PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence



PookztA
30th March 2012, 04:36
I recently realized that many people here may not know why I support Dr. Judy Wood, so I am posting this article I created many months ago to summarize the reasons why I support her for the readers of this forum. I understand that this information most likely has been covered here by more active users, so if any moderator finds my post to be too redundant or harmful to the forum, I completely understand if my post is removed. Regardless, because I personally compiled the following article to express my views in an organized and well-articulated fashion, I thought it would be a very appropriate way to not only clarify my views to the forum, but also to briefly touch upon a small portion of some of the important physical evidence on which my views are based. Thanks for reading if you do, -Abe

Dear Reader,

The extraordinary claim that explosives and/or jet fuel are what destroyed the towers on 9/11 is scientifically inaccurate. It is comparable to charging a murder suspect for 'stabbing the victim with a knife', despite the fact that numerous bullet casings had been found at the crime scene and the murder victim actually had multiple gunshot wounds. There is a thing called Double Jeopardy in our legal system, so we only get one shot at charging the true suspects, and thus, we better figure out exactly how they did it before we charge them. We can do this by analyzing the physical evidence from 9/11.


To this day, the only researcher who has put forth a scientific conclusion which explains all the easily verifiable physical evidence, is Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D (Materials Science Engineering). If anyone can explain the physical evidence better than Dr. Judy Wood has, please let me know, for I am more than willing to consider an alternative scientific explanation if it can successfully account for all the evidence.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/SC/091020_petcertcover_nc_s.jpg
In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the corporations NIST had contracted to conduct the 9/11 "investigations", many of which are military / defense / weapons organizations involved in Directed Energy research (huge conflict-of-interest). The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act, and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. One of her legal cases made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 2009. John Hutchison has filed an affidavit in Dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between The Hutchison Effect and the 9/11 attacks. Surprisingly, Dr. Judy Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth. She has been actively pursuing 9/11 Truth with her lawyer, despite the lack of support she has received from Dr. Steven Jones and other members of the 9/11 Truth community. The legal documents from her court cases can be viewed at the following links:

1. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html
2. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml



The following information is a small fraction of the important physical evidence which must be explained. Dr. Judy Wood has literally gathered thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents in her analysis (with virtually every source provided), so this is just a tiny sample of the data shared in her book (www.wheredidthetowersgo.com) and on her website (www.drjudywood.com):

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-04-IMAGE.jpg
The USGS discovered that the WTC dust which blanketed NYC contained a significant quantity of these unique nano-sized iron-rich microspheres. What could have caused these unique iron-rich microspheres to form? What can transform steel buildings into nano-scale, iron-rich, microspheric dust? (Steel is mainly iron and carbon) Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc


Based on what we know from previous building collapses and controlled demolitions, the rubble pile of each WTC Twin Tower should have been at least 12% (13 stories) of the building's original height (110 stories), yet the actual rubble pile that resulted was less than 3 stories tall. What could have caused this? The following video explains this fact more clearly:


What Turned the Twin Towers to DUST on 9/11? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGXDmNZCeKo


http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/browse.jpg
The WTC buildings were transformed to dust so fine that a large portion of it floated high up into our atmosphere (if you look closely, you can also see the small black plume of smoke rising from the debris). What could transform a steel building into dust this fine, while warping and burning aluminum, yet leaving paper and plastic virtually unharmed? Why did the dust stay in a column until it reached a certain point in our atmosphere at which it finally began diffusing?

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



Why was there only one metal file cabinet found in the rubble of the WTC towers? Why were metal door knobs virtually non-existent in the debris pile as well? Only one metal file cabinet of thousands survived the 'collapse' of two of the largest office buildings in the world? Why did the metal of this single surviving file cabinet show severe distortion/warping that is characteristic of the metal distortion/warping seen in The Hutchison Effect experiments? Why were there pieces of paper fused to the metal inside this remaining file cabinet, yet the paper was unburnt? Furthermore, why were numerous intact plastic ID cards found in the rubble? How did numerous plastic ID cards survive the 'collapses', yet thousands of metal file cabinets and door knobs did not? The following video explains these facts more clearly:


Relics from the Dust | Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) & 9/11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrY_PRji34g


