Alien Scientist + Aidan Monaghan debunk Pod theory + Judy Wood

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jNoZKoQz8fs

Just seen this. Pretty interesting. The pod idea is demolished and its good to see some integrity here as the creator of this video can actually admit he was wrong.

56.30. Ouch.

Interesting correlation between the actions of Bush insider Morgan Reynolds who later teamed up with Judy Wood.
Both did good work when they entered the movement and then for some odd reasons, both flipped to unprovable ideas. I never knew Judy worked with a Bush insider.
Her poor theories and science never convinced me. Previously I pretty much laughed at her ideas but now she seem more suspicious with these links to Morgan Reynolds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Reynolds
They later discuss her lack of scientific approach.

Anyway, I wont say much more. I know many will not like this post but I know a few others will plus I have kept off this for a while now and wanted to express an opinion.

I will say no more as I tend to get very heated on this subject.
Anyway, hopefully those on both side will watch.

here is his website

http://www.alienscientist.com/

http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienScientist

[robinr1]

what specifically about her theories did u find poor?

i tend to think shes spot on.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Well, every point she makes, every corner stone of her theory can be explained without space weapons. Plus she is just plain wrong on many points as well.
Also, she has done zero experiments to prove her ideas and attacks those who ask for clarification or just simply question her and point out errors.
Why be like that?
Plus I am even more suspicious of her now with the Bush connection.

[Rex]

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

So 100% wrong? I read the book and think she's got a lot of good points.

[TigaHawk]

I dunno, that building did turn to dust, you could see things vaporise, go "poof" then drift away in the air as a cloud of dust.

I think she's got her head screwd on very, very straight, and that the only reason her ideas seem so "out there" is because of the very human "i need to see it before i'll ever believe it" syndrome.


Many, Many MANY people died in WW2, when they had every oportunity to get out of there. They had time, they could see the ****storm approaching, but the thing that prevented alot of them from action was the pure disbelief that anyone would actualy do what they did. Their lives were in danger, they knew it, yet the sheer disbelief of it happening is what prevented them from taking their family and getting the hell out of there.

This mentality of disbelief because it rattles your mind's concept of reality so much, is very much still in play, to the point where many still believe a man in a cave coordinated the 9-11 attack on the WTC, rather than their own government as an excuse for war and profits.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

I dunno, that building did turn to dust, you could see things vaporise, go "poof" then drift away in the air as a cloud of dust.

I think she's got her head screwd on very, very straight, and that the only reason her ideas seem so "out there" is because of the very human "i need to see it before i'll ever believe it" syndrome.


Many, Many MANY people died in WW2, when they had every oportunity to get out of there. They had time, they could see the ****storm approaching, but the thing that prevented alot of them from action was the pure disbelief that anyone would actualy do what they did. Their lives were in danger, they knew it, yet the sheer disbelief of it happening is what prevented them from taking their family and getting the hell out of there.

This mentality of disbelief because it rattles your mind's concept of reality so much, is very much still in play, to the point where many still believe a man in a cave coordinated the 9-11 attack on the WTC,

This is very true. 9/11 was obviously a false flag but many people just cant deal with it.

What was vaporized?

I don't understand why she attacks those who question her.
Debate is healthy.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


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

So 100% wrong? I read the book and think she's got a lot of good points.

I read it too. I think she is 100% wrong. A little googling will show the errors with her ideas IMO. Obviously I suspect most on here will not agree with me. But that's cool. Each to their own.

[ThePythonicCow]

Morgan Reynolds who later teamed up with Judy Wood.
I suspect that one of the methods used to marginalize Judy Wood was to team her up with apparent allies, originally supportive, who would then proceed to sensationalize Judy's work.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Quite possible. If so, I would expect her to publicly distance herself from him.
Which in my eyes would improve her credibility.
As far as I can see, she has not done this. Its a strange connection.

[jaybee]

.


you seem to have created this thread to cast aspersions upon Judy Wood, EWO...

Well what's good for the goose is good for the gander..and here is an interesting

little video about Steven Jones. He of the beloved thermite theory. The main rival

to the DEW theory...:)


My own personel opinion is that Judy Wood is a genuine researcher, but I don't think

that about Steven Jones...I am suspicious of his motives and you will see from this

presentation that he has a bit of previous...:ohwell:



lASyX1SP2UM


.

[The Truth Is In There]

9/11 was obviously a false flag but many people just cant deal with it.

