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

[Lasuh]

I think some of the Members will not agree with me, but so far for this is the most compelling research I've ever came across, also not for once I think about the building's remains and wreckages. As DR. JUDY WOOD says, 'First you've got to understand what happened and only than you can determine how and why it happened'. I like to know the opinion of Avalon Member on Dr. Judy Wood, I would very much appreciate if Bill Ryan give his view on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg

[ponda]

Nice post Lasuh.Dr Woods findings certainly add another 'dimension' to the 911 discussion.

cheers

[Tyy1907]

I believe Judy Wood's research has been mentioned in other threads. Bill and others felt it was quite good.

[Fellow Aspirant]

So glad you've discovered Dr. Wood. I think she should be mentioned more often around here so that members are introduced to her sooner.

Bill, I know from previous posts, is a backer of this woman's work.

Just do a "judy wood" search on the forum, or check "911" thread, or the Alternative Science thread.

There's a lot out there about this woman's work!

B.

[Bill Ryan]

Bill, I know from previous posts, is a backer of this woman's work.



Not so much a 'backer' — but there's no reason I know to reject any of it, and every reason I know to listen to her carefully.

Some people out there are trying to create a "Judy Wood vs Rebekah Roth" contest. Not possible. They're addressing totally different parts of the overall complex puzzle.

Re the other 'contests', about the various means of demolition, it seems entirely probable that a number of different techniques were deployed, all working in choreographed sequence. For instance, the steel girders first had to be cut, like this...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3b/ab/7d/3bab7db3b0ce05e24165d473f39f971b.jpg

.. before the rest of the buildings could be 'dustified' by whatever exotic means. Judy Wood is simply talking about ow the h*** the dustification happened.

[jaybee]

.


Thanks for posting Lasuh - I've seen it before but I want to watch it all again - saw the very first bit earlier and I was struck again of the incredible survival of the 16 people in Stairwell B in the North Tower -

Then I thought - perhaps they were in 'the eye of the storm' - a place of calm - and wondered if the position of Stairwell B could be a clue..?

And when that one fireman talks about a beam of sunlight coming in - could that be a clue? - that a beam of '''''something''''' created the hole but for some reason that bit was saved from destruction -

Also could that big aerial or whatever it was on top of the North Tower have anything to do with Stairwell B being spared..?....was it directly above it ?

Just having a ponder on those points...


here's that part in the Judy Wood presentation in a separate video -


LvdNHaOBGk4


.

[PurpleLama]

An op within an op within an op. Possibly within further ops. The elite who perpetrated the event were in turn caught with their pants down. Magical beyond the technological, the ptb as we think of it were caught up in the spell, which was totally not their intent. Behind it all was the Nazi super-state, with every advanced scientific and esoteric means at their disposal. Neo nazi, neo conservative, neo liberal, NEO from MATRIX, connections connections.

In addition to yes and no, Universe also contains a maybe.

[Fellow Aspirant]

Thanks for the clarification, Bill. I for one think she's spot on - at least as far as "dustification" goes - and I agree with you that at least some other methods of de-struction were also employed.
The prime example would be the collapse of Building Seven. That was not "dustification".

And I, too, don't get the pitting of Rebekah Roth against Judy Wood - it's not an either/or situation - their stories mesh, they don't complete. People have to stop and think about what claims are being made before they can draw any conclusions. But that's an old problem. :bounce:





Bill, I know from previous posts, is a backer of this woman's work.



Not so much a 'backer' — but there's no reason I know to reject any of it, and every reason I know to listen to her carefully.

Some people out there are trying to create a "Judy Wood vs Rebekah Roth" contest. Not possible. They're addressing totally different parts of the overall complex puzzle.

Re the other 'contests', about the various means of demolition, it seems entirely probable that a number of different techniques were deployed, all working in choreographed sequence. For instance, the steel girders first had to be cut, like this...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3b/ab/7d/3bab7db3b0ce05e24165d473f39f971b.jpg

.. before the rest of the buildings could be 'dustified' by whatever exotic means. Judy Wood is simply talking about ow the h*** the dustification happened.

[Satori]

Judy Wood's work is worthy of study and consideration even if it may not ultimately meet the reliability test in the USA for the admissibility into evidence of expert testimony concerning the cause(s) of the destruction of the WTC buildings on 9/11/01. See, http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2015LooneyVol40Mar.pdf

[winstonsmith]

While I was initially captivated by Wood's high quality photos and the interesting anomalies, I have come to reject most of what she offers.

The #1 problem is the claim that the steel was dustified. It is a fact that workers spent months using torches, chop saws and thermal lances to cut up steel wreckage. The steel was hoisted with huge cranes, loaders and grapples onto trucks, which offloaded them onto barges which were sent to NJ scrap yards. Workers there spent many months cutting the big pieces into smaller ones to be loaded onto ships bound for China and India.

What was sold to the east? Dust?

Here are the facts (page 40) http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Debris_An_Investigation_of_Ground_Zero_by_Matt_Nelson.pdf

#2 is the toasted cars on FDR Drive. These vehicles were moved there with forklifts and loaders to clear streets early in the recovery operation. Look closely. You can see the rubber tire tracks perpendicular to the burned out hulks. Yes there were lots of burned vehicles on the streets surrounding the WTC, but we don't know what caused this. To suggest that it was a DEW missing targets, like she says happened at WTC5 and 6, is not science.

I find her childish labels quite annoying. Fuming, wheat chex, lathering up, fuzzballs, cheetos and the others make me question just where her head is at.

I guess people just want to be entertained.

Please do your homework.

[jaybee]

.

This video compliments the opening post nicely -

Interesting discussion and lots of good still photos to look at while listening -

A theme that runs through is about looking at the evidence, for example the insufficient amount of debris after what happened to the Towers and the activities of 'Perception Managers' on the internet and forums regarding 9/11 -


b2cUFFG76bc

[Lasuh]

When I look at the replies, I know that every one does not buy in the idea, there were certain aspects some does not agree with, but I believe that Dr. Judy Wood is an authentic person, that doesn't mean that I agree to everything she says, I'm an open minded person, and when it comes to Rebekah Roth, I think we should not pit one against the other, we should look into into both of their works so that we get a better understanding and wider view. Thank you Bill for your repy.

[ThePythonicCow]

The #1 problem is the claim that the steel was dustified. It is a fact that workers spent months using torches, chop saws and thermal lances to cut up steel wreckage.
Judy did not claim that all the steel and concrete was dustified, just most of it. That left plenty for the steel workers to cut up, including from the other WTC buildings that weren't dustified, or that perhaps just had a hole in their middle dustified, as might be the case with Bldg 6. I also do not know of a reliable source for how much steel was cut up ... certainly official or main stream reports are not to be trusted.

In other words, the question "Was the steel cut up, or dustified?" is a misleading question, just as such questions as "Was it thermite, exotic energy, other conventional explosives or whatever?" is misleading. Most likely, several kinds of destructive power were used, with various consequences.

[Wide-Eyed]

While I was initially captivated by Wood's high quality photos and the interesting anomalies, I have come to reject most of what she offers.

The #1 problem is the claim that the steel was dustified. It is a fact that workers spent months using torches, chop saws and thermal lances to cut up steel wreckage. The steel was hoisted with huge cranes, loaders and grapples onto trucks, which offloaded them onto barges which were sent to NJ scrap yards. Workers there spent many months cutting the big pieces into smaller ones to be loaded onto ships bound for China and India.

What was sold to the east? Dust?

Here are the facts (page 40) http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Debris_An_Investigation_of_Ground_Zero_by_Matt_Nelson.pdf

#2 is the toasted cars on FDR Drive. These vehicles were moved there with forklifts and loaders to clear streets early in the recovery operation. Look closely. You can see the rubber tire tracks perpendicular to the burned out hulks. Yes there were lots of burned vehicles on the streets surrounding the WTC, but we don't know what caused this. To suggest that it was a DEW missing targets, like she says happened at WTC5 and 6, is not science.

I find her childish labels quite annoying. Fuming, wheat chex, lathering up, fuzzballs, cheetos and the others make me question just where her head is at.

I guess people just want to be entertained.

Please do your homework.

MAYBE there was both thermite and directed energy, they wired #7 with something they weren't taking any chances guys , big money black ops big budget big change

[Bill Ryan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg

I enjoyed the presentation, which I'd not seen before. Judy came over with a rather lighter touch than I've seen in some of her presentations or interviews in years past: a good thing!

I particularly appreciated her very careful insistence that we need to collect evidence, rather than trying to selectively prove favored theories. In this presentation, she does just that... pointing out that there are a LOT of well-observed, documented anomalous phenomena that are really pretty hard to explain by 'normal' means.

Any hypotheses of what happened to the Twin Towers have to explain everything. That's the foundation of scientific method. If something pretty weird that happened is NOT explained, then she suggests the hypotheses need to be revised or extended. That's the drum that she beats, and rightly so.

[Huma]

It's been a very very long time since I have been back here. AE911 addresses her in this article. They make some salient points that I tend to agree with. http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/05/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth_9853.html

[jaybee]

.

Usually all the attention goes onto WTC 1 + 2 + 7 - but maybe Building 6 holds an important clue as to what went on that day...?

This is a more recent interview with Judy Wood and in the last ten minutes starting around 1:17:00 - she says that she describes the destruction of the WTC area as a '''magnetic, electro, gravitic, nuclear reactions'''' event..

that it was a nuclear process but not a nuclear bomb...

and that a nuclear bi product Tritium (with a half life of about 12 1/2 years) was found in the base of Building 6 at 50 times the normal measurement -

here's the video -


Ji24VJaFIfo


Jeff Rense is a bit annoying but Judy doesn't let him get her too off track :)

During the last ten minutes she talks a bit about John Hutchison's work and how that can include Tritium -

how he creates a static field and within the static field he intersects various radio frequency signals -

the more you look at pictures of Building 6 the more odd it appears - much blacker than any other part of the wrecked WTC complex - and it's like a black crater - that doesn't seem to have enough rubble but it does have some bits from the stricken North Tower in it - apparently some firemen called it 'the House of God' because of the crosses of metal found in it...


So - - speculation - - - could Building 6 have been where a static field was created ready for radio frequency signals to be ''''applied''' to the Towers - ??
and that's what created the molecular disassociation (dustification) and other anomalous happenings - like that man who was lifted into the air and the strange way the cars were affected ... and maybe those survivors in Stairwell B just happened to be in a radio frequency blind spot for some reason..?


to be continued ---

[jaybee]

.


More about Building 6 -

there's some interesting comments on the forum Pilots for 9/11 Truth -

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20426

from post 4 -


Not sure if you have read this interview with a Patricia Ondrovic an emergency medical technician [EMT] with the Fire Department of New York. From a Killtown interview:

KT: You mentioned you were running west on Vesey Street, what happened after that?

PO: I just kept running. I was aware there were other people running as well. After passing the cars on fire, I was trying to find someplace safe. I tried to run into the lobby of 6 World Trade, but there were federal police -- maybe 4 to 6 of them -- standing in the open doorways. As I tried to run in, they wouldn't let me, waving me out, telling me "you can't come in here, keep running." As I turned to start running west again, I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that "chase" in pattern. I think I started running faster at that point.

KT: Did you hear any "popping" sounds when each of these flashes in the WTC 6 lobby were going off?

PO: Yes, that part was like a movie. The pops were at the same time as the flashes.

KT: Can you estimate either how many flashes you saw or how many of these "pops" you heard inside this lobby?

PO: At least 6 before I was turned away.
KT: Did you think these explosions in the lobby were maybe lights popping out as in an electrical surge, or did they seem more like explosives going off in a timed manner?

PO: I immediately got the impression they were timed explosives. I have never thought they were anything else, not then, not now.

KT: Have you ever seen a building being demolished with explosives on TV and was the flashes and pops similar to that?

PO: It did remind me of just that. I had seen something on a Las Vegas c
----


mmmm ? A strange little tale about lights flashing and popping sounds...


I read somewhere that Building 6 was evacuated 12 minutes after the first plane hit (IMO Planes did hit the buildings)...


There's also the thing about Building 6 being in a strange blackened state before the South Tower... went...


EVs4oMQEpvs


just running with the speculation for a minute - could a static field have done this to it..? or something similar..? that had to be done to prepare the area for the insertion of the radio frequencies......Hutchison style -


the black crater in Building 6 shows up well in this video...



X5iENXvM43U


'''9/11 A single Photo of World Trade Center Building 6 missing center''''


Just a little speculation trip into the mystery of the destruction of the WTC complex - :)


I think this is why Building 7 had to be demolished - because it was severely weakened and damaged by the field affects of what was going on - (it was the other side of Building 6) - perhaps it also got a frequency blast to get rid of it ? and the other buildings didn't fare very well - but if the Static Field and radio frequencies were a bit unpredictable beyond the main targets - the Towers - this might be what caused a lot of damage...?



.

[Curiosity]

.

This video compliments the opening post nicely -

Interesting discussion and lots of good still photos to look at while listening -

A theme that runs through is about looking at the evidence, for example the insufficient amount of debris after what happened to the Towers and the activities of 'Perception Managers' on the internet and forums regarding 9/11 -


b2cUFFG76bc

Well I'll have to say this interview sparks on some very interesting points. Had my attention at first. However I spot a serious problem with the use of NLP , Nero Linguistic Programming. This interview is a perfect example of how it works. This entire interview is designed to discredit Richard Gage and the A&E truth movement.
The constant repeating the A&E omits evidences is total BS. Anyone that's fallowed A&E knows they state specifically that there is a lot of evidence from ALL the other buildings but A&E is focusing on specific evidences revolving around building 7 that they feel they can prove.

While I don't rule out the possibility of exotic weapons being used, I feel this particular video talk show uses exactly what they describe in the beginning of the video as to how NLP is used.
They use a mix of truths with leaving out facts, which is a form of misinformation, to paint a believable picture. In this case that A&E is deceptive by not covering evidence other than building 7.

These disinformation propaganda professionals will stop at nothing to lead us astray.

Oh one other thing that caught my attention, was the mention of lake of shock wave that would be associated with explosions, Seems to me the were eye witness statements to that very fact. So someone is lying???

[jaybee]

.

This video compliments the opening post nicely -

Interesting discussion and lots of good still photos to look at while listening -

A theme that runs through is about looking at the evidence, for example the insufficient amount of debris after what happened to the Towers and the activities of 'Perception Managers' on the internet and forums regarding 9/11 -

[video clipped - can be seen in previous post]



Well I'll have to say this interview sparks on some very interesting points. Had my attention at first. However I spot a serious problem with the use of NLP , Nero Linguistic Programming. This interview is a perfect example of how it works.