Even the mainstream media has acknowledged that steel and marble from the WTC buildings were transformed into very fine dust. They appear to be quite confused about it, which is very understandable:

Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJb-GPtb2I0

Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Short Clip) | ABC News http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFP9lj32EvM



http://drjudywood.com/articles/short/faqpics/H2_36.jpg
Why were there statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 University of Alaska magnetometer stations detecting normal readings for days before 9/11, when there was suddenly a huge electromagnetic disturbance in the Earth's magnetosphere precisely as the attacks occurred? What could have caused this? (You may have to scroll to the right to see the peaks) Source: http://magnet.gi.alaska.edu/table_index/2001_table.html

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



The following information is a small fraction of the important physical evidence which must be explained. Dr. Judy Wood has literally gathered thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents in her analysis (with virtually every source provided), so this is just a tiny sample of the data shared on her book (http://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/):


• How come most of the Twin Towers’ steel and concrete was transformed into a fine dust, while large quantities of aluminum exhibited strange electrical warping and burns, yet paper was unharmed? Extreme heat from jet fuel (or explosives) does not selectively damage certain materials, so how come some materials turned to dust, while other materials were bent or burnt, and yet other materials were completely unharmed?

• Why was Hurricane Erin travelling straight for NYC from September 7th-11th 2001, yet it was not reported on by local media broadcasts in that area in the days leading up to 9/11? When local news channels displayed schematic maps of the northeast coastline, why was Hurricane Erin not shown? Hurricane Erin was slightly larger than Hurricane Katrina, and hurricanes rarely head straight for NYC, so why wasn’t it reported on and/or shown by local media outlets? Hurricane Erin reached its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th. After the 9/11 attacks, Erin made a sudden ~150° turn away from its straight-line path and headed back out to sea.

• Why were there statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 University of Alaska magnetometer stations detecting normal readings for many days before 9/11, when suddenly, there was a huge electromagnetic disturbance in the Earth's magnetosphere precisely as the attacks occurred?

• Why do official seismograph readings around ground zero show smaller ground vibrations in comparison to the controlled demolition of the King Dome, which is a smaller building? Shouldn’t the smaller building have generated a smaller seismographic reading than the WTC buildings? Or perhaps the smaller reading of the WTC buildings came about because they were turned to fine particles of dust, as the evidence shows?

• How come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero just as the attacks commenced?

• Why were numerous first responders’ Scott packs (oxygen tanks) spontaneously exploding around ground zero?

• How were the Twin Towers turned to dust so fine, that the dust floated high up into our atmosphere. The satellite photos show a clear distinction between the black smoke and the whitish-grey dust, so what turned such a large portion of these buildings to dust so fine that it floated high into our atmosphere?


http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/wtcinlobby1.jpg
Lobby for quick frame of reference; note the distinct columns around the lobby's perimeter, these are roughly 3 stories tall

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/010913_5316.jpg
Where did the building go? Seconds earlier, there was one of the world's largest office buildings standing here (notice the ambulance which was parked on the street; also note the distinct columns from the WTC lobby). What caused this? (You may have to scroll to the right to see the rest of the image)

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



• How come 1,400+ vehicles located several blocks away (some up to ¼ a mile away) from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? If you think the building debris caused these things, then how come that same debris did not burn the clothing or skin of the nearby pedestrians it covered?

• How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side, next to trees which still had all of their leaves on them?

• How come several steel beams were observed to be bent and/or shriveled up in very unusual ways, ways which have only been observed during The Hutchison Effect experiments?

• Why were no toilets recovered from the small WTC rubble pile? Thousands of toilets, yet not a single one was found in the rubble?

• Why was only one file cabinet found in the small WTC rubble pile? Thousands of metal file cabinets, yet only one was found? The metal from the cabinet showed severe warping and distortion, similar to that seen in The Hutchison Effect, so how did this happen? Furthermore, how were their non-burnt pieces of paper found fused to the metal remnants of the single file cabinet?

• How did countless pieces of paper money survive the WTC attacks? Toilets and metal file cabinets do not survive, but countless intact paper bills survived?

