 110 stories WTC1 and 110 stories WTC2 but a few facade columns still standing above ground level. That means there is a huge pile of material that's not there. In other words, that material is "missing."

    From that comparison alone, one can safely assume there was a different technology used for the "vanishment" of WTC1 & 2 than for the demolition of WTC7.

    Since the only material observed to have left the scene is dust, the inference is that, that different technology turned building material into dust... hence the importance and relevance of videos documenting such...
    Last edited by Hervé; 12th June 2016 at 16:36.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    DaveToo (4th December 2018), Paul (12th June 2016), Shannon (13th June 2016), Sierra (15th June 2016)

  9. Link to Post #65
    Avalon Member winstonsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th November 2015
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 184 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Let's reduce the factors to minimum... there are two 110 stories buildings and their whole contents gone missing... and the only thing that has been witnessed to leave the scene have been humongous clouds of dusts... akin to volcanic pyroclastic flows!

    HOW ?

    ... is, indeed, the question.

    If CD and/or (nano-)thermates/thermites can account for WTC7, with which one could still play a Mikado game at the end of the day, no such "luck" with WTC1 and WTC2.

    See?

    It's right in the face of anyone looking at these pictures for comparison:
    47 stories WTC7 and its CD debris pile showing above ground level vs virtually nothing left as remnants of 110 stories WTC1 and 110 stories WTC2 but a few facade columns still standing above ground level. That means there is a huge pile of material that's not there. In other words, that material is "missing."

    From that comparison alone, one can safely assume there was a different technology used for the "vanishment" of WTC1 & 2 than for the demolition of WTC7.

    Since the only material observed to have left the scene is dust, the inference is that, that different technology turned building material into dust... hence the importance and relevance of videos documenting such...
    WTC7 did not have any basement voids for debris to disappear into.

    WTC7 had a huge pyroclastic flow just like the towers.

    WTC7's steel was recycled and so was the steel from the tower complex.

    Is everyone satisfied with the three letter acronym DEW? Is that the end of the investigation because Mrs. Wood says so? Or would it serve us better to sink some serious energy into getting all the data that can possibly be obtained? Do you folks have any curiosity left?

    Mod edit from Bill: that last paragraph was unnecessarily sharp. (A personal note: yes, I have enough curiosity to be certain that DEWs exist, and that Judy Wood is saying something important, asking questions (as it were) which in my view you've not been able to answer fully.)


    But that's beside the point: we need to debate issues based on evidence, of different kinds, if at all possible. I understand you're getting exasperated, but do please keep it civil. THX.
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 12th June 2016 at 23:32.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to winstonsmith For This Post:

    Eram (18th June 2016)

  11. Link to Post #66
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,171 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    Inquiring minds want to know. What was the source of all that energy?
    An inquiring mind would be advised to read Dr. Joseph Farrell's analysis of this question, in his above mentioned book.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    mojo (18th June 2016), Shannon (13th June 2016), Sierra (15th June 2016)

  13. Link to Post #67
    United States Avalon Member mojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    4,346
    Thanks
    25,161
    Thanked 26,651 times in 4,016 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    steel turns to dust


  14. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (19th June 2016), BMJ (20th June 2016), Curiosity (19th June 2016), dark skies (19th June 2016), Ewan (19th June 2016), Hervé (18th June 2016), Inversion (19th June 2016), Paul (18th June 2016), Satori (5th August 2016)

  15. Link to Post #68
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,171 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11



    Those with inquiring minds, who doubt that exotic methods were used to destroy dustify the WTC twin towers, would be well advised to view the video in the previous post, with open eyes and an open mind.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Curiosity (19th June 2016), dark skies (19th June 2016), Hervé (18th June 2016), mojo (19th June 2016)

  17. Link to Post #69
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,423
    Thanks
    74,497
    Thanked 269,677 times in 19,908 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)

    would be well advised to view the video in the previous post
    Ha! Just did. And yes, seems rather irrefutable to me. That's an extremely powerful 3 minutes.

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Cognitive Dissident (20th June 2016), Curiosity (19th June 2016), mojo (19th June 2016), Paul (19th June 2016), Satori (19th June 2016)

  19. Link to Post #70
    Netherlands Avalon Member Eram's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th March 2012
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,478
    Thanks
    65,641
    Thanked 10,991 times in 1,435 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    [/COLOR]
    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Paul (here)

    would be well advised to view the video in the previous post
    Ha! Just did. And yes, seems rather irrefutable to me. That's an extremely powerful 3 minutes.
    I'm sorry Bill, but "irrifutable" seems too strong a wording for me.
    At best, I can classify it as a convincing presentation (at first), but when you look deeper, the characteristics of the smoke and the appearance of steel beams disappearing (or are thy just being engulfed by the smoke and thereby withdrawn from view?) can easily be explained by the thermite/thermate theory.