I expect it was just a typo but it's Neuro Linguistic Programming .... :thumb:



This entire interview is designed to discredit Richard Gage and the A&E truth movement.


I saw this before you made the edit and changed Gear to Gage so now you have beat me to what I was going to say - which was - if you got the name wrong it couldn't have been very good NLP...... lol.....but you have made the correction


re your remark.....

This entire interview is designed to discredit Richard Gage and the A&E truth movement.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course but this was not my perception of the interview .... I saw it as a broader look at Perception Managers in general -

Your perception was obviously different about the 'design' of the interview - meaning that it was deceptive....??

You are arguing , more or less - that it isn't a certain individual from a certain group that is deceptive ---- but it is the interview itself that is ----?



The constant repeating the A&E omits evidences is total BS. Anyone that's fallowed A&E knows they state specifically that there is a lot of evidence from ALL the other buildings but A&E is focusing on specific evidences revolving around building 7 that they feel they can prove.

While I don't rule out the possibility of exotic weapons being used, I feel this particular video talk show uses exactly what they describe in the beginning of the video as to how NLP is used.
They use a mix of truths with leaving out facts, which is a form of misinformation, to paint a believable picture. In this case that A&E is deceptive by not covering evidence other than building 7.

These disinformation propaganda professionals will stop at nothing to lead us astray.

Oh one other thing that caught my attention, was the mention of lake of shock wave that would be associated with explosions, Seems to me the were eye witness statements to that very fact. So someone is lying???

someone is lying about 9/11 ---!!!--- how shocking --- :ROFL:

But who...?

It would be naive to think that the 9/11 truth movement wasn't infiltrated - extensively infiltrated...IMO....to confuse, muddy the waters, misdirect etc etc.

Different people would have different roles - some to present the really crazy ideas, some to be all professional and act as Gatekeepers to info... etc...

As I posted the video I thought it was my duty to check it out after what you said seeing as that's not how I thought of it - so I just watched it again - and made notes -

Richard Gage (or A+E) wasn't mentioned until 20:47...

he got a further eleven mentions (in a 55:21 length video)

and A + E (for 9/11 truth) got six mentions in total -

The guy giving the interview obviously wasn't very impressed with Richard Gage - and did think that too much focus was given to Building 7 - but I don't mind if someone gives us the Heads Up on someone / something - I don't automatically believe them - but seeing as 9/11 is a cesspit of lies and deception it's sensible to take a look at prominent figures - and consider whether they are there to help or hinder...

it was stumbling upon this video that made me look closer at Building 6 - I've no idea what A + E have to say about it - will be interesting to have a look sometime...


you said...

These disinformation propaganda professionals will stop at nothing to lead us astray.

I agree whole heartedly ....but the never ending question is... who are they?

And that's where our own personel critical thinking and judgement comes into it -


anyway - although you have your suspicions and criticism - I hope you enjoyed the video - :)


.

[Curiosity]

It would be naive to think that the 9/11 truth movement wasn't infiltrated - extensively infiltrated...IMO....to confuse, muddy the waters, misdirect etc etc.

Different people would have different roles - some to present the really crazy ideas, some to be all professional and act as Gatekeepers to info... etc...

As I posted the video I thought it was my duty to check it out after what you said seeing as that's not how I thought of it - so I just watched it again - and made notes -

Richard Gage (or A+E) wasn't mentioned until 20:47...

he got a further eleven mentions (in a 55:21 length video)

and A + E (for 9/11 truth) got six mentions in total -

The guy giving the interview obviously wasn't very impressed with Richard Gage - and did think that too much focus was given to Building 7 - but I don't mind if someone gives us the Heads Up on someone / something - I don't automatically believe them - but seeing as 9/11 is a cesspit of lies and deception it's sensible to take a look at prominent figures - and consider whether they are there to help or hinder...

it was stumbling upon this video that made me look closer at Building 6 - I've no idea what A + E have to say about it - will be interesting to have a look sometime...


you said...

These disinformation propaganda professionals will stop at nothing to lead us astray.

I agree whole heartedly ....but the never ending question is... who are they?

And that's where our own personel critical thinking and judgement comes into it -


anyway - although you have your suspicions and criticism - I hope you enjoyed the video - :)


.
Oh I enjoyed the video a great deal. It landed on questions already running around in my mind. Some questions I've never heard addressed before.

I probably shouldn't have said "the entire video" But then again who knows. But one thing is for sure. The subliminal message repeated at the end of the video is a lie. That is that they implied that Richard Gage and A&E are being deceptive because they are omitting other evidence from other buildings. A&E specifically states the focus is on what they can prove with building 7, not intentionally omitting any other evidences. A&E acknowledge the fact there is much more evidence in it's entirety.

If you want to hear a conspiracy theory that sounds like something out of a comic book or science fiction story, here you go.

The big cover up is the exotic energy weapon that was used to attacked us belongs to a foreign country and our gov doesn't want us to know, thus all the fabricated stories from 9/11???

Anyway my friend you watched the video a second time I suppose I will too.

Oh and you did mean personal, not personel, winks.

You'll ketch a lot typos wit me from time to tim lol.

[jaybee]

Oh I enjoyed the video a great deal. It landed on questions already running around in my mind. Some questions I've never heard addressed before.

I probably shouldn't have said "the entire video" But then again who knows. But one thing is for sure. The subliminal message repeated at the end of the video is a lie. That is that they implied that Richard Gage and A&E are being deceptive because they are omitting other evidence from other buildings. A&E specifically states the focus is on what they can prove with building 7, not intentionally omitting any other evidences. A&E acknowledge the fact there is much more evidence in it's entirety.


so you don't think Richard Gage is a government plant - fair enough -

I don't think there was any 'subliminal message' at the end - there was nothing subliminal about it ...

I actually think it's perfectly reasonable to take a look at Gage and others - like Steven Jones to see if they might be trying to misdirect genuine 'truthseekers' - and if they are constantly keeping the focus on Building 7 then that has to be of interest - IMO...




If you want to hear a conspiracy theory that sounds like something out of a comic book or science fiction story, here you go.

The big cover up is the exotic energy weapon that was used to attacked us belongs to a foreign country and our gov doesn't want us to know, thus all the fabricated stories from 9/11???

well that's a new one (for me) - and quite a mind bender - well done..lol...:clapping:



Anyway my friend you watched the video a second time I suppose I will too.

Oh and you did mean personal, not personel, winks.

You'll ketch a lot typos wit me from time to tim lol.

:)

touche

.

[Curiosity]

Ya I though you'd like that conspiracy theory..

So I watch it again and I got the same thing. But I agree there is nothing subliminal about it. It's straight forward. He implies Richard Gage and company are a distraction from the truth. At one point actually categorizes A&E with main stream media and Gov propaganda.

The problem with this is A&E is, or has proven one part of the truth. They are not trying to distract from any other truths. As I stated before they state that they are focused on WTC7 and what they can prove.

The parts about lack of sound? Well there are plenty of videos that you here loud explosions and many eye witness testimony to multiple explosions.
Thermite was found on site and thermite hisses and pops, it does not explode

There was many intentionally misleading comments perpetrated by the interviewer and the interviewee.

I don't doubt the evidence of an exotic weapon being one of the methods that brought these buildings down. However I question the intention of this video.

Back to the crazy conspiracy theory that the exotic weapon was an attack from another country, that now owns us, that would explain a lot, wouldn't it???

Question everything.

[jaybee]

Ya I though you'd like conspiracy theory..

So I watch it again and I got the same thing. But I agree there is nothing subliminal about it. It's straight forward. He implies Richard Gage and company are a distraction from the truth. At one point actually categorizes A&E with main stream media and Gov propaganda.

do you have an approximate time for that (last sentence above)..

I don't have that in my notes,but I do have all the times that A+E were mentioned so if you can't give me that I will check it out tomorrow, because it's late where I am -


there are quite a lot of people in or associated with A + E and I fully expect there to be a mixture of genuine truth seekers and infiltrators -


The problem with this is A&E is, or has proven one part of the truth. They are not trying to distract from any other truths. As I stated before they state that they are focused on WTC7 and what they can prove.

well I'm not sure what they are supposed to have proved...anyone can see it was a controlled demolition - how is the question -but hey - we don't want to keep focussed on Building 7...AGAIN...do we.. :)



The parts about lack of sound? Well there are plenty of videos that you here loud explosions and many eye witness testimony to multiple explosions.
Thermite was found on site and thermite hisses and pops, it does not explode


that bit was about the lack of sound of the buildings (towers) '''hitting the ground'''



There was many intentionally misleading comments perpetrated by the interviewer and the interviewee.

I disagree - it all seemed pretty straight forward to me -



I don't doubt the evidence of an exotic weapon being one of the methods that brought these buildings down. However I question the intention of this video.

Back to the crazy conspiracy theory that the exotic weapon was an attack from another country, that now owns us, that would explain a lot, wouldn't it???

Question everything.

OMG you mean Saudi Arabia did it ----- lol----- (I'm joking) I don't think they would have advanced weaponry like that -- they could help do the planes but not the total destruction bit -


I have tried to find any comments by A+E for 9/11 truth about Building 6 but no luck so far - although I haven't spent much time on it - if you know of any - please share -

.

[Curiosity]

Ya I though you'd like conspiracy theory..

So I watch it again and I got the same thing. But I agree there is nothing subliminal about it. It's straight forward. He implies Richard Gage and company are a distraction from the truth. At one point actually categorizes A&E with main stream media and Gov propaganda.

do you have an approximate time for that (last sentence above)..

I don't have that in my notes,but I do have all the times that A+E were mentioned so if you can't give me that I will check it out tomorrow, because it's late where I am -


there are quite a lot of people in or associated with A + E and I fully expect there to be a mixture of genuine truth seekers and infiltrators -


The problem with this is A&E is, or has proven one part of the truth. They are not trying to distract from any other truths. As I stated before they state that they are focused on WTC7 and what they can prove.

well I'm not sure what they are supposed to have proved...anyone can see it was a controlled demolition - how is the question -but hey - we don't want to keep focussed on Building 7...AGAIN...do we.. :)



The parts about lack of sound? Well there are plenty of videos that you here loud explosions and many eye witness testimony to multiple explosions.
Thermite was found on site and thermite hisses and pops, it does not explode


that bit was about the lack of sound of the buildings (towers) '''hitting the ground'''



There was many intentionally misleading comments perpetrated by the interviewer and the interviewee.

I disagree - it all seemed pretty straight forward to me -



I don't doubt the evidence of an exotic weapon being one of the methods that brought these buildings down. However I question the intention of this video.

Back to the crazy conspiracy theory that the exotic weapon was an attack from another country, that now owns us, that would explain a lot, wouldn't it???

Question everything.

OMG you mean Saudi Arabia did it ----- lol----- (I'm joking) I don't think they would have advanced weaponry like that -- they could help do the planes but not the total destruction bit -


I have tried to find any comments by A+E for 9/11 truth about Building 6 but no luck so far - although I haven't spent much time on it - if you know of any - please share -

.
In this day and age you just can't be sure who's out some where, a mad scientist, in a cave, inventing exotic weapons. lol.

I'm sure it was towards the end of the video that they categorize Gage and company with the media and the gov. My wife was fooled by earlier statements that seemed to imply the opposite. I replayed that part and she insisted they meant something different. But when they made their final attack on Gage and company it became clear to her that I was right.

I don't know that I want to look at it again and do a time stamp breakdown of all the misleading comments. One that comes to mind, something made you think they meant lack of sound from the buildings hitting the ground. There is a part where he reads a quoted statement where they guy says he started running because everyone else started running at the start of the collapse not because any sound scared him. Don't hold me to that exact wording there though. Take a look at it for yourself.

Another thing is he says he never saw any ships with steel on them or receipts for the selling of the steel.
This is the same tactic the guy from NIST used. I wasn't aware of any molten steel or any eye witnesses to explosions or molten steel.

The idea that paper can't go untouched while things around are burning. I personally have tried to throw paper into a fire and watched it get blown away by the heat and updraft but not get touched by the fire. Fire so hot I could hardly get close enough to throw the paper in it. Pick the paper up and try it again only to have the same thing happen.

A&E mentions building 6 and other buildings that were damaged or caught fire. However what they say is the fact that they didn't collapse.

In the video it implies that because A&E doesn't look at the evidence from building 6 that their being dishonest or misleading, or perception managing.

Mark 25.25 in the video they state Richard Gage will show building 7 26 times in a 90 minute lecture but not mention building 3,4,5 or 6. Already implying A&E to be guilty of perception management. This isn't half way through the video yet
The first part of the video describes what NLP and perception management is and right after the first break at mark 16.58 or so. Then at 17.25 the commentator starts off implicating the 9/11 truth movement.

Note that the founder of the truth movement for building 6 is the interviewee in this video and Richard Gage is the founder for truth movement for building 7. Rivals???

The ambulance right next to the WTC that got covered with dust and no other damage. They use this as some kind of evidence that something out of the ordinary happened
This is about 23.10 mark.
They're using this ambulance as a shock and aw tactic. Well let me tell you there is nothing unusual about this ambulance not getting hit by falling debris.
A couple stories, My ex wife flew off a bridge overpass in a pickup truck some ten stories down and the cab of the truck was smashed flat except for the drivers side where she was setting. It literally looked like the finger of God held that spot up untouched. Ex wife walked away with minor scratches.
I was with two guys logging and one of the biggest trees of the day twisted, snapped and feel the wrong direction. Missed a pickup truck by inches and not one branch touched it.
So point being, things like this happen.

Some people walked away from the WTCs untuched. luck happens.

Don't take me wrong here.
I am in no way discrediting the verifiable evidence they bring forth here with the WTC 6.

I think the conclusion I am reaching is this is an attack on the founder of the truthers for WTC 7 by the founder for the truth for WTC 6

Mark 28.00 he starts in about the missing steel and shows pictures with no steel in them. Well the is perception management at it's best because there are pictures and videos of steel everywhere, twisted, cut steel, steel flying across the sky, sticking in other buildings, loaders loading steel on trucks, molten steel, workers cutting steel, the workers saying the steel was still melting weeks later etc. etc.

He implies that Gage saying the steel was ejected outward from the buildings is why there was little steel in the center. This is totally misleading because Gage said that because it was hurdled outward at speeds indicative of forced explosion is evidence of demolitions.. This had nothing to do with arguing over the amount of steel that fell straight down or disinterested. .