• How did countless plastic photo IDs survive the WTC attacks? Toilets and metal file cabinets do not survive, but countless plastic ID cards survived?


http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/poof_1539.jpg
How is this steel turning to dust in midair? The smaller pieces in the air are aluminum cladding from the exterior of the building, but the large slabs/grids turning to dust towards the bottom of the image are steel. What can transform steel to fine dust in mid air? Please see this video clip of the 'collapse' (dustification) in slow motion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dueVm1UGvXo

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



• How come spontaneous rusting of materials occurred all around ground zero? In some instances, entire front-halves of cars were rusted, while the back-halves appeared to be virtually untouched?

• How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?

• How come circular holes were observed in the windows of virtually all the buildings near ground zero, when holes like these are known only to be caused by longitudinal waves of energy? If building debris smashed the windows, they would have shattered in a predictable way, so how come these countless windows did not shatter, but instead, developed circular holes characteristic of the effect of longitudinal waves of energy on glass?

• How was the ‘bathtub’, the area directly beneath the Twin Towers, left virtually unharmed? How could thousands of tons of falling building debris not damage the ‘bathtub’ beneath the WTC buildings?

• How was the ‘Looney Toons’ gift shop in the basement of the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed, so dramatically that the ‘Bugs Bunny’ statue and other statues were not even scratched or dented? How could these figurines survive thousands of tons of falling building debris?

• How was the PATH Train beneath the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t falling building debris have crushed that train, or at the very least, knocked it off the tracks?

• How could thousands of tons of rapidly falling steel and concrete building debris leave the ‘Bath Tub’, the basement gift shops, and the PATH train, virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete cause significant damage to at least one of these?


http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/Image38.jpg
How is this steel turning to dust in midair? The smaller pieces in the air are aluminum cladding from the exterior of the building, but the large slab being turned to dust towards the bottom of the image is steel. Please see this video clip of the 'collapse' (dustification) in slow motion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dueVm1UGvXo

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc

...continued below...

PookztA
30th March 2012, 04:36
...continued from above...


• How come Dr. Wood has already filed evidence-based legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies based on their conflict-of-interest relationship with N.I.S.T., yet other 9/11 “truth” researchers have not? How come Dr. Steven Jones has not officially filed his scientific ‘peer-reviewed’ nano-thermite evidence with Congress or the U.S. Courts?

• Why are groups like AE911Truth and PilotsFor911Truth just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which was successfully appealed to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009?

• Why did Dr. Jones ban Dr. Wood from his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group long ago, just because they had different conclusions about what destroyed the towers? Shouldn’t Dr. Jones and his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group be supporting the 9/11 investigation that Dr. Judy Wood has already demanded with her legal cases, even if he does not agree with her conclusions?

• Why was I silently removed from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) petition simply for asking Richard Gage if he would examine the research of Dr. Judy Wood? Why didn’t AE911Truth just reply to my well-intended email question, but instead, silently removed me from their petition? I have donated over $100 to AE911Truth, so why was I silently removed from the petition simply for asking Richard Gage a question? Why was I later contacted by Mark Graham of AE911Truth once they discovered I was telling people about what had happened? They could contact me and offer me a refund to try and stop me from telling people about how I was silently removed from their petition, but they couldn’t respond to my email which simply asked Richard Gage if he had looked into Dr. Judy Wood’s research?


http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image190.jpg
Where did the building go? Seconds earlier, there was one of the world's largest office buildings standing here (notice the traffic light which marks street level). What caused this?

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



• Why was I severely censored when I tried to add Dr. Judy Wood’s name and website to the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ Wikipedia page? How come David Ray Griffin and other less-qualified researchers are mentioned multiple times on the page, yet I was not even allowed to add one sentence about Dr. Judy Wood? When I tried to appeal the decision, a small group of moderators controlled the discussion and told me that if I appealed it again my account would be locked. According to Wikipedia policy, deletion-appeal discussions are to remain open for public comment and review for 5-7 days before a final decision is made, but my appeal was given a final decision by a small group of rude admins within 12 hours of the onset of my appeal, and the discussion was prematurely closed. After some research, I realized this was a violation of Wikipedia's policy, so I appealed it again, and my account was locked as a result.

• Why did United States Army Major Doug Rokke (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that explosives were the only things used on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any proof to back up his negative accusations against her?