    Some months back, I spent a few full days to look into the Woods theory and investigated a series of her claims and came to the conclusion that there is something seriously wrong with this lady.

    She is supposed to be this highly qualified forensic building detective and has written many peer reviewed papers, so I think we might expect to find her work to be of impeccable quality as to the facts that she presents at least and in reality.... it doesn't. At all!

    For instance:
    -She takes still shots from moving footage in which you can see very little pockets of fires burning here and there on the street.
    She then takes these still frames and presents these (obvious) fires as glowing cheetos.
    In the moving footage, it is so overwhelmingly obvious that these are not glowing “cheetos”, but just very small fires on the side of the road.

    How are we supposed to interpret such a “mistake” ( if a mistake at all)?

    -She makes a serious mistake with the positioning (and how they got there) of the “toasted”cars.

    -She dismisses NASA pictures in which we can see hot spots in the debris piles on ground zero.

    -She dismisses all the tesimonies of people who experienced these hot spots while cleaning up ground zero.

    -She claims that the smoke cloud was cool, while there is plenty of witness testimony that the cloud was burning hot (3th degree burns and all).

    -She claims that the coffer dam around the wtc towers would have broken under the impact of the collapse of falling towers ( in fact, this dam was seriously damaged, which she fails to mention), but why does she talks as if the towers fell down as in one peace, hitting the ground with all its mass at once? They obviously didn't come down that way.

    -She totally ignores hard evidence of thermite in the collected dust from ground zero and wipes the thermite theory from the table with an argument that we would have been blinded by the light.
    In reality, her argument makes no sense at all, since thermite can be used inside a building without being seen as blinding light outside of it.

    -She makes a whole show of wing tips not being able to slice through steel beams, while the close up photo's of the impact zones clearly show that the wing tips did not cut the steel beams at all (and she is supposed to be an expert on photo interpretation?)

    All in all, I find her work of a quality that can be matched by a delusional amateur and not the work of a highly qualified forensic detective with a structured and trained mind who would never make such “mistakes” and I cannot escape the question as to why this is so.

    To me it seems that we are not dealing who is worth her reputation of a qualified forensic detective , …. or, we are dealing with someone who is willfully trying to muddy the waters and my guess is that it is the latter.
    Last edited by Eram; 19th June 2016 at 07:49.
    hylozoic tenet: “Consciousness sleeps in the stone, dreams in the plant, awakens in the animal, and becomes self-conscious in man.”

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Eram For This Post:

    Curiosity (19th June 2016), DaveToo (4th December 2018)

  21. Link to Post #71
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Very convincing footage, until you put the common denominators together that raise the red flags. That is every video stops at exactly the same point, and the one that doesn't stop, the black screen comes from left to right and blacks out the footage at the exact same point as the other ones do. This definitely gives the illusion the steel vanishes. So there's no way to see where the steel goes past that point. This would not hold up under any scrutiny or as evidence in a court of law because it's hiding a vastly important portion of evidence.

    Another problem is in one of those videos you see an entire section of the building from one corner to the other and several floors burst into flames and/or molten steel just before the building starts to fall and before it's hid by the cloud of smoke that ensues.

    When you watch other videos with full footage from beginning to end you see some of those huge pieces of steel being ejected laterally and upward, that seem to disappear in the clouds of smoke, then re-appear wedged in buildings across the street and in some cases in a state of molten steel days and weeks later.

    Example,
    Magician and Ninjas create that same illusion, with a puff of smoke they disappear. Did they vaporizes or dustify? No, they simply obscured your vision and got you to focus on the smoke while they move out of sight.

    In these videos they just stop at the point where the objects are covered by smoke giving the illusion they vanished. Add the linguistic subliminal manipulation, NIP, ( negro-lingustic programing) and you believe the perceived illusion.

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

    Eram (19th June 2016)

  23. Link to Post #72
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    57
    Posts
    1,274
    Thanks
    11,862
    Thanked 7,741 times in 1,233 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    There isn't 100 stories of steel embedded in neighbouring buildings though, nor is there that quantity of steel lying in disarray below.

    It is perhaps conceivable that a percentage of beams were moving at sufficient velocity to escape the field of energy that was cauing the destruction, assuming such it was.

    BTW, the black screen, I felt, was to draw your focus, not obscure or stop you seeing something. Had one the patience you could find all these clips sans black screens and study freely.

    edit to add: I'm just musing aloud btw. The only thing I am sure is irrefutable is that planes didn't do this. Arguing about what did is a marvelous obfuscation from the perpetrator's POV.
    Last edited by Ewan; 19th June 2016 at 17:10.

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    Curiosity (19th June 2016), mojo (19th June 2016)

  25. Link to Post #73
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Ewan (here)
    There isn't 100 stories of steel embedded in neighbouring buildings though, nor is there that quantity of steel lying in disarray below.

