+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 1 8
Results 141 to 149 of 149

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

  1. Link to Post #141
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

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

    HERE GOES: the most damning case against 911 ever stated was stated by our own president.


    HERE IT IS FOLKS, THE FULL INTERVIEW OF DONALD TRUMP WHERE HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE PLANES TOOK THE BUILDINGS OUT

    I did not know a complete record of this interview with Trump existed, I thought all of it got expunged. Low and behold it surfaced today and Youtube has censored it entirely. They did not delete it as far as I know, but it's a fat chance you'll ever find it and they refused to serve it to an Android device. Maybe by the time I tried it on a phone they wiped it out? TOO LATE, I already saved it and will serve it from here. RIGHT CLICK TO SAVE, and I only have enough bandwidth to serve this one about 60,000 times so make sure you SAVE IT.

    Click to play, right click to save.

    Since 911, we have been lied to about how the World Trade center was built, and Donald Trump, one of the greatest architectual people of our time stated the exact opposite of what the MSM said.

    MSM: The steel beams on the outside of the building were merely ornamental and a plane could go right through them.

    Donald Trump: I was taken through the WTC personally by an engineer that built it. The steel beams on the outside of the building were incredibly strong, and were the strongest part of the building. It seems impossible a plane would ever go through them. Bombs must have been used in addition to the planes.
    Last edited by Hervé; 11th September 2019 at 20:23.
    "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.

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

    avid (11th September 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (11th September 2019), Bill Ryan (11th September 2019), mountain_jim (12th September 2019), noxon medem (12th September 2019), Tintin (11th September 2019)

  3. Link to Post #142
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    67
    Posts
    287
    Thanks
    866
    Thanked 872 times in 226 posts

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

    "The steel beams on the outside of the building were incredibly strong, and were the strongest part of the building."
    This is a misleading statement.
    The "exterior beams" were NOT the strongest part of the building.
    Was this an intentional lie to mislead the public? Or just incompetence or stupid comment?
    I'm leaning toward intentional because I'd bet if we dug deep enough we'd find Trump's little fingers somewhere in the 9/11 pie.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Curiosity For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (11th September 2019), Carlitos (12th September 2023)

  5. Link to Post #143
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    34,268
    Thanks
    208,959
    Thanked 457,531 times in 32,788 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Curiosity (here)
    "The steel beams on the outside of the building were incredibly strong, and were the strongest part of the building."
    This is a misleading statement.
    The "exterior beams" were NOT the strongest part of the building.
    Was this an intentional lie to mislead the public? Or just incompetence or stupid comment?
    I'm leaning toward intentional because I'd bet if we dug deep enough we'd find Trump's little fingers somewhere in the 9/11 pie.
    I'd guess it was just a loose comment. He's not an engineer! The point he was making, as best I understand it, is that no impacting plane could have butter-sliced its way through those external beams, just as many qualified engineers have themselves argued.

  6. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (11th September 2019), Carlitos (12th September 2023), East Sun (11th September 2019), frankstien (11th September 2019), graciousb (12th September 2019), Hervé (11th September 2019), Mari (11th September 2023), mountain_jim (12th September 2019), Tintin (11th September 2019), Yoda (12th September 2019)

  7. Link to Post #144
    Canada Avalon Member frankstien's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2019
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    368
    Thanked 1,677 times in 325 posts

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

    "If the media will show us airplanes disappearing into towers on 9/11--they'll show us ANYTHING and expect us to believe it."
    --frankstien

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

    Bill Ryan (12th September 2023), Tintin (11th September 2019)

  9. Link to Post #145
    Avalon Member noxon medem's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd May 2010
    Location
    Southeast Norway
    Age
    58
    Posts
    941
    Thanks
    2,896
    Thanked 1,639 times in 496 posts

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

    here is the picture of the woman in the tower
    proving there was no temperature from flames
    bringing the buildings down :
    https://rense.com/general66/spainw.htm

    and photo

    Name:  2e10b74bb55e2df3a24ec02b9a0a6216.jpg
Views: 128
Size:  95.9 KB

    closer
    Last edited by noxon medem; 11th September 2019 at 21:54.

