The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

[lucidity]

hello Siblings,

I thought i was familiar with all the evidence on 9/11 until is saw this.

This video was distributed by richplanet.tv: Highly recommended.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yapQLt4DChg

be happy

lucidity

[Rex]

Welcome to Dr. Judy Wood, an amazing woman, right up there with Rebekkah Roth IMHO. This is very well done, especially the graphics that really give the much needed visuals in a crystal clear way.

Here's the youtubes from the link above:

yapQLt4DChg

7GdHc32Egaw

z0L_UgFnGhM

0I8_1V7UKRc

zEKHiTHvPaY

One thing that comes to mind, in seeing the holes in the other WTC buildings, appearing to be cored out as from a drill:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/docs/9_21_pic08.jpg

is where were the beams shot from? Plane, drone, satellite, space station? Had to be shot from somewhere! I wonder if anyone has tried to figure this out.

[Sunny-side-up]

Just that one image is amazingly strange 0.o
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/docs/9_21_pic08.jpg
I haven't seen the above image before, the little bridge of building still in place between the 2 cored out holes?
That suggests to me very low impact, really dose look like an energy weapon/phenomena did just vaporize the building, either from above or below?

The whole thing is straight out of a Super hero comic book/film, as if the evil ones demonstrated their powers by hitting the buildings with their advanced civilizations super weapons!
But this really happened?
Not by others, by our own kind, but the psycho, deranged ones of us (So deranged as not to actually be classifiable as humans anymore, if that is they actually ever where!)

The little that was left of the buildings was rapidly gathered and shipped away, not left for analyse, cleared away so fast as if pre-planed!

[Cidersomerset]

Excellent compilation and a new take on building seven for me.

9/11 was the catalyst for many agendas , scams and criminality
that is still being played out in the Middle East from a direct
Neo-Con and others link from pre to post 9/11, to Syria today.

9/11 was definitely an inside job imo !!

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

"Where Did The Towers Go?" - Dr Judy Wood in the UK....Sky 200 TV with Theo Chalmers.

One Step Beyond TV show with Theo Chalmers on SKY 200 in the U.K..25 /10/2011

bmmQ6OWMHTI

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?41614-Where-Did-The-Towers-Go-Dr-Judy-Wood-in-the-UK....Sky-200-TV-with-Theo-Chalmers.&p=438224#post438224

I have just found this interview Judy Wood gave to Theo Chalmers I have not seen
it before should be interresting....Cheers Steve







===================================================
===================================================


‘BBC covering up the truth on 9/11’...... // ......Face to Face - Kevin Barrett talks about 9/11 truth

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83012---BBC-covering-up-the-truth-on-9-11--......-......Face-to-Face-Kevin-Barrett-talks-about-9-11-truth

[Eram]

Didn't a large part of the structure just fell into the basement?
There where testimonials from people who claimed that bombs went of there.

I haven't read her book yet, but from what was shown in the 5 vids, I cannot conclude that the buildings simply dustified by means of a free energy device.
Two particular shots of steel structures/beams that where presented as vaporizing in mid air could just as easily (and most probably) have been swallowed by the dust, clouding it from the eyes vision.

Thermite and explosives (maybe even nuclear,which would account for some pulverization) are still my main suspects, but hey, most of the physical evidence is destroyed by now, so we will probably never know what really happened. :(

[EWO]

I know this does not explain all the missing debris but I think the dust which spread out thick for blocks would account for a lot of that debris.
Its like when a volcano blows up and you wonder where did half the mountain go, well its the ash everywhere.

[Sunny-side-up]

I know this does not explain all the missing debris but I think the dust which spread out thick for blocks would account for a lot of that debris.
Its like when a volcano blows up and you wonder where did half the mountain go, well its the ash everywhere.

One thing about your reply there EWO is:
How did it all turn into dust in the first place?