Mark 28.20 he states "this fact that A&E and 9/11 truthers, Architects and Engineers um all of these 11 points that fact that it's distracting you away from verifiable evidence, I mean to me this is a major issue because with 9/11 we have more physical evidence than possibly any crime in history and to kind of compare it" then he stops at that point and goes on to talk about Sandy Hook leaving us to fill in the blanks. This is a classic shill tactic, perception management, NLP as he stated himself as have studied these tactics.

So this quote implies that A&E is using the steel being shipped off to China etc. as a distraction from the verifiable evidence, his 11 points.

The first time I watched the video, the red flags didn't go up until the end. The second time til about half way, but this time I spotted many controversial points, too many to get into.
So at this point I've covered a lot so I'm going to fast forward to answer your question where the statements that categorize R. Gage and company with main stream media and the Gov. are.

The entire last segment is directed at pointing the finger at the 9/11 truth movement as using perception management and being guilty of basically omitting evidence.
This is the furthest thing from the truth, as I've mentioned A&E states they have specific goals, this is to prove what they feel they can with WTC7. They are not intentional limiting access to other evidence as the narrator states at mark 48.25. This is an unfounded direct attack on A&E.

At 52.37 he says " until more people realize this and get involve with not only holding Richard Gage accountable um but the media and the government"

Regards.

[jaybee]

.


@ Curiosity - thanks for your reply and the mini debate about the video I posted in #11 - that I think compliments the Opening Post video -

We have very different perceptions of the video ... obviously -

I found it useful - you didn't. I thought it was basically straight forward and honest -you didn't -

But hey.! This is 9/11 we're talking about so that's not surprising ... :)

I'm all posted out on the thread for now - 9/11 fatigue sets in quite quickly I've found and I have other more pressing things to think about at the moment - like Christmas cards and Christmas presents - - -;)

These same kind of discussions will probably be taking place in ten years time - that's just the way it is - I doubt that anything said will make much difference one way or the other now - but if one enjoys a bit of detective work and mystery solving it still has some mileage...


Ciao for now

:thumb:

.

[Curiosity]

.


@ Curiosity - thanks for your reply and the mini debate about the video I posted in #11 - that I think compliments the Opening Post video -

We have very different perceptions of the video ... obviously -

I found it useful - you didn't. I thought it was basically straight forward and honest -you didn't -

But hey.! This is 9/11 we're talking about so that's not surprising ... :)

I'm all posted out on the thread for now - 9/11 fatigue sets in quite quickly I've found and I have other more pressing things to think about at the moment - like Christmas cards and Christmas presents - - -;)

These same kind of discussions will probably be taking place in ten years time - that's just the way it is - I doubt that anything said will make much difference one way or the other now - but if one enjoys a bit of detective work and mystery solving it still has some mileage...


Ciao for now

:thumb:

.
Your welcome jaybee
I did find the video useful. There were many things presented I wasn't aware of.

I just wanted to point out the parts that stood out to me, as an attack on A&E and Richard Gage, Those parts smacked of manipulation to me.

You are right, nothing ever changes no mater how much evidence is collected. The sad thing is the people responsible will go untouched.

Merry Xmass to you and yours and have wonderful holidays, and stay safe my friend.

Regards.

[Fellow Aspirant]

Building 6 shows the most jaw-dropping destruction that I have ever seen: huge bore-holes that plunge from the top of the building to the ground floor, with almost no debris at the bottom. They are easily seen in some of the pics on the Judy Wood site - just look for overhead views. The vertical columns of emptiness are staggering in their implications. Not only is everything missing within the bore holes, but the outer edges of them, where the building interiors are intact, show no signs of fire damage, or even heat. Wood and paper are unblemished. Whole office interiors are intact, except where they drop into the empty space of the holes. And there are a lot of them! Note the "cut" ends of the steel girders that simply stop and stick out into the space.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=32457&cid=1&stc=1


Check them out for yourself, and try to come up with an explanation for their unscorched appearance.

B.

[Meggings]

Today a friend from Japan of all places posted this on her page:

http://yournewswire.com/cia-pilot-swears-oath-planes-did-not-bring-towers-down-on-911/

The above article includes a Project Camelot 40-minute interview with John Lear (dated Sept.2013). I add it here since some are new to Avalon and may not have seen the material he has on holographic projectors used for "psychological operations and strategic perception management".

32617


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQBlv7sZGVE#t=10

[giovonni]

her latest interview ...

Dr. Judy Wood | The Evidence For Directed Free-Energy Tech Used On 9/11

From TheHighersideChats

"Today we ask the big question: Where did the towers go? We’ve all seen the footage a thousand times, but maybe through the power of suggestion, we’ve missed something major.

That is the crux of Dr. Judy Wood’s work into 9/11. As she walks us through all the actual damage that was done to the WTC complex on that day, it becomes apparent that the typical alternative responses of bombs, nano-thermite, mini-nukes, professional demolitions, etc. are all inconsistent with the wide range of strange effects recorded and reported during the event.

Was this a “hidden in plain sight” example of the secret physics we’ve talked about all too often? Could the same technology be related to what Tesla talked about? Could it be the free energy answer if only we could drag it from the clutches of the nefarious few?

I hope you’re sitting down."


Bio

Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers and journal publications in her areas of expertise.

In the time since 9/11/01, she has applied her expertise in materials science, image analysis and interferometry, to a forensic study of over 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips, a large volume of witness testimony, analyses of dust samples, seismic data, and the analysis of other environmental evidence pertaining to the destruction of the World Trade Center complex. Dr. Wood has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation of what physically happened to the World Trade Center site on 9/11. And, based on her analysis of the evidence she gathered, in 2007, she filed a federal Qui Tam case for science fraud against the contractors who contributed to the official National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report about the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. This case was filed in the US Supreme Court in Dec 2009. To this day, Dr. Wood's investigation and body of evidence as compiled in her book is the only comprehensive forensic investigation in the public domain. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? is not a book of poetry, yet it has some beautiful prose. It is not a novel yet it tells a complete story. It is not a photography book, yet the pictures will grab you. It is not just a text book, yet its data is empirical and it teaches critical thinking. It is not the Bible yet it will be one of the most important books you will ever read.

Website: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/a/bio/Wood_Bio.html

Published on Feb 21, 2016


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzIHxVq-aIE&feature=em-uploademail

[Solon]

The dustification of the core is best explained by the use of a mini-nuke in the basement. The device was dialed-in for magnetic pulse production, transmitted to the steel of the main columns by contact induction, turning the steel structure into a big antenna. Antennas produce near, transition, and far field effects, and the near field basically just fully ionises (a plasma) everything, cement, furniture, people. The transition field produces a mix of near field and far field effects, the bending of the horseshoe shaped I-beam for example, which really is impossible by any purely mechanical means. The far field, in an over-driven antenna, which this was, produces very spiky 'beams', and it is those that caused the odd melting of car door handles, engine blocks, and remote fires and other odd effect, at considerable distance from the antenna.
An antenna over-driven to such a degree would basically eat itself away from the tip down, which is what we saw. Lower down the steel would melt, resulting in the molten steel in the basemen levels. The heat available from the burning fuel on a plane and the burning of all the combustibles in the building could not raise the temperature of the steel on even one floor to a melting point, never mind creating pools of molten steel in the basement. Having access to the buildings blueprints and supercomputers, simulations could be run to determine the magnetic pulse frequencies and pulse shaping required, while also identifying the areas where thermite and/or conventional explosives would be needed to ensure complete demolition. Knowing that the PTB often work on a long term basis, it must also be considered that the towers were designed from the very beginning with the intention of performing such a demolition at a future date.

[winstonsmith]

A basement nuke that moves upward through the tower to the plane impact zone-- and not one 1/4" thick window gets blown?

Come on now!

[winstonsmith]

Building 6 shows the most jaw-dropping destruction that I have ever seen: huge bore-holes that plunge from the top of the building to the ground floor, with almost no debris at the bottom. They are easily seen in some of the pics on the Judy Wood site - just look for overhead views. The vertical columns of emptiness are staggering in their implications. Not only is everything missing within the bore holes, but the outer edges of them, where the building interiors are intact, show no signs of fire damage, or even heat. Wood and paper are unblemished. Whole office interiors are intact, except where they drop into the empty space of the holes. And there are a lot of them! Note the "cut" ends of the steel girders that simply stop and stick out into the space.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=32457&cid=1&stc=1


Check them out for yourself, and try to come up with an explanation for their unscorched appearance.

B.

What you see in this WTC6 photo is eight stories exposed, those visible above the plaza level. The debris from those eight stories is piled up below, as you would expect in the six floors of subgrade, or basement levels below the plaza level.

Please study the blueprints to familiarize yourself with the actual structure.

The squared ends seen are the bolted connections where the beam and beam stubs joined.

[Solon]

A basement nuke that moves upward through the tower to the plane impact zone-- and not one 1/4" thick window gets blown?

Come on now!

There was no nuclear 'explosion'. Modern nukes can be rigged to produce heat, EM pulses, radiation or explosive results. This one was set for EM pulses that were coupled inductively to the steel frame, the device would just need to be strapped to the base of an exposed column to transfer its energy. I do know antenna theory.

[winstonsmith]

A basement nuke that moves upward through the tower to the plane impact zone-- and not one 1/4" thick window gets blown?

Come on now!

There was no nuclear 'explosion'. Modern nukes can be rigged to produce heat, EM pulses, radiation or explosive results. This one was set for EM pulses that were coupled inductively to the steel frame, the device would just need to be strapped to the base of an exposed column to transfer its energy. I do know antenna theory.

Same question. How does the EM pulse coupled to the frame (which also holds the windows) not produce any bottom up window damages?

I'm really at a loss trying to understand how a bottom up damage wave produces a top down result.

[Solon]

I'm really at a loss trying to understand how a bottom up damage wave produces a top down result.

There is only magnetic flux going up the steelwork, the top ionises itself and everything within range, and the steelwork 'burns' downward like a sparkler, except there is no core left like with a sparkler. Inductive heating lower down would be the reason for the melted pools in the lower levels. There were strange effects that were reminiscent of some of the Hutchison experiments.

[winstonsmith]

I'm really at a loss trying to understand how a bottom up damage wave produces a top down result.

There is only magnetic flux going up the steelwork, the top ionises itself and everything within range, and the steelwork 'burns' downward like a sparkler, except there is no core left like with a sparkler. Inductive heating lower down would be the reason for the melted pools in the lower levels. There were strange effects that were reminiscent of some of the Hutchison experiments.

The core and the exterior are all connected as one system. How does the magnetic flux know to stop at the impact zone and then only "burn" downwards from that point? The core above the the impact zone was clearly still very structurally sound and connected to the lower core and everything was connected out to the windows.

We must also consider that the collapse initiation point was more than 100 feet different in the two towers. How does a nuke come to be so finely tuned?

In addition we saw both cores remaining for a short period after the exterior fell away. The sparkler burning effect is not being recorded by the cameras.

Further, some exterior sections are being ejected great distances. There is a combination of collapsing downward while exploding outward. It looks like a top-down controlled demolition more than a sparkler.

WTC7 looks like a conventional bottom-up controlled demolition. The hybrid nuke doesn't fit here.

[Solon]

WTC7 looks like a conventional bottom-up controlled demolition. The hybrid nuke doesn't fit here.

Agreed. With WTC1 and 2 though there was obviously something very different going on, the sheer amount of dust for one. A mechanical collapse could absolutely not do that, so what processes are we left with? I think the directed energy beam is even less likely than the nuclear powered antenna. Strange effects were seen with some of the electric motors for the elevators, the copper windings had exploded out of the rotor, and it wasn't heat doing that.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-R3JgKrecCeY/VGlZpSj_k9I/AAAAAAAAJnY/sZ73dwetaJM/s1600/911%2BMuseum%2B9%2B-%2BMs.%2BToody%2BGoo%2BShoes.jpg
There is other evidence of some very strange EM forces occuring. What are the effects from the proposed directed energy beam?

[winstonsmith]

WTC7 looks like a conventional bottom-up controlled demolition. The hybrid nuke doesn't fit here.

Agreed. With WTC1 and 2 though there was obviously something very different going on, the sheer amount of dust for one. A mechanical collapse could absolutely not do that, so what processes are we left with? I think the directed energy beam is even less likely than the nuclear powered antenna. Strange effects were seen with some of the electric motors for the elevators, the copper windings had exploded out of the rotor, and it wasn't heat doing that.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-R3JgKrecCeY/VGlZpSj_k9I/AAAAAAAAJnY/sZ73dwetaJM/s1600/911%2BMuseum%2B9%2B-%2BMs.%2BToody%2BGoo%2BShoes.jpg
There is other evidence of some very strange EM forces occuring. What are the effects from the proposed directed energy beam?

Can you comment on how the windings were damaged? How do we know this isn't abrasion during collapse or multiple handlings by grapples? Did you see this up close where you could tell if the wires are fried or just torn?

[Solon]

Can you comment on how the windings were damaged? How do we know this isn't abrasion during collapse or multiple handlings by grapples? Did you see this up close where you could tell if the wires are fried or just torn?

I think if anyone tried to reproduce the effects seen on the motor by any type of experiment it would be impossible. The horseshoe shaped I-beams are certain proof that strange energies were involved, even heating such a beam to white hot temperatures would still not allow it to be bent like that without the inner radius buckling or the outer radius thinning and splitting, and that is an experiment that certainly could be tried. I did try it on a piece of curtain rod and it kinked with just a slight bend even when heated to glowing hot. The I-beams to me are evidence that something was happening at the molecular or even atomic level, a loosening of the bonds somehow, which is what the Hutchison effect seems to demonstrate.
There must have been terra-watts of energy involved with what happened to WTC 1 and 2, and nukes are the only way I can possibly imagine to get that kind of energy, and the strange EM effects are not the result of just thermal energy.

[winstonsmith]

Can you comment on how the windings were damaged? How do we know this isn't abrasion during collapse or multiple handlings by grapples? Did you see this up close where you could tell if the wires are fried or just torn?

I think if anyone tried to reproduce the effects seen on the motor by any type of experiment it would be impossible. The horseshoe shaped I-beams are certain proof that strange energies were involved, even heating such a beam to white hot temperatures would still not allow it to be bent like that without the inner radius buckling or the outer radius thinning and splitting, and that is an experiment that certainly could be tried. I did try it on a piece of curtain rod and it kinked with just a slight bend even when heated to glowing hot. The I-beams to me are evidence that something was happening at the molecular or even atomic level, a loosening of the bonds somehow, which is what the Hutchison effect seems to demonstrate.
There must have been terra-watts of energy involved with what happened to WTC 1 and 2, and nukes are the only way I can possibly imagine to get that kind of energy, and the strange EM effects are not the result of just thermal energy.