What was vaporized?


i haven't read dr. woods book yet but what i've heard of her explanation made a lot of sense at the time. the buildings WERE turned to dust, completely, something that doesn't happen with air planes or any kind of explosives inside the building. i don't know what your theory is but to me a directed energy weapon makes the most sense.

anyway, i'm not as concerned with HOW it was done as opposed to WHY, and after reading this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1937584178/ref=oh_details_o00_s02_i02 i can say that "false flag" is a gigantic understatement.

however, no matter how "evil" the intentions of those who accomplished this feat may have been (according to those who buy into the "good vs evil" belief, anyway), one has to admit that it was admirably done, considering all the details, the numbers, the names, all the little occult twists.

[ThePythonicCow]

anyway, i'm not as concerned with HOW it was done as opposed to WHY, and after reading this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1937584178/ref=oh_details_o00_s02_i02 i can say that "false flag" is a gigantic understatement.
I lost a couple nights sleep reading that book :).

Fortunately one main prediction it makes, of a false flag event destroying Phoenix, Arizona (USA) on Christmas of 2012, did not transpire.

[markpierre]

Well, every point she makes, every corner stone of her theory can be explained without space weapons. Plus she is just plain wrong on many points as well.
Also, she has done zero experiments to prove her ideas and attacks those who ask for clarification or just simply question her and point out errors.
Why be like that?
Plus I am even more suspicious of her now with the Bush connection.

How did that building turn into dust? I held that dust in my hand. It wasn't formerly metal by any reasonable explanation.
What melted the engines out of cars parked blocks away?

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

the buildings WERE turned to dust, completely,

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. This alone proves her wrong. She MAY be a genunie researcher but not a good one. I just proved her wrong with 5 seconds of googling.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

.


you seem to have created this thread to cast aspersions upon Judy Wood, EWO...

Well what's good for the goose is good for the gander..and here is an interesting

little video about Steven Jones. He of the beloved thermite theory. The main rival

to the DEW theory...:)


My own personel opinion is that Judy Wood is a genuine researcher, but I don't think

that about Steven Jones...I am suspicious of his motives and you will see from this

presentation that he has a bit of previous...:ohwell:



lASyX1SP2UM


.

So Jones is part of the cover up huh? What about Niles Harrit? Or Mark Basil? Or any of the other 9 researchers who did the experiments? Or the people that gave him the dust?

I dont understand why you dont address the Bush connection or why she has not distanced herself from Morgan? This is what Judy does. She does not answer her critics.

[markpierre]

the buildings WERE turned to dust, completely,

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. This alone proves her wrong. She MAY be a genunie researcher but not a good one. I just proved her wrong with 5 seconds of googling.

I saw the pile on 9/12. It hadn't been hauled away by 9/12. There was very little of it to be hauled away.

[Cidersomerset]

Well Dr.Woods seems genuine to me, but if she was being used or deliberatly
putting out disinfo she would I suppose !.....I think there are several different
possible methods of destruction, WTC 7 looks like a classic explosive demolition.
The twin towers I find hard to believe came down due to aviation fuel. Explosives
and plane combo possible. But Dr.Woods theory of possible energy weapon is not
as far fetched as it seemed 10 years ago .

As she said she filed acourt case with Dr.Morgan Reynolds.

Friday, November 23, 2007

WTC Judy Wood Court Case

CB_Brooklyn reports.... from http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=1680

US District Court Unseals Second 9/11 ‘Inside Job’ Case

Developments regarding Dr Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University, and Dr Morgan Reynolds, the former Chief Economist of the US Department of Labor. Both Wood and Reynolds are represented by mainstream attorney Jerry Leaphart.


Those following developments in 9/11 “inside job” legal proceedings are aware that the US District Court in Southern New York unsealed a complaint filed by Dr Morgan Reynolds against private contractors hired by the government. This lawsuit alleges that the contractors supplied bogus analyses for the NIST Report of an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through a steel and concrete building . Information pertaining to this lawsuit, including a PDF of the unsealed complaint, can be found on Reynolds website:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...e1=federal_case

Read more: http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/wtc-judy-wood-court-case.html#ixzz2HhH92Sgx

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most recent interview I could fine is interrresting and talks about the scisms in
the truth movement...Theres nothing here to lead me to believe she is not a
genuine researcher looking for the truth of how the Towers collapsed.

7ChzRz4pmKc

Published on 22 Nov 2012


The following clip is an conversation between ourselves, Dr Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson, and was
recorded at the Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference held in Hilversum, Holland, in November 2012.
After initially having Andrew Johnson join us on our radio show earlier this year to speak about what really
happened 9/11, whilst taking a look at the evidence presented by Dr Judy Wood, we were delighted to
finally meet Andrew and spend some time getting to know this honest and extremely intelligent English
gentleman. We were also delighted to spend some time with Dr Judy Wood, who really schooled us in how
to look at evidence, and to interpret what we see, and not what we are told to see. It was very refreshing
to see someone not trying to be a martyr, but rather focusing on the evidence.