[TargeT]

I know this does not explain all the missing debris but I think the dust which spread out thick for blocks would account for a lot of that debris.
Its like when a volcano blows up and you wonder where did half the mountain go, well its the ash everywhere.

That's kind of exactly the point of what they are saying.... that the buildings turned to dust.

there's some pretty good little video clips in this presentation of what we are told are steel beams reaching to around 700ft (and knowing the construction of the towers, they are the outer columns) disappearing, turning to dust.

the problem here is that steel should not turn to dust, 110 stories of a building collapsing leaves a pile of beams usualy... youtube a few skyscraper demo's.. even a small building leaves a "pile" when controlled demo is used, there were no perceivable "piles" after 9/11.

Example:
B7F6yafDC5g

and that's just 17 stories.



here's 11 stories coming down, pile is probably 15-20ft high?
SY3o3YYfqys

[Andrew]

Didn't a large part of the structure just fell into the basement?
There where testimonials from people who claimed that bombs went of there.

I haven't read her book yet, but from what was shown in the 5 vids, I cannot conclude that the buildings simply dustified by means of a free energy device.
Two particular shots of steel structures/beams that where presented as vaporizing in mid air could just as easily (and most probably) have been swallowed by the dust, clouding it from the eyes vision.

Thermite and explosives (maybe even nuclear,which would account for some pulverization) are still my main suspects, but hey, most of the physical evidence is destroyed by now, so we will probably never know what really happened. :(

Not sure the basement was that big.

You can clearly see girders flying out away from the dust and dustifying.

As for the Thermite, not sure about that either, the picture with a girder cut at an angle could of been done with a standard cutting torch and the photo taken after work men had already begun removing what was left over.

[TargeT]

You can clearly see girders flying out away from the dust and dustifying.

As for the Thermite, not sure about that either, the picture with a girder cut at an angle could of been done with a standard cutting torch and the photo taken after work men had already begun removing what was left over.

Perhaps both were used? Maybe this was the first large scale use and contingencies were put in place... OR maybe termite WAS used specifically to catch up the "alt media" & misdirect... who knows?


I'm not so sure this is evidence of free energy, but it maybe.

[EWO]

I know this does not explain all the missing debris but I think the dust which spread out thick for blocks would account for a lot of that debris.
Its like when a volcano blows up and you wonder where did half the mountain go, well its the ash everywhere.

One thing about your reply there EWO is:
How did it all turn into dust in the first place?

I didnt say it all turned to dust. I think a lot of the concrete did. You can see it being generated as the building was coming down. As for the metal, it would have to be melted by high heat from thermite or perhaps the nuclear source.
Melted metal would not have been sticking out of the ground but rather spread out on the bottom, which would explain the fires that continued to burn after wards.

Im curious what did the cleanup crew remove afterwards. Was it trucks full of mostly melted metal and other debris that could not turn to dust.

[TargeT]

I didnt say it all turned to dust. I think a lot of the concrete did. You can see it being generated as the building was coming down.

It actually was coming out of (just one side) of the building for HOURS before it WTC1 fell, just a constant huge cloud of dust for hours from every single inch of 110 stories (ground to top floor)... that's a LOT of mass removal in a very strange fashion.



As for the metal, it would have to be melted by high heat from thermite or perhaps the nuclear source.

The suposition by Dr wood is that a directed energy weapon was used on the building to destabilize the matter (make steel "dustify" breaking apart the molecular bonds as it were...)... what we saw could have been a large scale test of a weapon system.


Melted metal would not have been sticking out of the ground but rather spread out on the bottom, which would explain the fires that continued to burn after wards.


the fires that burned in the sub basement was certainly caused by molten steel, the temps were too hot for anything else... was that a part of the directed energy thing? I dunno, I haven't read Dr Wood's book; maybe it was from thermite that was used, maybe both were used?