• Why did Soviet Nuclear Intelligent Officer Dimitri Khalezov (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that underground nuclear explosives were what turned the buildings to fine particles of dust on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any significant proof to back up his negative accusations against her?

• Why did these high-ranking retired military officials randomly contact me, an insignificant medical student, when they should be contacting members of the U.S. Congress, and other high-ranking members of our government, with their concerns and the “evidence” they claim to have?


http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/hpics/010911_1867.jpeg
Why was Hurricane Erin travelling straight for NYC from September 7th-11th 2001, yet it was not reported on by local media broadcasts in that area in the days leading up to 9/11? When local news channels displayed schematic maps of the northeast coastline, why was Hurricane Erin not shown? Hurricane Erin was slightly larger than Hurricane Katrina, and hurricanes rarely head straight for NYC, so why wasn’t it reported on and/or shown by local media outlets? Hurricane Erin reached its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, just before it did a ~150° turn away from its straight-line trajectory later that day and headed back out to sea. You can view a compilation of news clips and weather reports from the morning of 9/11, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xWjdYnpxUg

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



These are just a few pieces of evidence which explosives and/or jetfuel do not account for, but Directed Energy does. Thousands more photos, graphs, videos, and documents can be viewed at Dr. Judy Wood's website, or a brief summary of the evidence can be seen at this 'cliff-notes' style page: http://drjudywood.com/wtc


http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image42.jpg
'Dustification' of the remaining steel columns. What could have done this? See a CNN video clip of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



As a scientist and medical student, I must rely on verifiable evidence to formulate my opinions. For this reason, I cannot accept the claim that jetfuel and/or explosives are what caused the overwhelming amount of anomalous damage on 9/11, because the evidence does not support those claims. Explosives and/or jetfuel do not explain the physical evidence, but Dr. Judy Wood does, and that is why I support her. She is fighting for all of us.


http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc1blowupconcretefull.jpg
My intellectual integrity prevents me from calling this a collapse. This is why I have chosen to stand up. My conscience leaves me no other choice. -Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D


Please feel free to copy this post and paste it elsewhere if you feel it is important.


Thanks for your time,



-Abe



Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M3 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology



http://www.caresearch.com.au/Caresearch/Portals/0/Nurses%20Hub/Evidence%20Based%20Practice.jpg
Be skeptical, but don't close your mind.


P.S. - The information at my little blog goes into further detail on the personal things such as my encounter with the military officers, Wikipedia censorship, banning from AE911Truth, etc., including links to screen screen shots and actual text from exchanges, etc.

Betty
30th March 2012, 06:18
Thank you for your posting. Ever since I read about the building in Rio De Janeiro that collapsed in January 2012, I've been wondering if it was dustified. There are videos of people running from dust clouds just like 911. There is a video of a man stating the buildings came down just like in 911. Have you seen these videos? Do you have any comment? I haven't heard any comment from Judy Wood on these buildings. The official story is there was a gas leak. But what gas leak/explosion would cause billows of dust?

iceni tribe
30th March 2012, 09:48
greeting's PookztA

i have read dr Judy Woods book , and i agree with most of her conclusions and have had, many a heated debate fighting her corner but........

1. in all her interviews she dismisses the claim that the fires took 100 days to extinguish , that goes against eye witness accounts and data.

2. Judy doesn't address the increase in cancer which has gone off the scale since 9/11.
(quote from Jeff Prager)
Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.
All three of these cancers, increasing together in a select population have previously always indicated radiation exposure. The CDC study (K25 Workers), Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima data are all conclusive and in agreement on this issue as well.

3. Judy has no explanation for The concrete that was calcined. The Ph was as high as caustic drain cleaner (ph 12). Details like these are critically important. The calcined caustic concrete is a signature of nuclear demolition

4. Judy doesn't address the detection of measurable quantities of Thorium and Uranium in the dust from the World Trade Center, elements which only exist in radioactive form are a critical component in the dust analysis.

to my mind it seems perfectly reasonable to have the towers rigged with mini nukes the size of an apple every 10th floor or so ,this would take a couple of blokes a weekend to rig the towers no sweat.

just on another note you state (Lobby for quick frame of reference; note the distinct columns around the lobby's perimeter, these are roughly 3 stories tall) i was under the impression that the lobby and plaza area were nearer 7 stories tall which is important when trying to determine the height of the rubble pile.