I don't understand your rationale. You offer a photo of an elevator motor suggesting that it was attacked by some unknown mechanism and then associate this with a giant curved I beam. The two couldn't be more different. Copper windings on a motor are very thin, easily damaged.

Would you mind staying focused on one or the other?

[East Sun]

Perhaps there was ET intervention involved. Not to be ruled out, in my opinion.

[Solon]

Would you mind staying focused on one or the other?

Both effects point to the existence of unconventional forces having affected the metals, and the Hutchison type effect would seem to be the only reasonable solution. The Military have been aware of these effects since the Philadelphia experiment, and suggested to Hutchison in 1983 that he not play around with such experiments as the effects were not understood and very unpredictable. Judy Wood has mentioned the effects, all I am doing is offering a more down to Earth explanation of what caused the effects, namely turning WTC 1 and 2 into powerful antennas. If you have a scientific reason as to why my proposal is not possible, I'd like to hear it. Perhaps some Avalon members are nuclear experts, electrical or antenna engineers and could comment?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

[Curiosity]

I found this article quite informative and explains a lot of what you see in the videos of the demolitions of the WTCs that some interpret as some kind of exotic weapon technology.

Sol-gel nanothermites often contain other components such as fluorinated silanes, and therefore carbon and silicon. The nanothermite found in World Trade Center (WTC) dust samples contains carbon and silicon as well. Ignition of such a nanothermite results in the production of gas which rapidly expands and does pressure-volume work.

Below are ten references to the fact that nanothermites can be made to be explosive.

It begins: “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives…using sol-gel chemistry.”

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf

2. This online article entitled “NanoScale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives” discusses the procedure by which sol-gel nanothermites are made and gives a nice TEM image of a nanothermite. https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

3. This US Department of Defense journal from Spring, 2002 describes how:

“All of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives.”

It clarifies that —

[Nanothermite properties] “include energy output that is 2x that of high explosives” and “As sol-gel materials and methodology advances, there are a number of possible application areas that are envisioned [including] high-power, high-energy composite explosives.
http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf



4. A high explosive creates a shockwave that always travels at high, supersonic velocity from the point of origin. This paper describes how –

“the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3.”
http://apl.aip.org/applab/v91/i24/p243109_s1?isAuthorized=no%20

Read more here,
https://digwithin.net/2011/06/19/the-explosive-nature-of-nanothermite/

[Hughe]

yapQLt4DChg

Three buildings were vanished in 9/11.
WTC1, WTC2 were the Twin towers. WTC7 was the building 7.
(WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, WTC7.)

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/wtc1.html

One twin tower had 110 stories 500,000 tons.
200,000 tons of steel
425,000 cubic yards of concrete
43,600 windows
12,000 miles of electric cables
Contained 198 miles of heating ducts
97 elevators for passengers, 6 for freight


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=33554&d=1464749088

Right after the collapse of one Twin tower at ground zero.
Where did the Twin towers' material about one million tons?
I never looked into it. Controlled demolition collapses a building in freefall speed.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=33555&d=1464749088

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=33553&d=1464748150

[winstonsmith]

How many times must it be said? The towers at Ground Zero did not vanish or dustify!!

Armies of iron workers utilizing cranes, loaders, grapples, torches, thermic lances, chop saws, trucks and barges worked for months to clear the site of the steel wreckage.

[ThePythonicCow]

How many times must it be said? The towers at Ground Zero did not vanish or dustify!!

Armies of iron workers utilizing cranes, loaders, grapples, torches, thermic lances, chop saws, trucks and barges worked for months to clear the site of the steel wreckage.

The length of time that the workers were on the pile provides little useful evidence as to what mechanism(s) were used to destroy the WTC towers.

The truly immense and thick plumes of dust created in the 10 seconds that each tower was destroyed, and the miserable lack of anything remotely resembling 110 stories of allegedly pancaked stories of steel, mean much more.

[winstonsmith]

Once the scrap was moved to New Jersey, other armies began the task of preparing it for recycling. Here is a very long video documenting the conditions well after the event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI

Dust wasn't sold to China. The powder seen in the collapse videos is the concrete, drywall and other soft materials, not steel. Ms. Wood is mistaken.

[ThePythonicCow]

Once the scrap was moved to New Jersey, other armies began the task of preparing it for recycling.
Of course there was some steel scrap ... there were seven (7) buildings in the WTC complex, and only most of two of them were "dustified" (WTC1 & 2, the towers) along with a big hole in the middle of one other (WTC6).

The steel from the remaining four and a half large buildings had to be cut up and sent somewhere. This includes the steel from WTC7, which appears to me to have suffered a somewhat more conventional demolition.

There was not however anywhere close to 110 stories of steel at the base of WTC1 or 2, after the so-called "collapse". Not. Even. Close. I am sure that you've been studying this long enough, winstonsmith, to know that.

See further a previous reply of mine, to you, with images: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11 -- Post #24 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?88490-The-sheer-volume-of-concrete-and-steel-that-simply-vanished-on-9-11&p=1041563&viewfull=1#post1041563)

[Ewan]

There are some images http://www.businessinsider.com/the-world-trade-center-40th-anniversary-2013-4?IR=T on this page that give an indication of the quantity of steel involved.

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/515da5b269bedd612700000f-960/screen%20shot%202013-04-04%20at%2012.08.39%20pm.png

Try to imagine it in a jumbled chaotic heap following a collapse, or, for that matter, a traditional demolition. In my estimation it would be at the very minimum at least 10 stories high, more likely 15 - 20 or even more.

[Satori]

How many times must it be said? The towers at Ground Zero did not vanish or dustify!!

Armies of iron workers utilizing cranes, loaders, grapples, torches, thermic lances, chop saws, trucks and barges worked for months to clear the site of the steel wreckage.

I'm not here to defend Dr. Wood, and no doubt there was destruction of evidence, excuse me, some clean up, after WTC 1, 2 and 7 (and a few others) were destroyed, but the debris that was removed was only a fraction of what should have been present. There would have been much, much more structural debris at the site but for the pulverization of WTC 1 and 2. On that score I agree with Dr. Wood and others who have studied the available, but unfortunately scant, evidence. I also agree with what I see with my own eyes having studied much of the available video and photographic evidence for the past 14 years.

[winstonsmith]

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

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

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

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

[ThePythonicCow]

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

Judy Wood showed us an immense amount of evidence, in her wonderful book Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11 (https://amzn.com/0615412564 ).

Lists from NIST (whom I would trust as far as I could throw a steel girder) of, by your own admission, "only a small fraction" of the (they claim) the debris provide no such refutation. Only the claim of NIST that there was much more such debris provides, without even claiming any detailed, much less verifiable, evidence, even purports to refute the claim that the bulk of the steel from the two main towers was missing from the debris pile.

Please, winstonsmith ... get real. Continuing to advance this portion of the "official story" (the fiction that the bulk of the steel in the two towers was still recognizable as steel beams, in some mutated form, as might result from "just" a conventional, or top down variant thereof, controlled demolition) just continues to obstruct our effort to understand what really happened, and continues to provide the confusion and controversy that discourages the majority of the population from even making a serious effort to understand what happened.

Judy Wood has, and shows us in ample detail her evidence.

NIST only claims to have seen more than the small fraction it lists, without any pretense of presenting serious evidence of such.

[ThePythonicCow]

She cannot cite one solid piece of evidence for steel being "dustified". If this were true than the dust samples should have contained a high percentage of steel residue.
And just where would Dr Judy Wood get such dust samples?

The 9/11 crime scene was blanketed in a major cover-up, from day one. Only Dr Steven Jones claims to have obtained dust samples, and those lack a reliable and verifiable chain of custody. In my present view, the nano-thermite he claimed to find in that dust has been one of several limited hangouts that has obfuscated the search for a full understanding of who did it, why they did it, and how they did it.

Besides, Dr Judy Wood is a mechanical and materials engineer, not a chemist. She showed us the evidence, in a treasure trove of high resolution and highly revealing images, of what she saw with her eyes, allowing us to see as well, if we chose to look.

If the story that NIST told us, of disposing of about a quarter million tons of steel (100,000 tons of steel in each tower, plus the steel in the other five WTC buildings that were demolished on or after 9/11) was true ... why did the cover-up of evidence from the World Trade Center ?

[Curiosity]

I think anyone that doesn't buy the official story and has done reaserch is well aware that there was more than just convention and tradition demolitions techniques used to bring those buildings down.
That fact that evidence of high tech nano thermatic Incendiaries and explosives, that only the USA military produces were used, should leave any researchers open to the question, what else might have been used?

However, Judy Wood's has not produced any "physical evidence" that supports some exotic weapon caused the iron to vaporize and the concrete to turn to dust.
On the other hand, we know military grade nanothirmite CAN vaporizer steel, and high tech explosives CAN turn concrete to dust without making a lot of explosive noise.
While we must keep an open mind to any and all possibilities including exotic weapons, the obvious logical conclusion based on the physical evidence is high tech demolitions were used to bring these buildings down.

We also must ask the question, "why does Judy Woods focus on building #6 as evidence to support her theory?" I think we'll find the answer to be something like this, there was so much focus on building #1#2 and #7, that building #6 ended up with very little attention, and so few pictures of the damage were taken or made public that could be used for an opposing argument. This left #6 the perfect target to draw such hypothesis around.

[Curiosity]

She cannot cite one solid piece of evidence for steel being "dustified". If this were true than the dust samples should have contained a high percentage of steel residue.
And just where would Dr Judy Wood get such dust samples?

The 9/11 crime scene was blanketed in a major cover-up, from day one. Only Dr Steven Jones claims to have obtained dust samples, and those lack a reliable and verifiable chain of custody. In my present view, the nano-thermite he claimed to find in that dust has been one of several limited hangouts that has obfuscated the search for a full understanding of who did it, why they did it, and how they did it.

Besides, Dr Judy Wood is a mechanical and materials engineer, not a chemist. She showed us the evidence, in a treasure trove of high resolution and highly revealing images, of what she saw with her eyes, allowing us to see as well, if we chose to look.

If the story that NIST told us, of disposing of about a quarter million tons of steel (100,000 tons of steel in each tower, plus the steel in the other five WTC buildings that were demolished on or after 9/11) was true ... why did the cover-up of evidence from the World Trade Center ?

Hey Paul how ya doin my friend.
In regards to your comments on nanothermite. This implies the possibility of fraudulence and planted evidence.
First thing we would ask is, why would anyone plant such evidence? The obvious answer to that would be to detract from finding the truth. In this case, that the USA gov did it withe some extraordinary means. But wait, US military grade Nano-thermite points to just that. So that doesn't make sense.

Also, I seem to remember a great deal more information was available on the collecting and testing of dust samples. I'm sure it was more than one person, one sample.

This is the first time I've heard speak of the chain of custody and validity of these samples being questioned.
From my recollection there were multiple people involved with multiple samples collected from multiple areas throughout the destruction zones and where ever the dust fell. And they're all prepared to testify under oath.

[winstonsmith]

Paul said: "And just where would Dr Judy Wood get such dust samples?"

She would get them from the same place others got them. Then she could be challenged on the chain of custody like Dr. Jones' detractors love to do.

Obtaining more samples may not be necessary. RJ Lee and the USGS both did detailed studies of the powder. Do either of these show high levels of what one would expect to see after steel was "dustified"? I'm not a chemist and I have no idea what the normal background amounts should be. I've not heard any arguments that they DO support Dr. Wood's hypothesis.

I'm not making the claim, so it is not my obligation to produce the evidence. It is Dr. Wood's burden to produce scientific evidence. Photos are not chemical analyses.

Photos and videos showing many pieces of heavy machinery extracting thousands of individual members from a twisted rubble pile support the fact that the towers were not dustified. Same goes for the imagery from the New Jersey side. Same goes for the reports of sales to China and India.

Or are we going to blindly accept the possibility that this was all staged, a Hollywood production designed to create the illusion that the towers were recycled? if so there is no end to the cover-up possibilities. Remember what William Casey [maybe] said: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

These are the times we live in. Endless argument about something that hasn't been proven. One set of images and text against another.

I spent plenty of time as working as a detective before taking my seat in the jurors' box. At this time I must dismiss Dr. Wood for failure to establish a proper foundation for the claim that the steel was sent on the winds.

[ThePythonicCow]

At this time I must dismiss Dr. Wood for failure to establish a proper foundation for the claim that the steel was sent on the winds.
By your definition of "proper foundation", apparently so.

By my definition of "proper foundation", Dr. Judy Wood has made her case well, however you have failed to establish a proper foundation for your claim that the steel, including most of the 200,000 tons in the two towers, was recovered from the vicinity of the World Trade Center complex.

[Satori]

Paul said: "And just where would Dr Judy Wood get such dust samples?"

"Remember what William Casey [maybe] said: [B][I]“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

Thank you for this post. However, I think a more apropos statement would be: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when the American people do not know what to believe."

I do not think that the measure of success or completion of a disinformation program requires that Americans, or people from any country, need to harbor nothing but false beliefs. Creating a haze of confusion and a distrust of information, true or false, will work.

[Hervé]

Looking at that picture of the steel frames:


http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/515da5b269bedd612700000f-960/screen%20shot%202013-04-04%20at%2012.08.39%20pm.png


... I would expect, since those buildings "collapsed" right in their footprints, quite a pile of Mikado (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikado_%28game%29) sticks to extricate from said "footprints"...

... yet we can only see some of the ground level columns still standing ABOVE said ground level.


http://thepythoniccow.us/wtc_aerial_800x867.jpg

http://thepythoniccow.us/WTC_6.jpg


... not much of a Mikado game left excepted for building 7.

Since some here claim to exhibit some engineering skills, here are some questions:



what would be the volume occupied by 200,000 tons of steel beams when neatly stacked and...



when not so neatly stacked?



How would that volume fit, in height, with the constraint of the towers foot print dimensions?

[Satori]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[ThePythonicCow]

It is Dr. Wood's burden to produce scientific evidence. Photos are not chemical analyses.
It's the burden of any of us analyzing this to produce evidence.

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

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

Joseph P. Farrell has an excellent analysis of "Where the Towers Went", and what sent them there, in Chapter 7, "The Mystery of the Mechanism", pps 174-222, of his latest book Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery: The Fascist International, 9/11, and Penetrated Operations (http://smile.amazon.com/dp/1939149630 ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¤=[Post Update]=¤


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

[winstonsmith]

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

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

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

So how does this directed energy weapon get its energy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hervé]

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


HOW ?


... is, indeed, the question.