[Cidersomerset]

The first 4 mins show the centre of Building six and how the walls are still up as it
is not that high and I presume the outer structure was still viable. In the top post
vid it said that the smoke coming out of building seven was not due to fire , but
some sort of disintegration of the interior that caused the building to implode on
itself like a controlled demolition. Building seven definitely came down like a
controlled demolition, and whether that was by conventional or a more exotic
method it certainly is still the smoking gun.


a4FkO5ry1uo

Published on 28 Sep 2013


Building 6 was a 1/2 million sq ft building with its core missing on september 11th
2001 , the interior of the building is missing , it was not crushed or on fire ,no nano
thermite , no mini nukes , or explosions the walls are intact the basement is intact
the only thing that stands out is cardboard and wires have little to no damage . I
also cover missing plane flight 93 in Shanksville a borough in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania , and the missing plane flight 77 at the pentagon .and what
Dustification of the world trade center means in layman's terms 11 container ships
of building material not counting all the office furniture , computers , desk , doors ,
filing cabinets etc etc turned to dust in 11 seconds like magic or science . You will
not hear Richard Gage A&E911 truth architect and engineers talk about this , you
will not hear Dr Steve Jones talking about building 6 . You will not hear scholars for
911 truth talking about world trade center 6 in media , you will not hear the crazys
at veterans today explaining world trade center six , nor main stream media
mention WTC 6 . I,v never heard alternative media like David Icke , Jeff Rense , red
ice creations , Alex Jones, infowars , prison planet , drudge report or any media
anywhere talking about this or showing it , maybe they don,t realize but they will
have to at some point . The only people asking questions and promoting these facts
is Dr Judy Wood . Everyone else is hanging on to and promoting nano thermite and
they refuse to consider another narrative , building six is something they never had
to consider until now . It should be interesting as this video finds its way out to
them and they have to reconsider something else turned the towers and world
trade center complex into dust is something that should be considered a priority
now . Going where the evidence leads , is the easiest and ethical path to take .



https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/building-6/

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

http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/images/stories/911jetfuel2.jpg
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc301/unclesam10/911%20Pictures/wtcanyquestions.jpg
http://www.the-office.com/filingcabinet.jpg
http://www.the-office.com/disclosureproject-1.htm

[Eram]

That's kind of exactly the point of what they are saying.... that the buildings turned to dust.

there's some pretty good little video clips in this presentation of what we are told are steel beams reaching to around 700ft (and knowing the construction of the towers, they are the outer columns) disappearing, turning to dust.

the problem here is that steel should not turn to dust, 110 stories of a building collapsing leaves a pile of beams usualy...


You can clearly see girders flying out away from the dust and dustifying.

Hi Target and Andrew, maybe it is a bit too much to ask, but could you point me toward the section(s) of the 5 vids that have you convinced that steal beams are being dustified in mid air? Maybe even with a direction in what part of the screen the beam can be seen.

When I watch the 5 vids, there are two specific moments in which the commentator says that steal beams are being dustified and this is not the first thing that comes to mind when I watch those specific scenes.

z0L_UgFnGhM

1) At min 3:45 you see a part of the outer column at the top of the building fall down, allegedly turning into dust.
But if you look closely to the surrounding of that falling part of outer column, is it not more logical to assume that this part of column is falling into clouds of dust that are beneath it, being pushed outward, forming a cloud of dust in which this column gets obscured from vision?

2) At min 4:40 you see a still standing part of the outer column beginning to fall down in it's own footprint.
If you take into account that seconds before, a whole skyscraper has fallen down next to it, it would be logical to assume that there have been a lot of dust particles settling down onto the still standing outer column. When this part of the outer column starts to fall down, the laws of physics dictate that the inertia of the dust particles on top of it would take a longer time to fall down. So when I see this scene, I deduct that this section of the outer column falls down into its own footprint and the dust particles on top of it eventually obscure it from vision, creating an illusion of it turning into dust.
In this youtube, the same section coming down is shown from different angles and at the 0:40 minute part, it is more clear to see that it is actually falling down, without turning into dust.
7W0-W582fNQ
btw: There is another truther/researchers who's name now escapes me (something like Dan Beagle) who used this exact scene as evidence that nukes where used, also claiming that this section of the building turned to dust. :P

In fact, most of what was left of the towers where the steel columns. This can easily be verified by some searching in the web.