  10. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to noxon medem For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (12th September 2023), Blastolabs (12th September 2023), Carlitos (12th September 2023), frankstien (12th September 2019), graciousb (12th September 2019), Hervé (12th September 2019), mojo (11th September 2023), mountain_jim (12th September 2019), Tintin (11th September 2019), winstonsmith (12th September 2019)

  11. Link to Post #146
    United States Avalon Member mojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    5,996
    Thanks
    33,960
    Thanked 39,422 times in 5,645 posts

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

    One day soon "The People will know"....


  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (12th September 2023), Carlitos (12th September 2023), Harmony (12th September 2023), mountain_jim (11th September 2023), Seeclearly (11th September 2023), Vicus (11th September 2023)

  13. Link to Post #147
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,061 times in 2,419 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Judy Wood's work is worthy of study and consideration even if it may not ultimately meet the reliability test in the USA for the admissibility into evidence of expert testimony concerning the cause(s) of the destruction of the WTC buildings on 9/11/01. See, http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...eyVol40Mar.pdf
    On the occasion of the 22nd anniversary of the horrendous and, thus far, unpunished treasonous crime of 9/11, I’m bumping this. I encourage you to read the linked article.

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    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.
    I’m bumping this too, as a brief synopsis of the article I bumped above.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alecs (12th September 2023), Bill Ryan (12th September 2023), Harmony (12th September 2023), Mark (Star Mariner) (12th September 2023), mojo (13th September 2023), wondering (12th September 2023)

  15. Link to Post #148
    Aaland Avalon Member Blastolabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd November 2020
    Language
    English
    Posts
    442
    Thanks
    1,649
    Thanked 3,352 times in 432 posts

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

    This is the most in depth and detailed video I have ever watched that supports Judy Wood's hypothesis.

    Bob Greenyer is a scientist that investigates cold fusion also known as LENR

    When he first saw the evidence and realized that this technology had been used on 9/11, he wept. He knew that the suppression of LENR/ cold fusion would only increase after this event.

    Picture is a key that was found at ground zero. That is why they removed all the steel so fast because they knew it provided evidence for the type of weapon that was used.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	key911.png
Views:	26
Size:	518.7 KB
ID:	51793

    Navy Patent for Dustification Weapon
    Click image for larger version

Name:	navypatent911.png
Views:	20
Size:	580.1 KB
ID:	51794

    Click image for larger version

Name:	questions911.png
Views:	19
Size:	976.1 KB
ID:	51795

    Quote Andrew Johnson joins Bob Greenyer to discuss a scientific basis for a complete understanding of happenings surrounding 'The Event' with reference to characters involved with both it and the Pons and Fleischmann narrative evaluation. Awarded patents, hard replicated evidence by multiple parties and earth shattering data from past and present is shown for the first time which could easily be verified via equivalent samples held in public venues.
    Last edited by Blastolabs; 12th September 2023 at 01:28.

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Blastolabs For This Post:

    Alecs (12th September 2023), Bill Ryan (12th September 2023), Carlitos (12th September 2023), Harmony (12th September 2023), Mark (Star Mariner) (12th September 2023), mojo (13th September 2023), Valle (12th September 2023)

  17. Link to Post #149
    United States Avalon Member mojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    5,996
    Thanks
    33,960
    Thanked 39,422 times in 5,645 posts

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

    Thanks to the other members highlighting & bumping the thread, especially on the anniversary of 911. Judy Wood should IMO receive the highest civilian medal presented one day. She did everything possible to work through proper whistleblower channels & status and bring to light the evidence she uncovered but the Supreme Court declined to take the case. It was a very sad day when that happened. Today we have more evidence of the energy weapons being deployed such as in Maui and just like on 911 they closed down the area to remove the evidence even going so far as to stop access to homeowners and Native sovereignty lands. It's truly evil and disgusting to see the police acting in such a way.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Post:

    Blastolabs (13th September 2023), Harmony (13th September 2023), Seeclearly (13th September 2023)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 1 8

Posting Permissions

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