    It is perhaps conceivable that a percentage of beams were moving at sufficient velocity to escape the field of energy that was cauing the destruction, assuming such it was.

    BTW, the black screen, I felt, was to draw your focus, not obscure or stop you seeing something. Had one the patience you could find all these clips sans black screens and study freely.

    edit to add: I'm just musing aloud btw. The only thing I am sure is irrefutable is that planes didn't do this. Arguing about what did is a marvelous obfuscation from the perpetrator's POV.
    I'd like to make it clear that I also agree those clips pretty much appear virtually irrefutable in imagery that at the points the videos stop, the steel looks like it vanishes int thin air. No doubt about that.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Curiosity For This Post:

    Ewan (22nd June 2016)

  27. Link to Post #74
    United States Avalon Member mojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    4,346
    Thanks
    25,161
    Thanked 26,651 times in 4,016 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    For Curiousity, this video shows it clearly disappearing...starting at 3:16 also starting at 2:00 min you can hear the womans narration asking why did the whole building collapse? Than she mentions that while she watched something much smaller then a 747 hit the tower. Finding this fascinating as it backs up Richard Halls analysis of something smaller hitting the second tower...



    In the 2nd video Rich Hall describes the ball-like object that the woman in the first video described..

    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 19th June 2016 at 18:14. Reason: embedded the first video

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Post:

    Curiosity (19th June 2016), Hervé (19th June 2016)

  29. Link to Post #75
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,033 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    V[...]
    ... the black screen comes from left to right and blacks out the footage at the exact same point as the other ones do.
    [...]
    This so-called "Black Screen" is an end result of a video processing called "Stabilization" performed on shaky/jerky video footages so that the image remains centered and not jumpy.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Ewan (22nd June 2016), mojo (19th June 2016)

  31. Link to Post #76
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by mojo (here)
    For Curiousity, this video shows it clearly disappearing...starting at 3:16 also starting at 2:00 min you can hear the womans narration asking why did the whole building collapse? Than she mentions that while she watched something much smaller then a 747 hit the tower. Finding this fascinating as it backs up Richard Halls analysis of something smaller hitting the second tower...



    In the 2nd video Rich Hall describes the ball-like object that the woman in the first video described..

    Wow how interesting.

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to Curiosity For This Post:

    mojo (19th June 2016)

  33. Link to Post #77
    Avalon Member jaybee's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Midlands England
    Posts
    1,179
    Thanks
    1,229
    Thanked 2,337 times in 750 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    Wow how interesting.

    Don't get too excited about it

    Richard Hall later changed his mind about 'the Ball' theory -

    you can hear him say so himself in the video below (around 03:40 onwards for a few minutes) --- and he also changed his mind about Simon Shack's video September Clues that had inspired him in the first place - him and Andrew Johnson are discussing Shack being a disinfo agent in the second half (around 34:00 onwards)



  34. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to jaybee For This Post:

    Curiosity (20th June 2016), DaveToo (4th December 2018), Eram (20th June 2016), Ewan (22nd June 2016), mojo (22nd June 2016), winstonsmith (20th June 2016)

  35. Link to Post #78
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,171 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by jaybee (here)
    you can hear him say so himself in the video below (around 03:40 onwards for a few minutes) --- and he also changed his mind about Simon Shack's video September Clues that had inspired him in the first place - him and Andrew Johnson are discussing Shack being a disinfo agent in the second half (around 34:00 onwards)
    Though what Richard Hall changed his mind to is even more curious ... a persuasive case that what looked like a plane crashing into the second WTC tower was some sort of holographic projection, likely created by an optically stealth military plane flying approx 1400 feet to the right of the supposed path of the supposed plane that supposedly hit the real WTC 2 south tower.

    Richard Hall's revised conclusion remains my preferred explanation for what hit, or appeared to hit anyway, the south tower.

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Curiosity (22nd June 2016), Ewan (22nd June 2016), mojo (22nd June 2016)

  37. Link to Post #79
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,636
    Thanks
    8,921
    Thanked 10,420 times in 1,557 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    ... a persuasive case that what looked like a plane crashing into the second WTC tower was some sort of holographic projection, likely created by an optically stealth military plane flying approx 1400 feet to the right of the supposed path of the supposed plane that supposedly hit the real WTC 2 south tower.
    I 'think' Richard has since revised that conclusion as well. This is because of differences between civilian and military radar tracks, the latter having a system offset of some 1000ft or more. I'm sure I've seen another video of his which explains this phenomenon further, but he mentions it briefly here at the 2.20 mark.

    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    DaveToo (4th December 2018), Ewan (22nd June 2016), Paul (22nd June 2016)

  39. Link to Post #80
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    What does Judy Woods say about the projectiles, the objects that are ejected sideways then stop, change direction at 45 degree angles and increase speed with a trail of smoke behind them? Does EW explain than? NO But explosives do.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 4 8 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