As for the Thermite, not sure about that either

Well, dust samples that where collected at the scene contained nano particles of molten metal, which is a smoking gun for the
presence of thermite.
a source (http://911review.com/evidence/wtc_explosives.html)

Maybe she makes a better case for the existence of a free energy device in her book, but from these vids, I can only deduct that the evidence is flawed to say the least.

[TargeT]

btw: There is another truther/researchers who's name now escapes me (something like Dan Beagle) who used this exact scene as evidence that nukes where used, also claiming that this section of the building turned to dust. :P

In fact, most of what was left of the towers where the steel columns. This can easily be verified by some searching in the web.


As for the Thermite, not sure about that either

Well, dust samples that where collected at the scene contained nano particles of molten metal, which is a smoking gun for the
presence of thermite.
a source (http://911review.com/evidence/wtc_explosives.html)

Maybe she makes a better case for the existence of a free energy device in her book, but from these vids, I can only deduct that the evidence is flawed to say the least.

Nukes would make much more sense to me, this "particle beam" stuff is a bit fantastic for me... BUT, the lack of glass and toilets and file cabinets are pretty interesting & not as explained by nuclear explosion.

I agree the "beams turning to dust" on video wasn't conclusive, though interesting when mixed with this "beam" idea... but definitely not proof of anything.

"free energy" seems like a huge leap even if there is some "beam" used...

I won't be buying the book ;)

[ThePythonicCow]

The same person who willingly (not stolen) provided Rebekah Roth with some 600 GBytes (on a terabyte drive) of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data also provided me with that FOIA data. In addition, that person provided me with some images of the World Trade Center area. One of the images was a 4262x4620 pixel high resolution aerial shot of the World Trade Center, soon after 9/11.

Here's a cropped and reduced resolution version of that image. The orange lines are clearly distinguished as cranes in the higher resolution images linked further down. North is to the right, the Hudson river is just visible to the west (top).


http://thepythoniccow.us/wtc_aerial_800x867.jpg

===

Here's that image, further shrunk, with the (former) buildings labeled:

http://thepythoniccow.us/wtc_aerial_labeled_500x500.jpg
You can observe that WTC 6 got a major hole blown out of its middle, that the south (left) half of WTC 4 is gone, and that all of WTC 3 is gone, in addition to WTC 1, 2 and 7.

===

Here's a link to the full resolution image, cropped to just the 4262x4620 pixels near the WTC (6.5 Mbytes):

http://thepythoniccow.us/wtc_aerial_4262x4620.jpg

===

Here's a link to the entire image, same full resolution, but a wider area, 9372x9372 pixels (14.7 Mbytes):

http://thepythoniccow.us/wtc_aerial_large_area.jpg

[Carmody]

btw: There is another truther/researchers who's name now escapes me (something like Dan Beagle) who used this exact scene as evidence that nukes where used, also claiming that this section of the building turned to dust. :P

In fact, most of what was left of the towers where the steel columns. This can easily be verified by some searching in the web.


As for the Thermite, not sure about that either

Well, dust samples that where collected at the scene contained nano particles of molten metal, which is a smoking gun for the
presence of thermite.
a source (http://911review.com/evidence/wtc_explosives.html)

Maybe she makes a better case for the existence of a free energy device in her book, but from these vids, I can only deduct that the evidence is flawed to say the least.

Nukes would make much more sense to me, this "particle beam" stuff is a bit fantastic for me... BUT, the lack of glass and toilets and file cabinets are pretty interesting & not as explained by nuclear explosion.