If CD and/or (nano-)thermates/thermites can account for WTC7, with which one could still play a Mikado game (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?87482-Dr-Judy-Wood-Most-comprehensive-research-on-what-happened-to-the-buildings-on-9-11&p=1074071&viewfull=1#post1074071) at the end of the day, no such "luck" with WTC1 and WTC2.

See?

It's right in the face of anyone looking at these pictures (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?87482-Dr-Judy-Wood-Most-comprehensive-research-on-what-happened-to-the-buildings-on-9-11&p=1074071&viewfull=1#post1074071) for comparison: 47 stories WTC7 and its CD debris pile showing above ground level vs virtually nothing left as remnants of 110 stories WTC1 and 110 stories WTC2 but a few facade columns still standing above ground level. That means there is a huge pile of material that's not there. In other words, that material is "missing."

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

Since the only material observed to have left the scene is dust, the inference is that, that different technology turned building material into dust... hence the importance and relevance of videos documenting such...

[winstonsmith]

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


HOW ?


... is, indeed, the question.

If CD and/or (nano-)thermates/thermites can account for WTC7, with which one could still play a Mikado game (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?87482-Dr-Judy-Wood-Most-comprehensive-research-on-what-happened-to-the-buildings-on-9-11&p=1074071&viewfull=1#post1074071) at the end of the day, no such "luck" with WTC1 and WTC2.

See?

It's right in the face of anyone looking at these pictures (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?87482-Dr-Judy-Wood-Most-comprehensive-research-on-what-happened-to-the-buildings-on-9-11&p=1074071&viewfull=1#post1074071) for comparison: 47 stories WTC7 and its CD debris pile showing above ground level vs virtually nothing left as remnants of 110 stories WTC1 and 110 stories WTC2 but a few facade columns still standing above ground level. That means there is a huge pile of material that's not there. In other words, that material is "missing."

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

Since the only material observed to have left the scene is dust, the inference is that, that different technology turned building material into dust... hence the importance and relevance of videos documenting such...


WTC7 did not have any basement voids for debris to disappear into.

WTC7 had a huge pyroclastic flow just like the towers.

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

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




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

But that's beside the point: we need to debate issues based on evidence, of different kinds, if at all possible. I understand you're getting exasperated, but do please keep it civil. THX.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

[mojo]

steel turns to dust

U0NXlcmJIkk

[ThePythonicCow]

:bump:

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

[Bill Ryan]

would be well advised to view the video in the previous post (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0NXlcmJIkk)

Ha! Just did. And yes, seems rather irrefutable to me. That's an extremely powerful 3 minutes.

[Eram]

[/COLOR]



would be well advised to view the video in the previous post (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0NXlcmJIkk)

Ha! Just did. And yes, seems rather irrefutable to me. That's an extremely powerful 3 minutes.

I'm sorry Bill, but "irrifutable" seems too strong a wording for me.
At best, I can classify it as a convincing presentation (at first), but when you look deeper, the characteristics of the smoke and the appearance of steel beams disappearing (or are thy just being engulfed by the smoke and thereby withdrawn from view?) can easily be explained by the thermite/thermate theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To me it seems that we are not dealing who is worth her reputation of a qualified forensic detective , …. or, we are dealing with someone who is willfully trying to muddy the waters and my guess is that it is the latter.

[Curiosity]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ewan]

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

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

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

edit to add: I'm just musing aloud btw. The only thing I am sure is irrefutable is that planes didn't do this. Arguing about what did is a marvelous obfuscation from the perpetrator's POV.

[Curiosity]

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

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

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

edit to add: I'm just musing aloud btw. The only thing I am sure is irrefutable is that planes didn't do this. Arguing about what did is a marvelous obfuscation from the perpetrator's POV.

I'd like to make it clear that I also agree those clips pretty much appear virtually irrefutable in imagery that at the points the videos stop, the steel looks like it vanishes int thin air. No doubt about that.

[mojo]

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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft2uIYucsXo

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

O7QDo1TF2UU

[Hervé]

V[...]
... the black screen comes from left to right and blacks out the footage at the exact same point as the other ones do.
[...]

This so-called "Black Screen" is an end result of a video processing called "Stabilization (http://www.muvee.com/for/action-cams/4-easy-ways-to-stabilize-videos)" performed on shaky/jerky video footages so that the image remains centered and not jumpy.

[Curiosity]

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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft2uIYucsXo

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

O7QDo1TF2UU

Wow how interesting.

[jaybee]

Wow how interesting.


Don't get too excited about it :)

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

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


GTSzHmHnR78

[ThePythonicCow]

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

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

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

... a persuasive case that what looked like a plane crashing into the second WTC tower was some sort of holographic projection, likely created by an optically stealth military plane flying approx 1400 feet to the right of the supposed path of the supposed plane that supposedly hit the real WTC 2 south tower.


I 'think' Richard has since revised that conclusion as well. This is because of differences between civilian and military radar tracks, the latter having a system offset of some 1000ft or more. I'm sure I've seen another video of his which explains this phenomenon further, but he mentions it briefly here at the 2.20 mark.

uFqpa8Eg4mI

[Curiosity]

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

[ThePythonicCow]

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

So ... let me get this straight ... if you saw something that looked like conventional explosives to you, that tells you that Judy Wood must be wrong, and that exotic energy could not have been used?

Hopefully, no one would be so foolish as to think that the presence of one thing proves the absence of something else.

To be straight with you, and the dear reader, I agree that conventional explosives were likely used, in several ways, on the WTC buildings, on that fateful day.

But, I also agree with Judy Wood that the key source of the truly staggering amount of energy required to dustify each of those two massive towers in 10 or 15 seconds each, and required to create a myriad of other strange effects in and around the World Trade Center complex, must have come from a highly exotic, highly unconventional, source.

[Curiosity]

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

So ... let me get this straight ... if you saw something that looked like conventional explosives to you, that tells you that Judy Wood must be wrong, and that exotic energy could not have been used?

Hopefully, no one would be so foolish as to think that the presence of one thing proves the absence of something else.

To be straight with you, and the dear reader, I agree that conventional explosives were likely used, in several ways, on the WTC buildings, on that fateful day.

But, I also agree with Judy Wood that the key source of the truly staggering amount of energy required to dustify each of those two massive towers in 10 or 15 seconds each, and required to create a myriad of other strange effects in and around the World Trade Center complex, must have come from a highly exotic, highly unconventional, source.

Nobody with any sense would take one piece of evidence and claim it to discredit something else in it's entirety.

But lets not dismiss the fact that explosives etc.can dustify almost anything.

[Curiosity]

Here's another thing to consider, the Oklahoma bombing, the whole face of the entire building was blown to dust with "cow poop".

[Curiosity]

Where did the building go?
http://6abc.com/news/video-sky-view-of-pha-high-rise-implosion/1253220/

[Curiosity]

you hear over and over the questions, "when would they have had time to set demo charges, how did they get passed the security systems?"
Here's how.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB2fHqnqZaE

[ThePythonicCow]

But lets not dismiss the fact that explosives etc.can dustify almost anything.
I could probably dustify a concrete block with a hammer ... and a heck of a lot of work. The required amount of power (energy expended in a given time) matters. It is essential to distinguishing between potential dustifying mechanisms.

In other words, it's not just the amount of work that's done, but how fast it's done, that determines how what destructive mechanisms and energy sources are feasible.

Conventional explosives, covertly placed in mostly occupied buildings, cannot explain:

the source of power required to dustify over a million tons of concrete and steel, in 20 or 30 seconds (for the two towers combined),
the need to widely distribute those explosives throughout the towers (if conventional explosives were the primary mechanism), and
the other strange effects documented so well by Judy Wood.



Here's another thing to consider, the Oklahoma bombing, the whole face of the entire building was blown to dust with "cow poop".

Like heck it was.


Where did the building go?
Probably in a 3 or 4 story pile high of debris, which won't be visible until the smoke clears (your video of the demolition of those 20+ story apartment buildings doesn't show that part).

And no doubt explosives were wired throughout those buildings, up close to the structural columns and beams, after removing all the office furnishings, drywall and hanging ceilings.


you hear over and over the questions, "when would they have had time to set demo charges, how did they get passed the security systems?"
Here's how.
Yes, there was almost certainly a variety of conventional explosives, starting right with the special effects accompanying the initial (apparent) plane crashes, and with the explosions that occurred simultaneously in the basements of the towers.

And yes, there were ways and means that enabled planting these conventional explosives, ahead of time.

But some other unconventional mechanism, providing much higher power, and capable of the weird effects in lower Manhattan, as documented by Judy Wood, was also needed and essential.

===

I honestly think that you, Curiosity, are more interested in perpetuating the some of the lies of 9/11, in particular the limited hangout that just conventional explosives were used, than you are in actually seeking the truth and incorporating essential evidence that others have uncovered and published, if it runs counter to the views you're pushing.

[Curiosity]

Paul my friend, you are so very wrong about me, what I think and believe brought those buildings down.
I'm simply stating facts about proven evidence of explosives, (nanothirmite) etc. and what the possibilities and capability of high tech explosives and weaponry the USA military possesses can do.

You seem to think you know what they possess and what they used on those buildings is nothing more than conventional demolitions and EWs. I don't. I believe they have high tech explosives that WE the general public have no clue of the capabilities, delivery mechanisms or application of.
You seem to not have an open mind to this?

You look at it like there is nothing other than conventional explosives. Military grade nano thermitre isn't conventional demolitions explosives.

Further more I think they used means far beyond anything any of us know anything about, or there's any evidence of, and if there was they quickly hid it. I'm open to the idea of EW but more so something we know nothing about.
So since you're so wrong about what I think or believe you should question what else you might be wrong about?

[ThePythonicCow]

So how do you distinguish between EW (which I presume means Exotic Energy Weapons?) and "high tech explosives that WE the general public have no clue of" ?

What I am saying is in line with an excellent analysis of the energy requirements for what we observed on 9/11 that Joseph P. Farrell published. I already described this analysis in an earlier reply to winstonsmith, about a month ago, above (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?87482-Dr-Judy-Wood-Most-comprehensive-research-on-what-happened-to-the-buildings-on-9-11&p=1074116&viewfull=1#post1074116). I will copy my description again, here, for your consideration:

===========


Joseph P. Farrell has an excellent analysis of "Where the Towers Went", and what sent them there, in Chapter 7, "The Mystery of the Mechanism", pps 174-222, of his latest book Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery: The Fascist International, 9/11, and Penetrated Operations (http://smile.amazon.com/dp/1939149630 ).

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

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

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

Whatever it was, it was extremely high energy, and it was quite exotic. If you choose to quibble over whether or not it was an "exotic energy weapon" such as Judy Wood documents the observed effects of so well, or just something we have no clue of, with similar effects ... that's your problem, not mine.

Please give further consideration to the work of Judy Wood, documenting the bizarre effects of whatever destroyed the World Trade Center, and the work of Joseph Farrell, documenting the power requirements of the mechanism used to dustify the WTC towers.

[Curiosity]

Lets look at some facts here,
days and weeks before 9/11 there were several evacuation drills and entire sections of the building powered down, meaning security systems were shut down as well. huge construction crews were dispatch during these drills and power downs via eye witness testimony. Plenty of activity weeks before 9/11 suggesting the possibility of demolitions being planted throughout the buildings.. Or maybe even some kind of energy technology? But inside the buildings.

You have eye witnesses, video recordings of massive explosions, hundreds if not thousands of secondary explosions.

Is there any eye witness testimony that say they saw metal or concrete turn to dust without exploding? Or some indication of some exotic weapon being fired?

Using the analogy of prisoners busting rock is ludicrous. I could turn a cinder block to dust with a hammer in a matter of seconds, and that one man power. lol.

You want to think about how much energy it would take for conventional explosives to do the job, think about how much energy would have to be generated to fire such an energy weapon and were it would come from. You would think someone would have noticed something somewhere?

Now when you start asking questions like where, when, how was this alleged energy weapon fired, charged, hid, why would they use such a weapon on a building taking the risk of some one knowing or finding out about it. Or, why wouldn't they just tell the world they have such a weapon? That would solve a lot of problems. they wouldn't need to start wars to get what they want, would they? Too many things don't add up.

Lets take a look at HAARP How much energy do they have to generate to fire that monstrosity? It makes sound too. Did anyone report strange sounds before or when the buildings collapsed? No. But they did report explosions.

When you look at this logically and look at the logical answers, scientific facts about what it would take to generate enough power to fire such a weapon or what it would take to hide doing so, there's just too much for the whole exotic energy weapon theory to hold water in my opinion. What ever was used was from within the buildings. It didn't came from space or anywhere outside those buildings.

Truthfully I'd love to believe that they used some star war weapon but there's just not anything that's remotely strong enough evidence to convince me of that.. And there's too much evidence of all the other means.
Where any evidence that such and exotic weapon that could be used on such a mass scale even exists?

[Curiosity]

Something people have no knowledge of is how construction operations work in a high rise building that is occupied. I am retired from general construction and I did a lot of high rise remolding etc. So let me explain how this works. Entire floors are shut down to general population and tenets. Elevators are secured to not stop on those floors and monitored by security. Then cargo elevators are allocated for construction use and security passes are issued for construction workers only. It takes days, weeks and even months some time to gut several floors and remodel them from start to finish. During this time the tenets have no clue to whats going on except for the elevators not stopping on those floors and certain elevators off limits to them . It would take noting for a special crew to plant explosives and cover them up before the final cosmetic crews like dry wall and painters came in to finish the job.
This is exactly what took place at the WTC buildings.
did they plant some kind of exotic energy weapon in there? maybe.

[ThePythonicCow]

I am NOT denying that there were bombs, thermite, and other conventional explosives and incendiaries planted in the WTC towers prior to 9/11. I agree that there almost certainly were an abundance of such, in a variety of forms, on some floors, as you describe.

Please read the works of Wood and Farrell ... there was something else going on as well ... something of very high energy, orders of magnitude higher. We (neither Wood nor Farrell nor myself) know how that energy was delivered ... but we do know it was, somehow.

Please don't continue appear (at times, then deny doing so at other times) to try to prove otherwise by such illogical (That there was "A" does not prove that there was not "B") means. The presence of such conventional mechanisms does NOT prove that there was not such a far more sophisticated mechanism to inflict far more energetic and exotic damage on the towers and surrounding items, such as the toasted cars in lower Manhattan, than could have been inflicted by conventional, even secret Military, mechanisms.

Please read the works of Wood and Farrell.

There was BOTH the various conventional mechanisms that you describe, AND some very, very energetic and exotic unconventional mechanism.