Please check out the interview we did with Andrew Johnson in September 2012 on www.freedomcentral.info

Freedom Central is in the process of making a documentary feature about Dr Judy Wood's work.

www.drjudywood.com


More photos on link...
http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/wtc-judy-wood-court-case.html


http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/DEW%20Evidence/ZoominGJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg


**What type of weapon could destroy car engine blocks, yet leave unexploded gas tanks?

Read more: http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/wtc-judy-wood-court-case.html#ixzz2HhJ8U3gU

[ThePythonicCow]

the buildings WERE turned to dust, completely,

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. This alone proves her wrong. She MAY be a genunie researcher but not a good one. I just proved her wrong with 5 seconds of googling.
Claiming, without further reference, you found something on a quick Google search is not proof, at least not in my book.

In this case, however, you made it rather easy for us to at least find the source for this claim, as it is quoted verbatim on numerous 9/11 sites. The source is the N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02, and the larger quote (copied from here (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/), but available elsewhere) is:



“Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.”

Whether that claim is true or whether it is part of the substantial disinformation effort I'm sure we all agree was undertaken following 9/11 ... that is an important question.

From what I observe from the photographs of Ground Zero immediately following the events of 9/11 (thank-you, Judy Wood and others), the bulk of the steel from those towers wasn't in the (too small) debris pile, so was no longer available to be scrapped in the manner claimed in that N.Y. Daily News article.

I have never seen any reasonably verifiable evidence from reliably independent sources that any such accumulation of scrap steel from the WTC towers existed.

Ridiculing Judy Wood's research skills, based on this one quote, is uncalled for, and provides further evidence suggesting that, as someone else noted above, "you seem to have created this thread to cast aspersions upon Judy Wood."

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Claiming, without further reference, you found something on a quick Google search is not proof, at least not in my book.


Fair enough. I was in a hurry.



From what I observe from the photographs of Ground Zero immediately following the events of 9/11 the bulk of the steel from those towers wasn't in the (too small) debris pile, so was no longer available to be scrapped in the manner claimed in that N.Y. Daily News article.


You are correct and the answer to this problem is staring you in the face. The bulk of the steel was not in the pile. Its that simple. See below.




Ridiculing Judy Wood's research skills, based on this one quote, is uncalled for, and provides further evidence suggesting that, as someone else noted above, "you seem to have created this thread to cast aspersions upon Judy Wood."


I am not ridiculing her Paul.
I am pointing out errors and expressing my opinion and highlighting new information. (Bush connections ect...)
Calling her a name would be ridicule. There is a difference. Don't you realise that?
What is wrong with criticizing her anyway? I am just trying to clarify things for myself.
Is she beyond reproach on this board? It seems I am not allowed to point out her errors.
You and others seem to equate criticism with casting aspersions, slander and ridicule. (and not just on this subject)
Why?
Because I question her ideas, does not mean I should be singled out as a "dissenter" of some kind.
Please take my criticisms in the spirit they are meant (scientific curiosity & accuracy) rather than trying to cast doubt on my sincerity.
I most respectfully disagree that I am try to "cast aspersions" and defend myself against such incorrect claims.
I note that someone posted a video suggesting Stephen Jones may be disinfo.
If anything is "casting aspersions" then it is this video.
I note that nobody has accused the person who posted this video as "casting aspersions".
Also, while this video and indeed the poster suggests Jones may be disnfo, I have not suggested Judy wood is disinfo yet am called out for mearly questioning her. Different rules for different people? Hmmmm.
I know my views on this are not popular (as I said in my first post) but its seems a bit dishonest to try and direct the thread to some imagined ulterior motive you think I have instead of dealing with the questions I post.

Lets just stick to the evidence and not make it personal. :)



“Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.”
Whether that claim is true or whether it is part of the substantial disinformation effort I'm sure we all agree was undertaken following 9/11 ... that is an important question.


Indeed.

Lets look further.

Judy is correct when she says the debris pile is not high enough.
Where she is not correct however and goes off track fairly early is the reason for the lack of height for the debris pile.
Photographs show that roughly 90% of the Twin Towers' mass fell outside their own footprints.
Even the FEMA report acknowledges this (contradicting the official story).
Some of the steel was thrown a great distance.
Given all this, there is no reason to expect a taller debris pile at Ground Zero than the photographs show.
Wood's belief that some of the steel must have been turned into dust rests on a poor interpretation of the visual evidence and the exclusion of other evidence.
There is no problem to be solved here.
She is trying to solve a nonexistent problem.
This pattern of jumping to conclusions without considering other simple reasons (Occums Razor) is her downfall and is something she does for almost every part of her theory IMO.