I agree the "beams turning to dust" on video wasn't conclusive, though interesting when mixed with this "beam" idea... but definitely not proof of anything.

"free energy" seems like a huge leap even if there is some "beam" used...

I won't be buying the book ;)

Copper wire under high voltage and current loading, over time.... will lose approximately 2 percent of it's mass, and go brittle.

Most electricians are aware of the brittleness factor of copper with a history of extreme loading... and some are aware of the loss of mass aspect. Some outside of the electrical trades are aware of this.

Few pay attention to the seemingly 'pure anomaly' aspect of this data point.

One of those things that is sort of quietly known by some, but never talked about.

It IS possible for a strong enough flash of particular kinds of energy to break the bonding in the cement. MAYBE. But it would probably fry every bit of neural, chemical,and muscular (etc) structure in a biological, within many city blocks. We'd of probably heard stories of spontaneous combustion and whatnot. The radiation breaching the entire vertical building structure, is probably not going to be happening.

We do know that the buildings were basically condemned and it would have taken more expenditure to properly remove the asbestos in the building complex -----than the building complex was worth, if it had no asbestos in it. They were collectively known as one of the (if not the) greatest money pit white elephants in all landholding-building 'for sale' history.

Anyone touching the buildings could not even afford to have the buildings plus a billion dollars given them..to buy the complex, as the cost of asbestos removal was well into the billions of cost and it was mandated that it had to be done. IIRC the port authority had the buildings in hand an no single buyer was ever going to be found, in any part of the world..... as the entire complex was built like a bomb that would kill any company or person who ever touched it.

And suddenly Silverstien buys the complex.

Which is utter complete bull****, so we know ---- just from the sales angle alone, that it was an inside job.

[TargeT]

Copper wire under high voltage and current loading, over time.... will lose approximately 2 percent of it's mass, and go brittle.

Most electricians are aware of the brittleness factor of copper with a history of extreme loading... and some are aware of the loss of mass aspect. Some outside of the electrical trades are aware of this.

Few pay attention to the seemingly 'pure anomaly' aspect of this data point.

One of those things that is sort of quietly known by some, but never talked about.

well, copper (like most metals) work hardens & putting current through a line heats (which expands the metal) more during peek useage and less in the middle of the night (when it is also generally colder, which exacerbates the expansion /contraction of the copper).

so IMO, that easily explains the situation.

I've also used high voltage to "vaporize" copper and deposit it onto another surface (not as good as electroplating, but hey... I have a garage, not a lab!) I'm sure during these heavy load situations some of the copper is kicked free due to the expansion/contraction but I would have to further test for this to be satisfied that is the cause.




It IS possible for a strong enough flash of particular kinds of energy to break the bonding in the cement. MAYBE. But it would probably fry every bit of neural, chemical,and muscular (etc) structure in a biological, within many city blocks. We'd of probably heard stories of spontaneous combustion and whatnot. The radiation breaching the entire vertical building structure, is probably not going to be happening.

We do know that the buildings were basically condemned and it would have taken more expenditure to properly remove the asbestos in the building complex -----than the building complex was worth, if it had no asbestos in it. They were collectively known as one of the (if not the) greatest money pit white elephants in all landholding-building 'for sale' history.

Anyone touching the buildings could not even afford to have the buildings plus a billion dollars given them..to buy the complex, as the cost of asbestos removal was well into the billions of cost and it was mandated that it had to be done. IIRC the port authority had the buildings in hand an no single buyer was ever going to be found, in any part of the world..... as the entire complex was built like a bomb that would kill any company or person who ever touched it.

And suddenly Silverstien buys the complex.

Which is utter complete bull****, so we know ---- just from the sales angle alone, that it was an inside job.

yes, this was clearly a planned event with many many benefits for those who planned it (investigative documents lost, buildings that were condemned removed, wars started, more laws passed...) analyzing the move from 15 years later makes it seem like we are 5 year olds trying to play chess with a master & we are just now realizing what happened 15 moves ago.