[Curiosity]

Oh I agree Paul that there was something else used, and I don't dismiss the possibility of an exotic energy weapon of some kind. What I'm saying is there's no evidence it came from an external source. Most of the evidence points to what ever was used being planted in the buildings.
Until there's some credible information that there was an airborne source or satellite or a entire building close by set up with such a weapon, I don't see anything that supports this theory other than what I suggested above.

[ThePythonicCow]

Oh I agree Paul that there was something else used, and I don't dismiss the possibility of an exotic energy weapon of some kind. What I'm saying is there's no evidence it came from an external source.
Ah - so it seems we agree.

I too do not know where the extreme energy for the "something else" came from. The energy source might have been planted internally in the towers, prior to the event, or the energy might have been transmitted or conducted into the towers at the time of the destruction, or it might have been some combination thereof.

[Curiosity]

Here's another of my considerations. When you except the idea an exotic high energy weapon was fired from a distance, satellite, half way around the world, or even from miles away, that opens to more the possibility that it was not an inside job.

[ThePythonicCow]

Here's another of my considerations. When you except the idea an exotic high energy weapon was fired from a distance, satellite, half way around the world, or even from miles away, that opens to more the possibility that it was not an inside job.

That's what Joseph Farrell also concludes ... that there was another player, with superior technology, that infiltrated the 9/11 operation, and also infiltrated various critical organizations within the US military/intelligence structure, as evidenced by the super secret code words that they used when calling in further threats to the American administration.

Apparently the American Neocons were served notice on that day that they were no longer king of the hill.

My guess is that what Joseph Plummer calls "The Network", in his most excellent book Tragedy and Hope 101: The Illusion of Justice, Freedom, and Democracy (http://smile.amazon.com/dp/0985728310), has decided that America has served its primary purpose of the last century, to destroy any other functioning nation states, by means of dominance in such arenas as finance, money and banking, military, manufacturing, technology, intelligence, drug running, pharmaceuticals, and nefarious operations.

I suspect that Plummer's "Network" is the same as what I call the Bastards in Power. It seems to be moving its power base from the US to the Orient, especially to some major coastal cities of China. America will be colonized for its farmland, mineral resources, and (what will become) cheap labor. America's gold, advanced technologies, and manufacturing have already moved to the Orient. America's dominance in the world's economy is currently en route to Asia. America's reputation in the world is in tatters.

What remains is (1) for the American people to be sufficiently terrorized and oppressed that they will surrender their will to their new, more blatantly impoverished and enslaved circumstances, and (2) for the final world-wide economic/financial/monetary/banking crises to occur that are needed to dismantle the current US Petro-Dollar Reserve Currency monetary system and to replace it with the next world monetary system.

Farrell perhaps suspects that this more powerful third party is post-War Nazi International, and others perhaps suspect that this more powerful third party is non-human.

I suspect that what Plummer calls "The Network" is this third party, though quite possibly with a non-human party behind them. I suspect that this third party has been dominant, in various forms, for many thousands of years on this planet, if not longer. Plummer only traces this "Network" back to the work of Cecil Rhodes.

Plummer's book on this topic is also available for free on his website: http://joeplummer.com/tragedy-and-hope-made-easy.html.

[Curiosity]

Here's another of my considerations. When you except the idea an exotic high energy weapon was fired from a distance, satellite, half way around the world, or even from miles away, that opens to more the possibility that it was not an inside job.

That's what Joseph Farrell also concludes ... that there was another player, with superior technology, that infiltrated the 9/11 operation, and also infiltrated various critical organizations within the US military/intelligence structure, as evidenced by the super secret code words that they used when calling in further threats to the American administration.

Apparently the American Neocons were served notice on that day that they were no longer king of the hill.

My guess is that what Joseph Plummer calls "The Network", in his most excellent book Tragedy and Hope 101: The Illusion of Justice, Freedom, and Democracy (http://smile.amazon.com/dp/0985728310), has decided that America has served its primary purpose of the last century, to destroy any other functioning nation states, by means of dominance in such arenas as finance, money and banking, military, manufacturing, technology, intelligence, drug running, pharmaceuticals, and nefarious operations.

I suspect that Plummer's "Network" is the same as what I call the Bastards in Power. It seems to be moving its power base from the US to the Orient, especially to some major coastal cities of China. America will be colonized for its farmland, mineral resources, and (what will become) cheap labor. America's gold, advanced technologies, and manufacturing have already moved to the Orient. America's dominance in the world's economy is currently en route to Asia. America's reputation in the world is in tatters.

What remains is (1) for the American people to be sufficiently terrorized and oppressed that they will surrender their will to their new, more blatantly impoverished and enslaved circumstances, and (2) for the final world-wide economic/financial/monetary/banking crises to occur that are needed to dismantle the current US Petro-Dollar Reserve Currency monetary system and to replace it with the next world monetary system.

Farrell perhaps suspects that this more powerful third party is post-War Nazi International, and others perhaps suspect that this more powerful third party is non-human.

I suspect that what Plummer calls "The Network" is this third party, though quite possibly with a non-human party behind them. I suspect that this third party has been dominant, in various forms, for many thousands of years on this planet, if not longer. Plummer only traces this "Network" back to the work of Cecil Rhodes.

Plummer's book on this topic is also available for free on his website: http://joeplummer.com/tragedy-and-hope-made-easy.html.

Now this is some interesting information. I may have to read these books.

FEMA Investigator’s Shock 9/11 Claim: ‘Vault Contents Emptied Before Attack… They Knew It Was Going To Happen’

"He shot hours of footage but never handed it in.
Of particular interest was what he found beneath World Trade Center 6.
He says inside the building he came across a vault that had been cleared of its contents before the planes struck."

"It is given weight by a similar discovery on a basement door below World Trade Center 4.
According to a New York Times article, the door to a vault was still intact but it appeared as if somebody had tried to gain entry.
Behind the vault door were nearly a thousand tonnes of silver and gold."
Source.
http://therundownlive.com/fema-investigators-shock-911-claim-vault-contents-emptied-before-attack-they-knew-it-was-going-to-happen/

[Curiosity]

David Long, 9/11 Eyewitness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQbEuBgAKso

Man claims black SUVs fled New York hour before first plane hit on 9/11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSvOyUHvDgw

Unusual activities at the world trade center before…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB2fHqnqZaE

Kurt Sonnenfeld: The Man Behind the Camera / 9-11 Witness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49LdojmGEtw

[ThePythonicCow]

Kurt Sonnenfeld: The Man Behind the Camera / 9-11 Witness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49LdojmGEtw

See also this thread for further discussion of Kurt Sonnenfeld's 9/11 story: FEMA Investigator’s Shock 9/11 Claim: “Vault Contents Emptied Before Attack … They Knew It Was Going To Happen” (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91667-FEMA-Investigator--s-Shock-9-11-Claim---Vault-Contents-Emptied-Before-Attack----They-Knew-It-Was-Going-To-Happen--)

[Curiosity]

Yes read that one too.

[mojo]

that there was another player, with superior technology, that infiltrated the 9/11 operation

yes true....Whom is the other player and what was the point they wanted to make? Can any inferences be made that provides a clue who they are? Maybe a black ops group, break away society? Some part of the gov was in the know based on some of the stories about gov officials being there and knowledge of building 7 before it falls, plus other nefarious input/knowledge. I thought I read somewhere that in Africa?? that there was another building that came down in a similar way? Does anyone remember hearing anything about that?

D6DwUoqzaeI

[ThePythonicCow]

I suspect that what Plummer calls "The Network" is this third party, though quite possibly with a non-human party behind them. I suspect that this third party has been dominant, in various forms, for many thousands of years on this planet, if not longer. Plummer only traces this "Network" back to the work of Cecil Rhodes.
In particular, I would not call this underlying "third party" a "Breakaway Civilization." That term, "Breakaway", suggests something that has grown out of and beyond the publicly visible civilization, over perhaps the last century.

Rather, I think that this underlying third party or parties have been there, manipulating human civilization for many millenia. Likely such a third party is passing along knowledge of the ancients, from the times before the last great flood or other such cataclysm wiped out most of whatever advanced civilization(s) existed then.

These third parties might manifest in the inner circles of deeply powerful human families and secret societies, perhaps partially working with, supported by, or controlled by aliens. They would be passing ancient knowledge down through the ages. This ancient knowledge would be kept hidden from the masses, even from the more publicly visible elite.

They might control humanity the way a farmer controls his crops. The farmer does not create the corn or the cow, and the farmer is not immune to the vagaries of the weather or the cycles of the seasons. But if the farmer is experienced in such things, he has great influence over time in how things turn out, in what crops are grown, and how this is done.

[Curiosity]

I suspect that what Plummer calls "The Network" is this third party, though quite possibly with a non-human party behind them. I suspect that this third party has been dominant, in various forms, for many thousands of years on this planet, if not longer. Plummer only traces this "Network" back to the work of Cecil Rhodes.
In particular, I would not call this underlying "third party" a "Breakaway Civilization." That term, "Breakaway", suggests something that has grown out of and beyond the publicly visible civilization, over perhaps the last century.

Rather, I think that this underlying third party or parties have been there, manipulating human civilization for many millenia. Likely such a third party is passing along knowledge of the ancients, from the times before the last great flood or other such cataclysm wiped out most of whatever advanced civilization(s) existed then.

These third parties might manifest in the inner circles of deeply powerful human families and secret societies, perhaps partially working with, supported by, or controlled by aliens. They would be passing ancient knowledge down through the ages. This ancient knowledge would be kept hidden from the masses, even from the more publicly visible elite.

They might control humanity the way a farmer controls his crops. The farmer does not create the corn or the cow, and the farmer is not immune to the vagaries of the weather or the cycles of the seasons. But if the farmer is experienced in such things, he has great influence over time in how things turn out, in what crops are grown, and how this is done.

Ok then. Judy Woods spotted something beyond the norm but grasps at ways to explain it within her framework of knowledge or excepted reality, or what she feels the public will except.

[ThePythonicCow]

Ok then. Judy Woods spotted something beyond the norm but grasps at ways to explain it within her framework of knowledge or excepted reality, or what she feels the public will except.
Yes - exactly.

Judy Wood started out being more careful not to speak beyond her expertise as to just what sort of "exotic energy weapon" might have caused what she observed. But the constant requests for more specifics (some of which might have been motivated by a desire to trip her up with speculations in areas she is not expert) seem to have led her to reach past her areas of expertise, which were (1) mechanical and structural engineering, (2) a keen eye for visual detail, and (3) persistent and independent thinking, beholden to no one else.

[Wind]

Farsight Insititute's remote viewers saw mini neutron bombs exploding inside the buildings.
Couldn't they have released enough energy to instantly pulverize the buildings?

[ThePythonicCow]

Farsight Insititute's remote viewers saw mini neutron bombs exploding inside the buildings.
Couldn't they have released enough energy to instantly pulverize the buildings?

If such bombs were sufficiently advanced technically so that their blast directions and radii were properly controlled, than, so far as I know (which is not far in such matters) they might have been used for the dustification of the towers. I don't understand how they could have caused the strange destruction patterns, such as the toasted cars, seen elsewhere in lower Manhattan, selectively taking out portions of cars, but not other materials and not most of the people in the area. Nor do I know whether such a destructive pattern of the towers themselves, their dustification in mid-air, is even possible with such mini-nukes.

I also am a bit of a skeptic regarding the Farsight Institute's remote viewing work ... so all told, my reaction is little more than a "well, I guess so ... maybe, maybe not."

[Curiosity]

Farsight Insititute's remote viewers saw mini neutron bombs exploding inside the buildings.
Couldn't they have released enough energy to instantly pulverize the buildings?

In my opinion yes, neutron bombs or some other type explosives we know nothing about., went off inside the buildings. And yes they had more than enough energy to pulverize the buildings burn cars block away if they were in the line of energy waves.

[Citizen No2]

I came across this interesting video at the weekend.

Brookhaven National Laboratory is in direct line-of-sight of the TT complex, the laboratory also has a large particle collider buried within their grounds. The video does pose some interesting questions and dot-connecting. The concentration of burnt-out cars and the line-of-site to this facility I found to be very interesting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU0v-Z7MTH8


Regards.

[ThePythonicCow]

Here's another interesting video that I came across yesterday, with extensive video taken by someone long skilled in doing video work, from across the Hudson river, of the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers and building 7, on the day of 9/11:
vCrLDQwNlqw
Go to several places in the video, such as at the 19:38 mark, to see a helicopter fly over each tower, with strange flashes and explosions, a few seconds before each tower collapses.

===

So, including the preceding post just above this post, we have:

Brookhaven's Heavy Ion Collider, with two of the buildings on its collider ring directly on a line to the World Trade Center, 60 some miles away,
(as Judy Wood also noticed) Hurricane Erin, moving directly toward New York City that morning,
a helicopter overflying the each tower, with bright flashes and immense explosive sounds, seconds before the collapses begin, and
the strong likelihood that advanced "mini/micro/neutron/..." "atomic" bombs of specifically engineered explosive pattern and radius were implanted within the towers or their basement.We also have, on page 201 of Joseph P. Farrell's recent Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery: The Fascist International, 9/11, and Penetrated Operations (https://amzn.com/1939149630), Farrell's quoting of Jim Hoffman's analysis of a possible mechanism for the destruction of the WTC towers, in which Hoffman considers:

High energy microwave interferometry using coaxial beams for constructive and destructive interference might be a possibility
In other words, we potentially witnessed not the energy coming in from, or implanted as, a single massive form or from a single direction, but rather multiple beams and mechanisms, with the external ones at least being essentially routine (the hurricane) or benign and little noticed when considered in isolation, but which, when simultaneously focused on and directed at one of the towers, resulted in immense molecular disassociation of the chemical bonds of most of the concrete and porcelain (no toilets or other such fixtures were found in the ruble, even in small but still identifiable pieces), and of much of the steel, but little of the paper.

[Curiosity]

Here's another interesting video that I came across yesterday, with extensive video taken by someone long skilled in doing video work, from across the Hudson river, of the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers and building 7, on the day of 9/11:
vCrLDQwNlqw
Go to several places in the video, such as at the 19:38 mark, to see a helicopter fly over each tower, with strange flashes and explosions, a few seconds before each tower collapses.