PookztA
30th March 2012, 18:52
greeting's PookztA

i have read dr Judy Woods book , and i agree with most of her conclusions and have had, many a heated debate fighting her corner but........

1. in all her interviews she dismisses the claim that the fires took 100 days to extinguish , that goes against eye witness accounts and data.

2. Judy doesn't address the increase in cancer which has gone off the scale since 9/11.
(quote from Jeff Prager)
Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.
All three of these cancers, increasing together in a select population have previously always indicated radiation exposure. The CDC study (K25 Workers), Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima data are all conclusive and in agreement on this issue as well.

3. Judy has no explanation for The concrete that was calcined. The Ph was as high as caustic drain cleaner (ph 12). Details like these are critically important. The calcined caustic concrete is a signature of nuclear demolition

4. Judy doesn't address the detection of measurable quantities of Thorium and Uranium in the dust from the World Trade Center, elements which only exist in radioactive form are a critical component in the dust analysis.

to my mind it seems perfectly reasonable to have the towers rigged with mini nukes the size of an apple every 10th floor or so ,this would take a couple of blokes a weekend to rig the towers no sweat.

just on another note you state (Lobby for quick frame of reference; note the distinct columns around the lobby's perimeter, these are roughly 3 stories tall) i was under the impression that the lobby and plaza area were nearer 7 stories tall which is important when trying to determine the height of the rubble pile.

Greetings to you, too, Mr. “iceni tribe”.

Perhaps you may want to re-read Dr. Wood’s book. The information you claim she omits is indeed in her book. Dr. Wood has a whole Chapter on it in her book. Please read pp. 321-337, and pp. 361-377 in Dr. Wood’s book, “Where Did the Towers Go?” and you will find the information. Remember, Dr. Wood describes “magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions” in her book and shows the evidence for this, including dust analysis. Actually, Dr. Wood does discuss a comparison between the WTC and Chernobyl. Pay particular attention to the heading directly above Figure 388 on page 374. This is one of the many things Mr. Prager failed to address. Actually, I don’t think he addressed many of these things at all.

Figure 343 on page 327 and the two paragraphs below it rule out Mr. Prager’s suggestion of apple-size mini-nukes. It also demonstrates how this was not the result of “hot molten metal” or “fires for 99 days.” Why do you think Mr. Prager omits this important information?

As for why “mini-nukes” can be ruled out, please review my earlier post:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?42764-Nuked---New-free-e-book-on-9-11-by-Jeff-Prager-&p=456700&viewfull=1#post456700
In addition to that, it should be pointed out that the 14 survivors near the center of the building looked up and saw blue sky; there was NOTHING above them. There was no building there and nothing fell on them and they were not cooked at 3,000 deg., as Mr. Prager claims the temperature was.

”I looked and said, ‘Guys, there used to be 106 floors above us and now I'm seeing sunshine. There's nothing above us. That big building doesn't exist.’ ‘...These are the biggest office buildings in the world and I didn't see one desk or one chair or one phone, nothing.’ "
-Jay Jonas (firefighter, survivor in stairwell B the epicenter of "ground zero")

I’m curious why you refer to Mr. Prager as “Jeff Prager” while you refer to Dr. Wood as “Judy” instead of Dr. Wood. Just curious.

Thanks,

-Abe

king anthony
30th March 2012, 18:56
...Ever since I read about the building in Rio De Janeiro that collapsed in January 2012, I've been wondering if it was dustified. There are videos of people running from dust clouds just like 911...

This would be a good topic for a new thread and link it to this thread for reference.

RMorgan
30th March 2012, 21:07
Thank you for your posting. Ever since I read about the building in Rio De Janeiro that collapsed in January 2012, I've been wondering if it was dustified. There are videos of people running from dust clouds just like 911. There is a video of a man stating the buildings came down just like in 911. Have you seen these videos? Do you have any comment? I haven't heard any comment from Judy Wood on these buildings. The official story is there was a gas leak. But what gas leak/explosion would cause billows of dust?


Hi Betty,

Yes, there was a lot of dust when this building collapsed here in Rio.