[Carmody]

I was talking about all this in 2005, and earlier.

Right in the middle of a fairly influential eastern seaboard/mid-south neocon repub nouveau-riche hangout area (a forum).

I was like a member who had a multi-year history of being one of the guys .....who seemingly suddenly went bad on them.

I managed to ignore most of their specious projected ideological crap, but then one of them went and started a few threads in late 2004 and early 2005, about how god had to bless the US soldiers in Iraq......and I blew a gasket. I started to pile on the data, all perfected, clean, delivered emotionlessly, and so on, right into their same said threads until I owned them and pwned any attempt to show me how wrong I was.....

So much so, so well done.... that some of it managed to creep into the way the Rense.com site was run.

So, yeah, I picked up some attention at the time.... and it is possible that the level of awareness in today's world, that some small part of it is possibly due to my writings from back in 2005.

(but we've had this conversation before)

My point is that the threat delivered to individuals who speak out, is tied to how close to the original event they are in time, and how they speak out, how well they speak out and how the flow of information they present ...how that data travels and influences.

This was obvious to me back in 2005, and how big and powerful the given group had, as a grip, on the entire US and even international apparatus. In 2016, there are far far too many targets to try and bother with, when it comes to going after those who speak out or parrot any 9/11 data. In 2004-2005, it was quite different.

In 2005...The event was a very near history and the perpetrators very much had their hand firmly in the cookie jar with jam all over their faces. Which made it a far more dangerous time to speak out loud.

[oildrops]

I actually never looked at the videos this way before and it's like a light switch went off in my minds eye. Now when I see the footage it immediately looks like a kind of energy beam used from above. Was George Noory speaking on those videos. I love Noory, but .. . . http://coast-to-coast.livejournal.com/178242.html

Some thoughts:

The question is who has this tech
- Another country (China, Russia?)
- E.T. entities using as a threat
- What if the force on the buildings is pulling from below, either underground or some form of destructive implosion device.

[TigaHawk]

There are video's where you can see metal beams and cement turn to dust.

Let that sink in - you are seeing metal beams and concrete - turn to dust - in seconds.

Superweapon / New toy the PTB were playing with? I very much think so!

[DeDukshyn]

There are video's where you can see metal beams and cement turn to dust.

Let that sink in - you are seeing metal beams and concrete - turn to dust - in seconds.

Superweapon / New toy the PTB were playing with? I very much think so!

There is a higher res version of this video somewhere on youtube, but even @ 240p you can see an entire support column being vapourised ... (@45+ seconds, and again at about 1:20)

IKKtAlK2Lh0

[winstonsmith]

Steel did not turn to dust.

If it did, what was sold to China?
What did "burners" cut up for months over in the NJ scrap yards?
What were those acres of mountains of wreckage doing there well into April 2002?
What was loaded onto barges crossing the Hudson?
What was loaded onto trucks bound for barges?
What was lifted off the rubble pile by huge cranes, loaders or grapples?
What was cut up on the pile with acetylene torches, thermal lances and chop saws?
What were the armies of first responders scrambling over and into for months?

Some of the steel ended up mixed into "meteorites." The volume is unknown at this time.

See PDF page 40 for the quantity of steel wreckage that was transported away from Ground Zero.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Debris_An_Investigation_of_Ground_Zero_by_Matt_Nelson.pdf

https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/382-9-11-debris-an-investigation-of-ground-zero.html

[ThePythonicCow]

What did "burners" cut up for months over in the NJ scrap yards?
The remaining parts of the buildings that were not dustified the morning of 9/11 :).

And how do we know how much steel was sent to China ... I am unaware of any reports on that matter that I would trust any further than I could throw Chris Christie.