===

So, including the preceding post just above this post, we have:

Brookhaven's Heavy Ion Collider, with two of the buildings on its collider ring directly on a line to the World Trade Center, 60 some miles away,
(as Judy Wood also noticed) Hurricane Erin, moving directly toward New York City that morning,
a helicopter overflying the each tower, with bright flashes and immense explosive sounds, seconds before the collapses begin, and
the strong likelihood that advanced "mini/micro/neutron/..." "atomic" bombs of specifically engineered explosive pattern and radius were implanted within the towers or their basement.We also have, on page 201 of Joseph P. Farrell's recent Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery: The Fascist International, 9/11, and Penetrated Operations (https://amzn.com/1939149630), Farrell's quoting of Jim Hoffman's analysis of a possible mechanism for the destruction of the WTC towers, in which Hoffman considers:

High energy microwave interferometry using coaxial beams for constructive and destructive interference might be a possibility
In other words, we potentially witnessed not the energy coming in from, or implanted as, a single massive form or from a single direction, but rather multiple beams and mechanisms, with the external ones at least being essentially routine (the hurricane) or benign and little noticed when considered in isolation, but which, when simultaneously focused on and directed at one of the towers, resulted in immense molecular disassociation of the chemical bonds of most of the concrete and porcelain (no toilets or other such fixtures were found in the ruble, even in small but still identifiable pieces), and of much of the steel, but little of the paper.

Some interesting stuff. I find it really interesting that a hurricane was near? Could it have hid something that could have been the firing platform of one or more of the destructive mechanisms?

[ThePythonicCow]

Some interesting stuff. I find it really interesting that a hurricane was near? Could it have hid something that could have been the firing platform of one or more of the destructive mechanisms?
Judy Wood's speculation was that hurricane Erin was somehow used as a major source of the energy for dustifying the WTC towers.

It is definitely odd that a major hurricane took a highly unusual course up the Eastern US seaboard, turned straight at New York City, was almost unmentioned on the news or weather reports of New York, or anywhere else, and turned on a dime and went out to sea and died, following its closest approach to New York City on the day of 9/11.

Usually major hurricanes aimed directly at major US East Coast or Gulf Coast cities are headline news items for days prior to their predicted onshore arrival time.

[Curiosity]

Here's another thought/theory.
Weather manipulation went wrong? Somehow the towers acted like antenatal and sucked in their experimental hurricane control weapons. Timing was coincidental? Or not?

[ThePythonicCow]

Halton Arp, an observational astronomer, is the astronomer that Wallace Thornhill, of Electric Universe fame, is referring to about the 20 minute mark in the video that Star Tsar just posted on the Up At The Ranch And Beyond (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?3596-Up-At-The-Ranch-And-Beyond&p=1089556&viewfull=1#post1089556) thread.

In the preface to Halton Arp's book Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (https://amzn.com/0968368905), he comments on how heretical theories are discredited:

http://thepythoniccow.us/Halton_Arp_Seeing_Red_The_jaws_of_the_crackpot_trap.png

Arp was commenting here on how his compelling evidence against the conventional explanation of the red shift was discredited by main stream science.

The same mechanism applies exactly to how Judy Wood is being discredited. When she responds to the unending questioning as to how, by what mechanism, the WTC towers could have been dustified, and using what source of energy, she has been pressured into talking about directed energy weapons (https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/), the Hutchison Effect (http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/AJ/handling_truth.html), and hurricane Erin (https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-hurricane-erin/) ... at which point the jaws of the trap spring shut and her theories are labeled "prima facie evidence that the proponent is a crackpot and that the evidence is false."

[Ewan]

If only we could awaken the sleeping masses to this one salient point Paul.

Does it fit the paradigm?

No!

Let loose the dogs of ridicule and scorn.

[andy2001]

I regard Judy Wood as the most blatant miss info agent in the 9/11 truth movement. At times she makes legitimate observations that are sometimes ignored by AE911 truth. Such as evidence of EMP. At other times she talks nonsense about it being a cold event. EMP is really evidence that combined with other information, can be used to point to the use of micro nukes. Both AE911 truth, and Judy wood are trying to keep people away from that. But at least AE911 truth talk some sense about controlled demolition.

Both avoid talking about who was responsible. It's worth noting that she is Jewish.

[ThePythonicCow]

I regard Judy Wood as the most blatant miss info agent in the 9/11 truth movement ... Both avoid talking about who was responsible. It's worth noting that she is Jewish.
This might not be how you intended to come across, however you might be interested to know that I regard such posts as yours as typical 9/11 dis-info posts :).

I for one, and I'm probably not alone, do not welcome such posts here, if such it be.

[Flowerpunkchip]

BUMPITY BUMP

I initially heard of this theory many years ago when I briefly spoke to Annie Machon about David Shayler's opinion. I responded with something along the lines of "oh no, this is ridiculous, he's going to sabotage the 9/11 truth movement"

Well, I was very wrong. Exotic weapons sounded like fantasy. (This was at a William Rodriguez presentation in London years ago.)

Thank you for this thread. Very interesting.

[Hughe]

The Third Tower - BSA Space - Dec. 16, 2016 - Dr. Leroy Hulsey, ae911truth

On December 16, 2016, at the BSA Space (home of the Boston Society of Architects), Dr. Leroy Hulsey, PE, chair of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, gives an update on his WTC 7 computer modeling study and its preliminary finding that fire could not and did not cause the building's collapse on 9/11.

jq7aV3o9b74

[mojo]

In Dr Woods book she lists 9 reasons why it could not have been mini nukes on page 121. It it sad that Dr Wood was not allowed to make the case in court against the false narrative in the "fake news, lol," 911official report'

[Hervé]

...

vlkZLlzOfVQ

The above short video is the real truth gathered by Dr. Judy Wood by using FOIA request to obtain the mountains of evidence gathered by the State of NY at the 9/11 crime scene. She analyzed, organized and presented all of it perfectly: pictures, videos, transcripts and interviews--evidence, and more evidence of the crime scene. Dr. Wood is a materials forensics Ph. D, a genius at her profession, a perfectionist in her work, an excellent teacher, and she gives us an analysis of the evidence that is impeccable to the last detail and presented perfectly.

The above video is one of her latest, and is rather a Last Hurrah! kind of reaching-out-to-the-public. In this video, she's combined hundreds of hours of her work into one cut-to-the-chase message concerning the kind of weapon that was used to disappear seven huge buildings.

[...]


https://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/cars.jpg


There are many fascinating details this video doesn't touch - such as the huge number of jumpers (or flyers) which were more like 1,500 rather than the 5 or 6 the media told us there were; or the 1500 wilted cars within a half-mile radius of the crime scene; or the Category 3 Hurricane Erin that was parked (http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/CNN_Erin.html) just outside of NY Harbor on 9/11 ; or the lack of a seismic record other than surface waves that showed buildings LEAVING, not crashing.



[...]

Full article and comments here: https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/01/no-terrorist-could-execute.html

[Eric J (Viking)]

Not sure if this has been posted...excellent video...even the ignorant cannot deny that the official story is a lie...tried to embed but saying video no longer available...

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=66778

Viking

[Modedit: "Not sure if this has been posted..." ... see above, Hervé]

[lucidity]

Not sure if this has been posted...excellent video...even the ignorant cannot deny that the official story is a lie...tried to embed but saying video no longer available...

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=66778

Viking

A+ Viking.

[Eric J (Viking)]

[LEFT]There are many fascinating details this video doesn't touch - such as the huge number of jumpers (or flyers)

Hey Herve...hope all is well... long time no speak.

Anyway what's your opinion on why there were so many jumpers...?

Viking

[Hervé]

I have no idea why would someone prefer to jump out a window rather than staying where they are... the lesser of two evils kind of catch 22 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?87482-Dr-Judy-Wood-Most-comprehensive-research-on-what-happened-to-the-buildings-on-9-11&p=1127486&viewfull=1#post1127486)...

:focus:

[Hervé]

For comparison:

Iran's oldest high-rise collapses after fire (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/01/19/506842/Iran-Tehran-fire-Plasco)

Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:49AM


[see video at link (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/01/19/506842/Iran-Tehran-fire-Plasco)]


Iran's oldest high-rise in southern Tehran collapsed on Thursday morning following a major fire in the building, leaving dozens of people injured.

The 17-story structure crumbled after the fire engulfed the top floors of the building in downtown Tehran as scores of firefighters battled the blaze.

[...]


http://217.218.67.233//photo/20170119/d819112d-f64b-437e-a116-5d1abd9ac09d.jpg

http://217.218.67.233//photo/20170119/1d1bde08-c621-43c3-ae17-e6135d8e0415.jpg
Now, these are real rubbles from a 17-story building...
Condolences to the families of the ones who perished in it.



Full article: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/01/19/506842/Iran-Tehran-fire-Plasco

[sheme]

I read some place the falling man was removing his clothes as he fell because of burning from the inside sensation this is what happens when people are microwaved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8QCQudNEtY

[Star Tsar]

Andrew Johnson presents on Dr Wood's work


The Richard Dolan Show

A ndrew Johnson | 9/11 & The Work Of Dr Judy Wood

Streamed & Published 8th October 2018

Richard this week invites Avalon member Andrew Johnson to the show for a interview on 9/11 & In particular Andrew gives a strong presentation on the work of Dr Judy Wood.

Andrew's website: http://www.checktheevidence.com/
Dr Wood's website: http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/

iMtuUTiNMw4

A short documentary based on the work of Dr Wood:

vlkZLlzOfVQ

[yankee451]

What does Judy say was responsible for cutting the plane shaped holes?

[yankee451]

How has Judy Wood confirmed all the floors were built-out as advertised, that the HVAC, electric, plumbing, and the water therein, that she assumes was there, etc., was actually there? How has she confirmed that all 220 concrete floors were, indeed, installed and still there the time of demolition?


What does Judy say happened at Shanksville, and the Pentagon?

[ThePythonicCow]

What does Judy say was responsible for cutting the plane shaped holes?


How has Judy Wood confirmed all the floors were built-out as advertised, that the HVAC, electric, plumbing, and the water therein, that she assumes was there, etc., was actually there? How has she confirmed that all 220 concrete floors were, indeed, installed and still there the time of demolition?


What does Judy say happened at Shanksville, and the Pentagon?

Why do you ask?

What does that have to do with the work that Dr. Judy Wood has done analyzing and documenting some of the critical aspects of what happened to the materials (whatever steel and concrete actually was there) of the towers and of the toasted cars elsewhere in lower Manhattan on that fateful day.

What would it matter to Judy Wood's analysis how much concrete was actually used in the towers?

What would it matter to Judy Wood's analysis what happened at Shanksville or the Pentagon?

What would it matter to Judy Wood's analysis how the appearance of the initial plane crashes and plane shaped holes were accomplished?

The topic of Judy Wood's documentation and analysis, which follows from her area of expertise, is what happened to the various materials in the towers when they did fall, and what happened to other objects such as the toasted cars in lower Manhattan.

Were you asking your questions in an effort to discredit the work that Judy Woods did do, on the basis that she did not do other work, on other aspects of 9/11? If so, then, in my mind at least, you failed.

[yankee451]

Why do you ask?

I was asking because she bases all of her work on assumptions, while ignoring evidence that discredits those assumptions. I ask because you know what happens when we assume.

[ThePythonicCow]

Why do you ask?

I was asking because she bases all of her work on assumptions, while ignoring evidence that discredits those assumptions. I ask because you know what happens when we assume.
So ... if you cannot discredit Judy Wood's work by insinuating that her work is unworthy because she does not cover all aspects of 9/11, then you ignore the substance of my (admittedly rhetorical) questions and try to discredit Judy Wood's work with general slander.

I've seen you do far better in your other 9/11 posts here.

[yankee451]

Why do you ask?

I was asking because she bases all of her work on assumptions, while ignoring evidence that discredits those assumptions. I ask because you know what happens when we assume.
So ... if you cannot discredit Judy Wood's work by insinuating that her work is unworthy because she does not cover all aspects of 9/11, then you ignore the substance of my (admittedly rhetorical) questions and try to discredit Judy Wood's work with general slander.

I've seen you do far better in your other 9/11 posts here.

It isn't slander to ask whether or not she has verified the buildings were completed as advertised, nor how her work relates to the other 9/11 sites. You wrote:


Why do you ask?

What does that have to do with the work that Dr. Judy Wood has done analyzing and documenting some of the critical aspects of what happened to the materials (whatever steel and concrete actually was there) of the towers and of the toasted cars elsewhere in lower Manhattan on that fateful day.

Like I asked, how has she verified that those materials, and the contents, were actually there at the time? Without this critical step, she's doing what any magician would do when performing an illusion; using the power of suggestion to manipulate the audience, which already assumes the towers were "fully occupied cities within the city," with 220 reinforced concrete floors. Verifying that assumption is critical.
With regards to the "toasted cars," this clip has a good example of what happened to those cars; arson:
6ZI5k_CPupw



What would it matter to Judy Wood's analysis how much concrete was actually used in the towers?

It makes a huge difference. She bases all her calculations on the ASSUMPTION that the floors were all there, and that they were all built out with all the infrastructure that went with them. That's a huge assumption, considering the history of the complex, and the corruption of the people, agencies, and contractors involved.

Furthermore, there is evidence that the dust was already in dust form prior to the first impacts:
Dust and paper boiling in the shock and awe explosion:
0ZWI4TlVsMc

Dust and paper all around the ground after the explosions, but long before the demolition sequences:
7bKTVtyGqyQ

And of course, dust and paper pouring out of a wall column. At this point the only damage was allegedly due to a plane impact, and kerosene fire, neither of which will "dustify" concrete. This is a damning video, but one that Judy's followers (and the mini-nuke crowd)", don 't have an answer for:
aoKiBn4tCNw



What would it matter to Judy Wood's analysis what happened at Shanksville or the Pentagon?

Because it was all the same operation. Why would they use missiles and explosives at Shanksville, and at the Pentagon, but resort to top-secret directed energy weapons for the WTC? How is the damage at the WTC consistent with their use, and not consistent with the means apparently used at Shanksville and the Pentagon?


What would it matter to Judy Wood's analysis how the appearance of the initial plane crashes and plane shaped holes were accomplished?

It is the first step of any criminal investigation, Paul; to examine the evidence at the scene of the crime. She describes herself as a forensic scientist, so why WOULDN'T it matter? Why would any investigator, forensic scientist or not, think the evidence at the crime scene is unimportant? According to the association for Crime Scene Reconstruction, the definition of "Crime Scene Reconstruction," is:


“the use of scientific methods, physical evidence, deductive reasoning and their interrelationships to gain explicit knowledge of the series of events that surround the commission of a crime”.

In other words, to discover how a crime was committed, the investigators will collect all the information they can gather from the scene, and with what is learned from that evidence formulate a theory as to what happened. Physics plays an important role with identifying directions in splattered blood, bullet trajectories, vehicle crashes, fires, and building collapses.