The building was very old and full of illegal windows and modifications. You know, some people think it´s ok to break a new hole for a window on tall buildings, without consulting an engineer...So, in fact, over the years, lots of people have made new windows, broken internal walls to change the apartments configuration and these kind of things. Some of these people, unfortunately, have broke vital parts of the building´s structure, which eventually collapsed. That´s the official version and I believe it.

However, here in Brazil, we use different construction materials and techniques than in the US, specially old buildings.

Most houses, small buildings and even big old buildings are build with concrete and steel for the main structure, and the gaps are filled with ceramic bricks covered with cement. These materials make a lot of dust while collapsing indeed.

However, as the WTC towers were built with very sophisticated materials, mostly concrete, steel and glass, I can´t understand indeed why there was so much dust. Of course, there was a lot of dry-wall material on its interior, but would it make so much dust? I don´t know.

Cheers,

Raf.

ThePythonicCow
31st March 2012, 01:26
As Jeff Prager quotes Leuren Moret as saying (page 120 of his latest e-book (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?42764-Nuked---New-free-e-book-on-9-11-by-Jeff-Prager-)):
The whole key to what happened at the World Trade Center is the energy budget. How much energy was necessary to break those building materials into nano-particles?

It takes a lot of energy, in a big hurry, to convert a couple of half million ton buildings to fine dust in about 10 seconds each. From what I can tell, both Prager and Wood realize this, and few others do.

Of the energy generation mechanisms that we know about in the public, the only thing that could do that is a conventional nuclear bomb, but as PookztA notes, this doesn't look like a conventional nuclear bomb.

So it must have been some secret, black ops sort of mechanism, either (I'm guessing) some sort of directed energy mechanism such as Wood hypothesizes or some sort of exotic nuclear device (or devices) such as Prager hypothesizes.

If we actually had public disclosure of the last half century of exotic and nuclear energy and weapons development, then it might well be that both phrases "directed energy" and "exotic nuclear" turned out to be more or less appropriate.

iceni tribe
31st March 2012, 09:19
hi PookztA

i think we are both singing from the same hymn sheet or nearly thats for sure , however i will just throw in a couple of images in here that i find quite intriguing .

1. hollow towers .

http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx171/naf09_2010/9%2011%20and%207%207/hollowtowers.jpg

http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx171/naf09_2010/9%2011%20and%207%207/hollowtowers1978.jpg


it seems that the wtc buildings were never fully occupied in fact you could say they were near enough empty.

http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx171/naf09_2010/9%2011%20and%207%207/met_OFFICE_010916_ch_02.gif

here is some good detective work concerning the occupancy of the towers and if correct would explain the lack of office equipment.

http://letsrollforums.com/wtc-hollow-towers-radio-t22833.html

on another note what do you make of these images.

http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx171/naf09_2010/9%2011%20and%207%207/34cd8f607b3db3.jpg

http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx171/naf09_2010/9%2011%20and%207%207/34cd8fb2392776.jpg

more images and analysis here.

http://letsrollforums.com/press-release-world-trade-t24256.html

and lastly you wouldn't be related to the magicians assistant would you.

http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx171/naf09_2010/9%2011%20and%207%207/834_william_rodriguez_2050081722-14.jpg

king anthony
31st March 2012, 12:30
...it seems that the wtc buildings were never fully occupied in fact you could say they were near enough empty...

Is the average (person) capacity of each floor/building known, as well as the estimated number of people who "survived" and "died"?

iceni tribe
31st March 2012, 15:03
hi king anthony

theirs some details in the 3rd image of my last post relating to who survived and who didn't from the south tower .

also of interest and a bit off topic (sorry) is the occupancy list.

check the lease date started and as you scroll down theirs no one really in the building until after the first bombing of the towers in February 26, 1993

http://www.editgrid.com/labc/common/FOIA_Request_Occupancy_WTC_1972-2001

WTC 1 - North Tower - FIRST TIME OCCUPANTS & DATES:

Floor 86: FOIA line #514 - WORLD TELEPORT ASSOCIATION - 7/1/1998
Floor 87: FOIA line #521 - LT LAWRENCE & CO.,INC. - 1/15/1998
Floor 88: FOIA line #526 - P.A.(WORLD TRADE CENTER) - 8/1/1999
Floor 89: FOIA line #535 - CIIC GROUP (U.S.A.) LTD. - 2/17/1994
Floor 90: FOIA line #551 - CHUGOKU BANK, LTD. - 9/1/1991
Floor 91: FOIA line #561 - NEW JAPAN SECURITIES RESEARCH - 6/1/1990
Floor 92: FOIA line #567 - CARR FUTURES, INC. - 2/1/1998
Floor 93: FOIA line #568 - FRED ALGER MANAGEMENT, INC. - 6/1/1998
Floor 94: FOIA line #570 - J&H MARSH & MCLENNAN, INC. - 9/1/1998
Floor 95: FOIA line #571 - J&H MARSH & MCLENNAN, INC. - 9/1/1998
Floor 96: FOIA line #572 - J&H MARSH & MCLENNAN, INC. - 9/1/1998
Floor 97: FOIA line #573 - J&H MARSH & MCLENNAN, INC. - 11/1/1998
Floor 98: FOIA line #574 - J&H MARSH & MCLENNAN, INC. - 11/1/1998
Floor 99: FOIA line #575 - J&H MARSH & MCLENNAN, INC. - 11/1/1998
Floor 100: FOIA line #576 - J&H MARSH & MCLENNAN, INC. - 11/1/1998
Floor 101: FOIA line #577 - CANTOR FITZGERALD SECURITIES - 9/1/1997
Floor 102: FOIA line #578 - LOWER MANHA CULTURAL COUNC - 9/1/1997
Floor 103: FOIA line #579 - CANTOR FITZGERALD SECURITIES - 9/1/1997
Floor 104: FOIA line #580 - CANTOR FITZGERALD SECURITIES - 9/1/1997
Floor 105: FOIA line #581 - CANTOR FITZGERALD SECURITIES - 4/1/1979
Floor 106: FOIA line #597 - WINDOWS ON THE WORLD - 12/15/1994
Floor 107: FOIA line #598 - WINDOWS ON THE WORLD - 10/1/1999

seems odd that the prime floors were not occupied untill the late nineties .
what this all means i have no idea , maybe these towers were one big white elephant that no one wanted , full of asbestos ,small depressing windows and built under a different building code , that made them a fire hazard as reported by NY fire department.

now i have gone way off topic

king anthony
31st March 2012, 17:23
...theirs some details in the 3rd image of my last post relating to who survived and who didn't from the south tower... seems odd that the prime floors were not occupied untill the late nineties...

It is good to know what floors where not occupied. I was contemplating each floor could potentially have X amount of persons (now considering unoccupied floors) and subtracting those who survived and died; the result could be of value... or not.

WhiteFeather
31st March 2012, 17:52
This Thread Gets an A+. Great Info Pookzta. Wanishi. Have you researched The Black Eagle Trust Fund 911 Yet? Do a lil search on that bad boy when you get a chance. Connects some dots.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/black_eagle_trust_fund

PookztA
2nd April 2012, 02:25
As Jeff Prager quotes Leuren Moret as saying (page 120 of his latest e-book (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?42764-Nuked---New-free-e-book-on-9-11-by-Jeff-Prager-)):
The whole key to what happened at the World Trade Center is the energy budget. How much energy was necessary to break those building materials into nano-particles?

It takes a lot of energy, in a big hurry, to convert a couple of half million ton buildings to fine dust in about 10 seconds each. From what I can tell, both Prager and Wood realize this, and few others do.

Of the energy generation mechanisms that we know about in the public, the only thing that could do that is a conventional nuclear bomb, but as PookztA notes, this doesn't look like a conventional nuclear bomb.

So it must have been some secret, black ops sort of mechanism, either (I'm guessing) some sort of directed energy mechanism such as Wood hypothesizes or some sort of exotic nuclear device (or devices) such as Prager hypothesizes.

If we actually had public disclosure of the last half century of exotic and nuclear energy and weapons development, then it might well be that both phrases "directed energy" and "exotic nuclear" turned out to be more or less appropriate.

Paul,

I see you want to turn this into a Jeff Prager thread, too. That's ok. I can start another thread to discuss the evidence.

The truth of what happened on 9/11 is known. Some people want to know the truth and some people want to try to cover it up. And what needs to be covered up the most is "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions" as presented by Dr. Wood.