Regarding the much talked about spire.

I really don't know what to say about it other than it is not vaporised.
Its just a visual illusion and dust is dislodged at the spire falls.
Here it is from another angle:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um64B1NZXes&feature=player_embedded

You can easily visually track the top of the spire in this much clearer video and it remains solid all the way down with dust left in its wake as it falls.
It does not vaporize.

Anyway, If ANY structural steel was “dustified,” one would expect to see at least some evidence for partially “dustified” steel in the debris.
Has Judy shown any evidence of this?
I dont think there is any I can recall in her book. Unless someone can show me this proof?

Run out of time now but I will address the toasted cars and a few other things later.

[ThePythonicCow]

She MAY be a genunie researcher but not a good one. I just proved her wrong with 5 seconds of googling.




Ridiculing Judy Wood's research skills ...
I am not ridiculing her Paul.
I didn't say you ridiculed her.

I said you ridiculed her research skills.


What is wrong with criticizing her anyway? I am just trying to clarify things for myself. Is she beyond reproach on this board?
No, she's not. I never said she was.

You're engaging in classic disinformation techniques, feigning outrage over minor, or in this case, non-existent, insults.


Photographs show that roughly 90% of the Twin Towers' mass fell outside their own footprints.
What photographs? Show me.

Yes, some material was ejected sideways at high velocity, impaling nearby buildings, but I have never seen any photographs showing anything even remotely close to a million tons of such material falling or being ejected outside the footprint of the towers (unless you count the fine dust that blanketed lower Manhattan up to several inches thick and the massive dust cloud that drifted skyward and eastward from New York City that day.)

[ThePythonicCow]

By the way, EYES WIDE OPEN, nice deflection.

You have defended your indefensible claim that "185,101 tons of structural steel" was hauled away by making a second indefensible claim, that photographs show that the mass of the towers fell outside the footprint.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

I didn't say you ridiculed
I said you ridiculed her research skills.


Fair enough. But again, I did not ridicule her research skills.
I critisised her research as poor.
My definition of ridicule is name calling. Yours seems to be critisism.
We disagree. What shall we do about it?




What is wrong with criticizing her anyway? I am just trying to clarify things for myself. Is she beyond reproach on this board?
No, she's not.


Thank you for answering my question and clarifying.



You're engaging in classic disinformation techniques,


No Paul, I am not.

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

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?52166-Another-Contactee-on-another-forum-commenting-on-Simon-Parkes&p=586978&viewfull=1#post586978

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

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?52166-Another-Contactee-on-another-forum-commenting-on-Simon-Parkes&p=586978&viewfull=1#post586978

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

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

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



feigning outrage over minor, or in this case, non-existent, insults


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

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

Now back to the evidence....


By the way, EYES WIDE OPEN, nice deflection.

You have defended your indefensible claim that "185,101 tons of structural steel" was hauled away by making a second indefensible claim, that photographs show that the mass of the towers fell outside the footprint.

"indefensible claim"? I don't think so...

There are quite literally hundreds of photos showing that the debris fell outside the footprints of the towers:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=197&MMN_position=384:384
Scroll down halfway for the debris pattern image and click on the links on the left for photos of the debris pattern of each area outside the footprint of the towers.
You will see steel in lots of the photos.
Here is just one photo: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_id=29&PHPWS_Photo_op=view&PHPWS_Photo_id=1787

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



Anyway, If ANY structural steel was “dustified,” one would expect to see at least some evidence for partially “dustified” steel in the debris.
Has Judy shown any evidence of this?
I dont think there is any I can recall in her book. Unless someone can show me this proof?


Has anyone got a link for this I can read?

edit, Paul - If you wish, I will leave the thread for the sake of forum harmony. Is up to you. I just want an easy life.

[Rex]

>>

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

So 100% wrong? I read the book and think she's got a lot of good points.

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

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

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

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

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

anyway, i'm not as concerned with HOW it was done as opposed to WHY, and after reading this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1937584178/ref=oh_details_o00_s02_i02 i can say that "false flag" is a gigantic understatement.
I lost a couple nights sleep reading that book :).

Fortunately one main prediction it makes, of a false flag event destroying Phoenix, Arizona (USA) on Christmas of 2012, did not transpire.

Just got this for my Kindle. Looks good. gotta finish life of pi first!

on a related note, check out trineday publishing. loads of good books! http://www.trineday.com/

[ThePythonicCow]

The point here is that this is the logical explanation for why the debris pile is not high.
Absolutely, some of the debris is scattered about for a couple of blocks, and wedged in the side of adjacent buildings.