Newton’s third law of motion states, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

This means that in a collision between two objects, both objects experience forces that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. If you hit a wall with your hand the wall hits your hand just as hard. It’s not rocket science.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2-newtons-third-law-notes-10-632-300x225.jpg

Any kid who has ever run a stick against a picket fence can attest that whatever hit these columns struck from the side as well, you don’t need a physicist to explain it.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/North-Tower-Left-Close-300x152.png

The dimensions of the towers were well documented therefore one can accurately estimate the size of the projectile. The columns were steel boxes shaped like this, with the sides of the box protruding past the face like laterally-braced steel knives:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/1-9-2014-1-48-16-PM-300x168.png

It is these protruding sides that can be seen sharply bent to the right in the image below with the face flattened between them. The direction of the bends is an indication of the direction of travel of the object that struck them. Equal and opposite, and all that.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/flattened-and-bent-to-the-right-1024x788.jpg

Obviously the evidence is not consistent with the head-on impact of a plane. Something struck the columns from the side, and both towers show the same pattern; eight progressively worse-damaged columns, followed by an inward-blasting hole, which was nowhere near where the alleged jet's engine impacted:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/trajectories-1.jpg

The factions of the truth movement that insist exotic means such as "DEW" or "Nukes" were used never explain how the impact evidence is consistent with whatever it is they believer happened. Both camps tend to lean towards the use of "holograms," when it comes to the footage of the "plane" crashes, which relies on the use of planted explosives for the impact holes. I've heard some diehard DEW followers insist the impact holes were caused by some sort of top-secret directed energy weapon (that they can't describe, and can't prove exists), but to me neither explanation makes any sense at all. Why would the perpetrators use directed energy weapons, or planted explosives, to mimic the lateral impact of small projectiles? If they could create any damage they wanted with their fancy weapons, and super explosives, why not mimic what they were showing on the television, namely the head-on impact of a large jet?



The topic of Judy Wood's documentation and analysis, which follows from her area of expertise, is what happened to the various materials in the towers when they did fall, and what happened to other objects such as the toasted cars in lower Manhattan.

Her area of expertise? Does that mean she's more likely to think inside the box she was trained into, or does that mean she's more likely to think outside of it? Judy Wood is an establishment-trained, establishment-published scientist who wields her establishment-credentials like a bludgeon, and turns to the establishment court-system (the same system that put Bush in office), for redress. Her work gives the establishment's military godlike prowess, something military propagandists have been doing since before Hammurabi. Corruption is the name of the game, and of course the cover-up would be more important than the actual event, so why doesn't Judy's flock ever consider that the best way to control the opposition is by leading it? Why is it never considered that she was deployed as one of those leaders? As mentioned before, the "toasted cars," were set-fire by arson. They were an important piece in the plan, and were designed to:


Block access to the complex
Give Manhattan that "war zone" look.
Give their controlled truth movement something to to talk about, which gives truthers something to be baffled about


Debunking links here, for anyone who cares enough to challenge their own convictions:
https://www.facebook.com/Alienscientist/posts/553690764689701


Were you asking your questions in an effort to discredit the work that Judy Woods did do, on the basis that she did not do other work, on other aspects of 9/11? If so, then, in my mind at least, you failed.

I was asking questions that I know from experience will go ignored by Judy's followers.

[Praxis]

Yankee,

What i like about Judy Woods proposal is that her theory covers the major key points that I have questions about. How did half a million tons of steel aluminum and concrete go away in about 10 seconds?

Arguing about what made the hole in the building is ultimately of little to no consequence. There were two buildings that through some unknown and clearly exotic process no longer exist and did so in a time frame that is quite frankly mind boggling. I personally think planes probably did hit them. It might have been remote control. Seems plausible but ultimately DOESNT MATTER. Two buildings went away. In ten seconds.

Furthermore, Her theory fits in with larger non mechanical considerations of geo politics from the Joseph Farrel point of view on Level 1 2 and 3, with Dick and Bush being merely level 2 and un aware of level three.

This explains why dick was in the bunker and why Bush had to physically go take command in Iowa, if indeed that is really where he went.

The device that was used to remove those buildings was not under the control of the president or VP.


WHy do you think that Bush said on tv the obvious lie that there was no one in his government or the previous government that could have envisioned an attack of that nature while knowing that the military was running drills on precisely that on that day and in the years running up to it? Really stop and think about this point.


Quite frankly I feel your job is to hold progress instead of offering a clearer hypothesis that fits not only the mechanics of the building disappearing but also the political realities outside the event itself. Honestly, the mechanics of the building are pretty irrelevant to me in terms of what needs to happen with society because the Patriot act and foreign policy that has been accelerated since that event are all the evidence you need for 9-11 being not what the commission reported and what news tells us. YOu want us to quibble about nitty gritty details that will ultimately prove a waste of time if the large operation becomes apparent to the masses.

You are aware that the plane that was shot down over Shanksville was not ordered by the VP or POTUS right?

Where was that plane going? What do you know about COG operations? Level2 wasnt completely successful. But what equilibrium developed between Level 2 and Level 3?


You are talking about what a particular ant is doing while we are trying to discuss the hive.

[yankee451]

How did half a million tons of steel aluminum and concrete go away in about 10 seconds?

My point exactly. You're starting with the same assumption, however the evidence I've seen (and which Judy and her fan club steadfastly refuse to discuss), indicates all of the steel and concrete that was there at the time didn't go anywhere except into the debris field. There is no evidence of half "dustified" steel anywhere , but there is a plethora of evidence that strategic bolts and non load-bearing walls and floors were removed (as they always are with controlled demolitions.)


Arguing about what made the hole in the building is ultimately of little to no consequence.

How do you figure? This is the first step in the investigation, and should be used as the basis for the formulation of a theory as to what series of events occurred, that created the evidence as found. It is like a police detective not being concerned with identifying what caliber weapon was used in a shooting, or not being concerned with the trajectory of the bullet and the location of the shooter. It is of utmost importance to the investigation, and I submit the only reason you think it to be inconsequential, is because, Judy wood thinks so.


There were two buildings that through some unknown and clearly exotic process no longer exist and did so in a time frame that is quite frankly mind boggling.

Not so mind boggling when you examine all the evidence, instead of only the evidence the magician wants you to see.


I personally think planes probably did hit them.

Easy for you to say, because you think the evidence that proves planes couldn't possibly have been responsible for it, is inconsequential and unworthy of investigation.


It might have been remote control. Seems plausible but ultimately DOESNT MATTER. Two buildings went away. In ten seconds.

Circular logic, because as the evidence shows, everything that was there at the time of demolition, was still there after demolition.


Furthermore, Her theory fits in with larger non mechanical considerations of geo politics from the Joseph Farrel point of view on Level 1 2 and 3, with Dick and Bush being merely level 2 and un aware of level three.

This explains why dick was in the bunker and why Bush had to physically go take command in Iowa, if indeed that is really where he went.

The device that was used to remove those buildings was not under the control of the president or VP.

WHy do you think that Bush said on tv the obvious lie that there was no one in his government or the previous government that could have envisioned an attack of that nature while knowing that the military was running drills on precisely that on that day and in the years running up to it? Really stop and think about this point.

The evidence that you deem to be inconsequential, is evidence of missile impacts, evidence that was surely instantly recognizable as such, by the military of all of the worlds' nations; especially the enemy nations, that allegedly have every reason to expose the fraud. To think 9/11 is limited to the leaders of America, is naive, and surely an intended assumption; one that only helps the perpetrators.


Quite frankly I feel your job is to hold progress instead of offering a clearer hypothesis that fits not only the mechanics of the building disappearing but also the political realities outside the event itself.

Please. I have a real job, real name, a real life, a real address, a real social security number, and I'm in the book, and unlike the leaders of the truth movement, I'm not selling anything, and you won't even find a donate button on my websites. I am not a leader of the opposition by any means, so you tell me how I am slowing down 17 years of non-progress provided by the leaders of the misnamed movement.


Honestly, the mechanics of the building are pretty irrelevant to me in terms of what needs to happen with society because the Patriot act and foreign policy that has been accelerated since that event are all the evidence you need for 9-11 being not what the commission reported and what news tells us. YOu want us to quibble about nitty gritty details that will ultimately prove a waste of time if the large operation becomes apparent to the masses.

There is quite a bit that you find irrelevant, I guess, an activity known as cherry picking, not truth seeking. The devil is in the details, but these are details that the so called truth movement hasn't touched as it has spent the last 17 years wasting our time with explanations that may sound sexy to those of us who were weaned on Star Trek, but they are critically important to those of us who what to expose the truth, however not sexy it may be.


You are aware that the plane that was shot down over Shanksville was not ordered by the VP or POTUS right?
I am aware that the Shanksville crater is best explained by the impact of two projectiles from opposite directions at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal, and the detonation of an explosive that weighed around 200 lbs. Cruise missiles, in other words. I am also aware that the use of cruise missiles in American airspace, makes the most likely suspects the US Military/government. These people, who launched a couple missiles into the ground, and called it a plane crash, also provided all the rest of the information (and disinformation), about all the planes, from the flight paths, to the passengers, to the alleged hijackers, and alleged conversations in the bunker. It is called the "big lie" for a reason, but for some reason I just can't understand, truthers think they would recognize controlled opposition when they see it.


You are talking about what a particular ant is doing while we are trying to discuss the hive.

I am doing my own thinking, and by examining all the details, not just the details that already suit me, I have arrived at a completely different conclusion than all of the leaders of the so called truth movement. But rather than question where those leaders have been taking you, for the last decade and a half, you turn on me, the new guy, as being disinformation, and too detail oriented. Sounds like conditioning to me.

[ThePythonicCow]

If there was what I thought was a currently healthy discussion of Judy Wood's research into what happened to (how they collapsed/were demolished/blew up/dustified/...) the buildings on 9/11 going on here, on this thread, then I'd worry that the last few posts between Praxis, yankee451 and myself were disrupting that discussion, and I'd probably work with the other forum moderators to find a way to protect that healthy discussion, using such tools as thread splitting, blocking specific members from posting on specific threads, or counseling members on the side via PM's. However, in the absence (from my perspective) of such a healthy discussion, I see nothing needing protection from disruption.

I do recommend Judy Wood's work on toasted cars and dustified towers, as most recently discussed in Star Tsar's reposting of Richard's interview with Andrew Johnson, discussing Judy Wood's work, in Post #126 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?87482-Dr-Judy-Wood-Most-comprehensive-research-on-what-happened-to-the-buildings-on-9-11&p=1253127&viewfull=1#post1253127), above.

I'll repost that video once again, here, and then probably not engage further in the above "debate" between Praxis and yankee451.

iMtuUTiNMw4

[yankee451]

I do recommend Judy Wood's work on toasted cars and dustified towers, as most recently discussed in Star Tsar's reposting of Richard's interview with Andrew Johnson, discussing Judy Wood's work, in Post #126, above.

I'll repost that video once again, here, and then probably not engage further in the above "debate" between Praxis and yankee451.

You don't have to comment on the discussion Praxis and I are engaged in, but I did respond to you directly, and in detail. I agree, I recommend everyone investigates every claim about 9/11, but to do so with the understanding that not every claim can be right. Only one explanation is correct, and you can be sure that it will address all the evidence.

[yankee451]

As predicted, the evidence that discredits Judy Wood's "work," is ignored by her followers. If the truth is the goal, then it should be a threat to no one. If truthers truly believe what they say, then they would be happy to discuss how every clue fits their conclusions. The fact that they won't even discuss some evidence (probably because it threatens their beliefs) is a testament to the efficacy of propaganda. I wrote the below article for people with stars (and DEW) in their eyes.


The fact of the matter is what we know as perception management, controlled opposition, and false flags are the rules in our world, not the exceptions. Governments and people in power have been manipulating opinions like this since the dawn of so called civilization, so it is hopelessly naïve to believe the truth movement wasn’t included in the very first planning stages of 9/11. With that in mind, I set out to conduct my own independent investigation, with special focus on those clues that the truth movement won’t touch with a ten-foot pole, clues like planted dust, missing windows, hollow towers and the evidence at the scene of the crime; the impact holes.

Taboo Truths: Clues Avoided by the 9/11 Truth Movement
http://yankee451.com/?p=4008

[Praxis]

No Paul was correct, even if it was couched in a holier than thou attitude. I definitely did not approach you from a kind place.

You seem like you have atheory you really want others to believe or be aware of.

So what do you think brought down the towers?

[yankee451]

So what do you think brought down the towers?

I spelled it out in the article I linked to. The evidence indicates they were dismantled and planted with explosives, just as all controlled demolitions are.

[DaveToo]

But, I also agree with Judy Wood that the key source of the truly staggering amount of energy required to dustify each of those two massive towers in 10 or 15 seconds each, and required to create a myriad of other strange effects in and around the World Trade Center complex, must have come from a highly exotic, highly unconventional, source.

Correct, but just not the "highly exotic, highly unconventional, source" that Judy Wood promotes.

[Hervé]

HERE GOES: the most damning case against 911 ever stated was stated by our own president. (http://82.221.129.208/.wc0.html)


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

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


Click to play, right click to save.


http://82.221.129.208/dt911.jpg (http://82.221.129.208/trump911.mp4)

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

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

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

[Curiosity]

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

[Bill Ryan]

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

[frankstien]

https://i.ibb.co/3p6CCSW/psyop-unintentional-intentional-12x9-2019-w.jpg

[noxon medem]

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

and photo

41522

closer

[mojo]

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

NZJZRxBrS4I

[Satori]

Judy Wood's work is worthy of study and consideration even if it may not ultimately meet the reliability test in the USA for the admissibility into evidence of expert testimony concerning the cause(s) of the destruction of the WTC buildings on 9/11/01. See, http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2015LooneyVol40Mar.pdf

On the occasion of the 22nd anniversary of the horrendous and, thus far, unpunished treasonous crime of 9/11, I’m bumping this. I encourage you to read the linked article.

¤=[Post Update]=¤



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

I’m bumping this too, as a brief synopsis of the article I bumped above.

[Blastolabs]

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

Bob Greenyer (https://remoteview.substack.com/) is a scientist that investigates cold fusion also known as LENR (www.lenr-canr.org/)

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

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

51793

Navy Patent for Dustification Weapon
51794

51795


Andrew Johnson joins Bob Greenyer to discuss a scientific basis for a complete understanding of happenings surrounding 'The Event' with reference to characters involved with both it and the Pons and Fleischmann narrative evaluation. Awarded patents, hard replicated evidence by multiple parties and earth shattering data from past and present is shown for the first time which could easily be verified via equivalent samples held in public venues.
cTi0bLvfY6E

[mojo]

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