As has been presented numerous times, Dr. Wood does not hypothesize nor speculate. She provides conclusive evidence as to what happened and describes the process as "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions."

You seemed to have missed it here:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?42764-Nuked---New-free-e-book-on-9-11-by-Jeff-Prager-&p=456700&viewfull=1#post456700

If you were in charge of the cover up, how might you cover this up? How might you cover up that there were "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions" at the WTC and the evidence that illustrates this?

Dr. Wood presents in her textbook that a more accurate term for the mechanism that caused the "dustification" of two quarter mile high skyscrapers with a combined weight of more than one million tons is "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions." The use of the word "nuclear" is in reference to a type of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) (also known as "cold fusion") and should not be confused with a conventional nuclear reaction such as a nuclear bomb (e.g. nukes, mini-nukes, pocket nukes, milli-nukes, micro-nukes, or even super-duper-mini-nano-thermite-nukes). ;-)

The term Dr. Wood uses for the mechanism ("magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions") can be found in Chapter 17 of her book, The Tesla-Hutchison Effect, Section I. Apparent Transmutation, page 365, 3rd line from the top. Dr. Wood has identified the process, but prefers to emphasize understanding the empirical evidence rather than a name that few will understand. (p. 451-2) Dr. Wood has said that it involved a nuclear process, but not nukes. Dr. Wood discussed this when she was on the Coast-to-Coast radio show last spring and they even put it in the description of the interview.

No one has refuted anything in her book. I don't think they can. So if you were in charge of the cover up, how might you cover up "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions"?

Who might want to cover up "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions" at the WTC? How might they try to cover up "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions" at the WTC?

ThePythonicCow
2nd April 2012, 02:39
and should not be confused with a conventional nuclear reaction such as a nuclear bomb
We agree that it was not a conventional nuclear bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon), of any size.

We also agree that Judy Wood's compilation of evidence is unique, valuable and incontrovertible.

PookztA
2nd April 2012, 22:39
and should not be confused with a conventional nuclear reaction such as a nuclear bomb
We agree that it was not a conventional nuclear bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon), of any size.

We also agree that Judy Wood's compilation of evidence is unique, valuable and incontrovertible.

Paul,

I believe you meant to say that we agree that it was not any form of kinetic energy device and that we also agree that it was only "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions" that "dustified" the towers in midair. Just wanted to clarify.

Best wishes,

-Abe

ThePythonicCow
4th April 2012, 00:24
I believe you meant to say that we agree that it was not any form of kinetic energy device and that we also agree that it was only "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions" that "dustified" the towers in midair. Just wanted to clarify.
Well, can't say as I entirely agree :).

I read what you say here as implying -no- kinetic energy was involved.

Can't say as I agree with that.

There sure was some kinetic energy involved. For example, some large steel girders were ejected sideways into adjacent buildings at high enough velocity to create some serious gashes in steel frame high rise buildings.


http://pauljackson.us/911_wtc_gash_in_corner_adjacent_building.jpg ..... http://pauljackson.us/impaled_by_the_twin_towers.jpg
The existence of "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions" does not exclude the simultaneous existence of chemical, thermal or kinetic reactions.

ThePythonicCow
4th April 2012, 00:47
I realize PookztA that you're probably frustrated and annoyed by all the cr*p that has been thrown at those (such as Judy Wood) working hard to expose the real story of 9/11, and I realize that outlandish variations of nuclear explosions are some of the many and varied forms this cr*p has taken.

Such phrases as "(e.g. nukes, mini-nukes, pocket nukes, milli-nukes, micro-nukes, or even super-duper-mini-nano-thermite-nukes). ;-)" evidence that frustration.

But such phrases, dripping with sarcastic ridicule, tend to polarize an already difficult discussion. Let's not let our frustration further complicate an already difficult discussion.

Rather let us calmly look for whatever bits of real evidence and thoughtful analysis we can find, wherever we can find it. We can do no better than to follow the fine example set for us by Judy Wood in this regard.

Selene
4th April 2012, 02:21
Paul,

You are simply and utterly a daily saint. Your quiet good sense and calm discernment is the purest gold of all our commentary. We all attempt contributions here; you offer quiet wisdom and true moderation above all.

Many, many thanks.

Selene