But not most of it.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

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


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

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

L-3 Communications Electron Technologies built the amplifier under the supervision of NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. The device uses electrodes in a vacuum tube to amplify microwave signals to high power. It's ideal for sending large amounts of data over a long distance because it provides more power and more efficiency than its alternative, the transistor amplifier.


A traveling-wave tube (TWT) is a specialised vacuum tube that is used in electronics to amplify radio frequency (RF) signals to high power, usually as part of an electronic assembly known as a traveling-wave tube amplifier (TWTA).

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

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

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



The point here is that this is the logical explanation for why the debris pile is not high.
Absolutely, some of the debris is scattered about for a couple of blocks, and wedged in the side of adjacent buildings.
But not most of it.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[gooty64]

The Op video is gone.



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

Sorry about that.

dxSjCanohp8

[noprophet]

the buildings WERE turned to dust, completely,

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. This alone proves her wrong. She MAY be a genunie researcher but not a good one. I just proved her wrong with 5 seconds of googling.

Could you cite this source?

--edit

nvm, I posted too soon.


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

Some quick research:

Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/

The Daily News of New York City is the fourth most widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States.[2]
The first U.S. daily printed in tabloid form, it was founded in 1919, and as of 2013 is owned and run by Mortimer Zuckerman. It has won ten Pulitzer Prizes.

Not sure why 2013... a little ways down it says:

After Maxwell's death in 1991, the paper was held together in bankruptcy by existing management, led by editor James Willse, who became interim publisher. Mort Zuckerman bought the paper in 1993.

I find the wording in the initial paragraph misleading as it seems to imply he just acquired it; but that may just my misrepresentation.

Mort Zuckerman

Zuckerman serves on the boards of trustees of several educational and private institutions such as New York University, the Aspen Institute, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the Hole in the Wall Gang Fund, and the Center for Communications. He is a member of the JPMorgan's National Advisory Board, the Council on Foreign Relations,[24] the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He has been a president of the board of trustees of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Oddly I didn't see him listed with the rest of the board for Aspen Institute...
http://i46.tinypic.com/2j0few4.jpg

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

The Op video is gone.



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

Sorry about that.

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

¤=[Post Update]=¤





the buildings WERE turned to dust, completely,

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. This alone proves her wrong. She MAY be a genunie researcher but not a good one. I just proved her wrong with 5 seconds of googling.

Could you cite this source?

--edit

nvm, I posted too soon.


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

Some quick research:

Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/

The Daily News of New York City is the fourth most widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States.[2]
The first U.S. daily printed in tabloid form, it was founded in 1919, and as of 2013 is owned and run by Mortimer Zuckerman. It has won ten Pulitzer Prizes.

Not sure why 2013... a little ways down it says:

After Maxwell's death in 1991, the paper was held together in bankruptcy by existing management, led by editor James Willse, who became interim publisher. Mort Zuckerman bought the paper in 1993.

I find the wording in the initial paragraph misleading as it seems to imply he just acquired it; but that may just my misrepresentation.

Mort Zuckerman

Zuckerman serves on the boards of trustees of several educational and private institutions such as New York University, the Aspen Institute, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the Hole in the Wall Gang Fund, and the Center for Communications. He is a member of the JPMorgan's National Advisory Board, the Council on Foreign Relations,[24] the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He has been a president of the board of trustees of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Oddly I didn't see him listed with the rest of the board for Aspen Institute...
http://i46.tinypic.com/2j0few4.jpg

Nice research. :) So does that make the maths wrong?

[noprophet]

Nice research. So does that make the maths wrong?

Depends on where the numbers came form. Where did the article get that number?

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Im referring to this:


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

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

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

I will try and find original sources for the steel removal amounts but that still does not change the solid volume of the building or the photographic evidence.

[noprophet]

Im referring to this:


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

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

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

I will try and find original sources for the steel removal amounts but that still does not change the solid volume of the building or the photographic evidence.

There is no math there. There is reference to math as a model of this presumption, but no actual numbers.

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

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

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

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

[noprophet]

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

It'll take me a bit to gather the info, and I'm not asking you specifically for it, though your welcome to join me in the search. I realize it is asking a lot.

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

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

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

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

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

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

[ThePythonicCow]

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

It'll take me a bit to gather the info, and I'm not asking you specifically for it, though your welcome to join me in the search. I realize it is asking a lot.

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

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

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

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

Judy Wood does a good job of summarizing that evidence in the first two segments of her recent 9/11 presentation, which I posted at Excellent Judy Wood Presentation - Where did the towers go? (Penzance, Nov 2012) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54719-Excellent-Judy-Wood-Presentation-Where-did-the-towers-go--Penzance-Nov-2012-)

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

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

Still not had time to reply in depth but I will.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

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

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

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


Been doing a bit of research and here is what I have come up with.

See what you think of this:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
Pages 27 - 34 are the relevant ones.




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

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

Phillips & Jordan, Inc. reported:
“The last debris was processed on July 26, 2002, day 321 of the project. At
the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission: 1,462,000 tons of debris had
been received and processed, 35,000 tons of steel had been removed
(165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero).” 23

That's 200,000 tons.
The exact amount the towers had in them. The full paper I linked to goes into more depth about the debris.

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

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/4_1_wtc_091701_regions3.jpg

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



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

I will give it a shot!

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

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

A little googling finds this:

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


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

A few other quotes on this subject that I found:

CourtTV News reported that
“Abandoned and damaged cars were being towed away. Cars parked closest to the trade center were crushed.”

Also From an American Public Works Association article.


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


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

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

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UHoIyk5Df58

Note the following:

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

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

To recap:

There cars were melted, burnt and crushed some distance from the towers. What could account for these things?


There was falling debris present. (crushing)

There was debris on fire present. (burning)

There were military chemical explosives / propellents present (burning / melting)

Many vehicles were towed to various locations (vehicles far from towers)


Using Occums razor, which is the simplest explanation? DEW or what has been layed out above?

[Referee]

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

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

cY-AYOaJyhg

[Prodigal Son]

the buildings WERE turned to dust, completely,

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. This alone proves her wrong. She MAY be a genunie researcher but not a good one. I just proved her wrong with 5 seconds of googling. As Dr. Wood has stated, just the two towers alone had ONE MILLION tons of steel. It is quite evident from the collapse videos and the photos of Ground Zero that NOT ALL of the steel was pulverized. From what I saw of the rubble pile, 185,000 tons sounds just about right, I don't have a problem with that. Much of that may have come from the smaller buildings which were left largely intact. There was still, however, more than 800,000 tons unaccounted for before an ounce of it was hauled away.

The purpose of atomizing the steel like this was not only for destruction of evidence and to facilitate an easier cleanup but it was mostly to contain collateral damage as no building anywhere near this size had ever been demolished, let alone in one of the most densely packed office districts in the world.

While it is easy to see the buildings turning to dust while they were coming down, there is one video of the north tower collapse that shows a substantial sliver of the core still standing after the "collapse", but as we watch for a few seconds we can actually see it turn to dust before our eyes as it then withers away into the wind. It did not fall, it simply disintegrated.

Must be that cheap steel the Rockefellers used when they built it.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

In some of the videos you can see burnable objects sitting right next to and on top of what appears to be molten steel.

Can you link to a video showing this please. I will take a look. :)




Here is a short video showing the dustification of the steel in progress.
cY-AYOaJyhg

This was already addressed earlier in this thread.
See the lower part of this post for info:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54143-Alien-Scientist-Aidan-Monaghan-debunk-Pod-theory-Judy-Wood&p=616101&viewfull=1#post616101

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

the buildings WERE turned to dust, completely,

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. This alone proves her wrong. She MAY be a genunie researcher but not a good one. I just proved her wrong with 5 seconds of googling. As Dr. Wood has stated, just the two towers alone had ONE MILLION tons of steel.

I already re-addressed this 185,101 figure after the quote you posted. Here:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54143-Alien-Scientist-Aidan-Monaghan-debunk-Pod-theory-Judy-Wood&p=630773&viewfull=1#post630773




As Dr. Wood has stated, just the two towers alone had ONE MILLION tons of steel.



I think this may be wrong. The total debris INCLUDING steel is about 1.6 million tons I think. The total steel WITHIN that is just over 200,000 tons. Can you link to where Judy got her figures from?




While it is easy to see the buildings turning to dust while they were coming down, there is one video of the north tower collapse that shows a substantial sliver of the core still standing after the "collapse", but as we watch for a few seconds we can actually see it turn to dust before our eyes as it then withers away into the wind. It did not fall, it simply disintegrated.


Again, this was already addressed. See my post before this one.
With all due respect, can I ask people read the thread further than the first few posts so that we don't all end up going in circles. I put a lot of effort into my posts and I dont want to keep repeating myself. :)

[Referee]

Here you go

9PG_XZ5HtaA

[Prodigal Son]

If I see with my own eyes in countless videos from coutnless angles that steel has been turned to dust (eerily similar to a pyroclastic cloud) and yet some "official" tells me that every ounce of the steel has been accounted for, and that official cannot show me any proof of these numbers since most of the steel was shipped off to China and so I just have to take his word for it, then one of two things are happening:

1. My eyes are lying.

2. The "official" is lying.

I go with my eyes. Not a very touch choice, but that's just me.

I don't really understand the point of all this. After we establish the fact that Osama Bin Laden and 19 idiots with box cutters could not have done this, then 911 was an inside job. Since we don't know what the Pentagon has in their toy chest all the rest of this stuff is just nonsense to keep us from what really matters: We have Nazis running the United States of America and their intent in nefarious.

[Kristin]

If I see with my own eyes in countless videos from coutnless angles that steel has been turned to dust (eerily similar to a pyroclastic cloud) and yet some "official" tells me that every ounce of the steel has been accounted for, and that official cannot show me any proof of these numbers since most of the steel was shipped off to China and so I just have to take his word for it, then one of two things are happening:

1. My eyes are lying.

2. The "official" is lying.

I go with my eyes. Not a very touch choice, but that's just me.

I don't really understand the point of all this. After we establish the fact that Osama Bin Laden and 19 idiots with box cutters could not have done this, then 911 was an inside job. Since we don't know what the Pentagon has in their toy chest all the rest of this stuff is just nonsense to keep us from what really matters: We have Nazis running the United States of America and their intent in nefarious.

The point has been to discredit Dr. Wood as the evidence suggests a weapon that is dire indeed. The world needs to know about it and this also begs us to ask the question, why isn't this technology being used for free clean energy? The cover up here is to stop people from knowing "who" by covering up "how".

From the Heart,
Kristin

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

If I see with my own eyes in countless videos from coutnless angles that steel has been turned to dust

Can you post some of these countless videos?

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Here you go

9PG_XZ5HtaA

Thanks for the link. :) Interesting but not at all convincing IMO. I will post why I think this in a bit more depth when I have a second.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

If I see with my own eyes in countless videos from coutnless angles that steel has been turned to dust (eerily similar to a pyroclastic cloud) and yet some "official" tells me that every ounce of the steel has been accounted for, and that official cannot show me any proof of these numbers since most of the steel was shipped off to China and so I just have to take his word for it, then one of two things are happening:

1. My eyes are lying.

2. The "official" is lying.

I go with my eyes. Not a very touch choice, but that's just me.

I don't really understand the point of all this. After we establish the fact that Osama Bin Laden and 19 idiots with box cutters could not have done this, then 911 was an inside job. Since we don't know what the Pentagon has in their toy chest all the rest of this stuff is just nonsense to keep us from what really matters: We have Nazis running the United States of America and their intent in nefarious.

The point has been to discredit Dr. Wood as the evidence suggests a weapon that is dire indeed. The world needs to know about it and this also begs us to ask the question, why isn't this technology being used for free clean energy? The cover up here is to stop people from knowing "who" by covering up "how".

From the Heart,
Kristin

The point of some may be to discredit her.
But I am not about that.
I just want to see some actual science from her or see her address her critics rather than attack them.
I have many concerns she is wrong and am looking for clarification and for people who agree with Judy to answer my concerns as Judy never seems to address her critics. That's what I hope this thread will be. Evidence based only.

We already know the "who". Its pretty well documented.

Perhaps Jim Fetzer who knows Judy and is a member here can add something? This would be pretty cool!

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

If I see with my own eyes in countless videos from coutnless angles that steel has been turned to dust

Can you post some of these countless videos?

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Here you go

9PG_XZ5HtaA

Thanks for the link. :) Interesting but not at all convincing IMO. I will post why I think this in a bit more depth when I have a second.

To clarify, she does not seem to differentiate between "temperature" and "heat transfer rates" which are 2 different things.
An illustration of this would be you can touch a boiling kettle and it will hurt but you can walk across hot coal without too much difficulty.
This is how something can be very hot yet something near it is not.
No mystery.

[noprophet]

If I see with my own eyes in countless videos from coutnless angles that steel has been turned to dust

Can you post some of these countless videos?

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Here you go

9PG_XZ5HtaA

Thanks for the link. :) Interesting but not at all convincing IMO. I will post why I think this in a bit more depth when I have a second.

To clarify, she does not seem to differentiate between "temperature" and "heat transfer rates" which are 2 different things.
An illustration of this would be you can touch a boiling kettle and it will hurt but you can walk across hot coal without too much difficulty.
This is how something can be very hot yet something near it is not.
No mystery.

This is true, but unrelated since steel has a very high transfer rate.

Careful with those straw men.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

If I see with my own eyes in countless videos from coutnless angles that steel has been turned to dust

Can you post some of these countless videos?

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Here you go

9PG_XZ5HtaA

Thanks for the link. :) Interesting but not at all convincing IMO. I will post why I think this in a bit more depth when I have a second.

To clarify, she does not seem to differentiate between "temperature" and "heat transfer rates" which are 2 different things.
An illustration of this would be you can touch a boiling kettle and it will hurt but you can walk across hot coal without too much difficulty.
This is how something can be very hot yet something near it is not.
No mystery.

This is true, but unrelated since steel has a very high transfer rate.

Careful with those straw men.

Its not a strawman. Im off home now so will explain why its not a straw man later.
In the meantime, I would like to hear your feedback to my posts on the 2nd page regarding cars and steel removal. Cheers.

[ThePythonicCow]

As Dr. Wood has stated, just the two towers alone had ONE MILLION tons of steel.
As EYES WIDE OPEN already noted, there was about a million tons of concrete and steel in the two towers, not just of steel.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...1_regions3.jpg
Here's that photo you linked:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/4_1_wtc_091701_regions3.jpg
Nothing in that photo shows how much or what kind of debris fell outside the footprint of the towers. It only presents what is perhaps (not actually stated as such) a graphical claim by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration that there was debris in the colored places.

I agree ... there was debris in those places.

Mostly dust ... fine dust ... over a wider area than even that graphic claims (if that is what those colored blobs are claiming.)

But that image is not evidence of much of anything. It's much too low resolution, and the area of most interest is completely covered by opaque colored blobs.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Sorry Paul. I linked the wrong photo. The photo I wanted to link is on the same site, Infact its more than one photo. They cover each of those areas above without anything over them. I will try and find them. My bad.

As an off topic question Paul, I just read Bills post about the DHS insider am am wondering how I view a web page offline on a mac? Do I just save it?
edit. just found this amazing tool! http://sitesucker.us/mac/mac.html#what wow!
Wonder if I can archive the whole of avalon with it?!

[ThePythonicCow]

Sorry Paul. I linked the wrong photo. The photo I wanted to link is on the same site, Infact its more than one photo. They cover each of those areas above without anything over them. I will try and find them. My bad.No problem, no need to feel bad.

You've set yourself an impossible task ... demonstrating that most of the concrete and steel in the dustified WTC buildings ended up as debris still in recognizable form as bits and pieces and chunks and broken beams of concrete and steel.

It didn't :).

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Sorry Paul. I linked the wrong photo. The photo I wanted to link is on the same site, Infact its more than one photo. They cover each of those areas above without anything over them. I will try and find them. My bad.No problem, no need to feel bad.

You've set yourself an impossible task ... demonstrating that most of the concrete and steel in the dustified WTC buildings ended up as debris still in recognizable form as bits and pieces and chunks and broken beams of concrete and steel.

It didn't :).

Touche! LOL :)

[Akasha]

Thanks for your efforts to demystify the toasted car phenomenon, Eyes Wide Open. Appreciated. The most revealing part of your research for me was the "car burns in a K-Mart car park (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UHoIyk5Df58)" vid'. By Judy's own admission of aluminium melting at 660 degrees C, if the car's engine block in the above vid' was aluminium, I suspect there would be enough heat in the flames to melt it whilst still leaving the rear half of the vehicle undamaged as evidenced in the vid'.

Perhaps when Gordon Duff was endorsing Judy Wood in the Santilli phone call (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54801-Pete-Santilli-and-Gordon-Duff-Judy-Wood-was-right-), it was an element of the disinformation that he admitted to being an aspect of his output material.

[Referee]

Eyes Wide Open Please consider the following. 100+ stories of building in NO way would make a debris pile this small. Where did the buildings go? How can we account for the anomalies of twisted metal. Outer windows of two pane windows broken and inner panes still intact. Holes in glass nearly perfectly round that is hard to do with proper equipment. I know one thing for sure. Something other than explosives and fire brought down the towers. Please examine one more part of Dr. Woods presentation.

It personally took me a long time of considering these concepts before I personally accepted them take your time look with an open mind I think you will find some answers here!

s97TaKpAqec

[noprophet]

In the meantime, I would like to hear your feedback to my posts on the 2nd page regarding cars and steel removal. Cheers.

I am simply not accepting of the numbers produced in regards to disposal. There is simply no way to validate it and the bottom-line is, someone had to report the numbers and no one can double-check this.

This is probably accurate:

http://i45.tinypic.com/35bh2s0.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/hu1y6h.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/262waok.jpg


"Hey Jim, how much debris were hauled away?"
"Ummm... How much did the structure weigh, Tom?"
"79,000 tons"
"Then that's how much got hauled away."
-

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

Thermite does not just light up on its own however. It generally requires a magnesium strip or some other high-energy to light. You can't light it with a match, that's for sure. If these cars are on fire because of thermite, then the paper should absolutely be ash.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image175.jpg

//
Had a thought

You could say that thermite, already ignited, got onto the cars.

However this would illicit the question of why it only landed on the cars.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Wow! Lots to respond to. Please give me some time as there are lots of you and only one of me! :)