Here's another closer view, from a side angle, of the WTC site, shortly after 9/11. The million tons of concrete and steel that were in the main two towers are simply, almost entirely, not there. Those towers were massive. The opening post of this thread gives one an idea of their size. I have been in and around the WTC towers. Massive. What should have been perhaps a 20 story pile of debris is hardly a 1 story pile where the two towers were. Most of the remaining debris is from the other buildings in the World Trade Center.

http://thepythoniccow.us/WTC_All.jpg

===

Here's closer up views of WTC 5 and WTC 6. A partial view of WTC 7 shows behind WTC 6, and what remained of the first few stories of WTC 1's northwest corner facade shows in front of WTC 6. These remains presumably provided most of the steel to cut up and ship off.

http://thepythoniccow.us/WTC_5.jpg

http://thepythoniccow.us/WTC_6.jpg

[TargeT]

I have been in and around the WTC towers. Massive. What should have been perhaps a 20 story pile of debris is hardly a 1 story pile.

http://thepythoniccow.us/WTC_All.jpg


That 11 story building I posted a "controlled demo" video of left a pile almost 2 stories high.... extrapolate that to 110 stories and 20 sounds pretty damn close to me ;)



110 stories is not massive, it's INCONCEIVABLE to someone who has not lived in a major city... there are not that many 100+ story buildings in the US.

[ThePythonicCow]

110 stories is not massive, it's INCONCEIVABLE to someone who has not lived in a major city... there are not that many 100+ story buildings in the US.
The twin towers were build more massively than is common for such tall buildings. The lower levels were dense with concrete and steel, to hold the weight of the upper levels, and the upper levels did not taper down to something more narrow, but kept their full width all the way up.

I had driven into Manhattan from New Jersey both before and after the towers were built. The first time I drove in after the towers were built, while still perhaps ten miles away in New Jersey, across the river, it took my breath away. Those two towers absolutely dominated the lower Manhattan skyline, the home to what had once been the world's tallest building, the Empire State building, which could hardly be seen from that distance and angle.

[ThePythonicCow]

Here's another closer view, from a side angle, of the WTC site, shortly after 9/11. The million tons of concrete and steel that were in the main two towers are simply, almost entirely, not there. Those towers were massive. The opening post of this thread gives one an idea of their size. I have been in and around the WTC towers. Massive. What should have been perhaps a 20 story pile of debris is hardly a 1 story pile where the two towers were. Most of the remaining debris is from the other buildings in the World Trade Center.
Find WTC 6 in the image posted just below the above comment. See my close up of WTC 6, later in that same post, or see my "map" of where each WTC building was, that I posted above in Post #16 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?88490-The-sheer-volume-of-concrete-and-steel-that-simply-vanished-on-9-11&p=1041413&viewfull=1#post1041413).

WTC 6 was (and partially remained at) 8 stories tall.

Now find the smoking holes where WTC 1 and 2 were, in that same image posted above.

The remains of WTC 1 and 2 are far lower than the 8 stories of WTC 6 ... not 2 or 3 times higher as would have been the case if their million tons of concrete and steel were still mostly piled up in the WTC complex.

There is an obvious difference between a 1 or 2 story pile of debris, and a 20 story pile of debris, and the comparison with the 8 story WTC 6 makes it obvious that the WTC 1 and 2 debris pile is closer to 1 or 2 than it is to 20.

As Judy Wood would famously ask: "Where did the towers go?"

(Special thanks again to the anonymous donor to me of lots of FOIA data and other images. I have higher resolution versions of the above images, if someone wants them.)

[Eram]

The remains of WTC 1 and 2 are far lower than the 8 stories of WTC 6 ... not 2 or 3 times higher as would have been the case if their million tons of concrete and steel were still mostly piled up in the WTC complex.

There is an obvious difference between a 1 or 2 story pile of debris, and a 20 story pile of debris, and the comparison with the 8 story WTC 6 makes it obvious that the WTC 1 and 2 debris pile is closer to 1 or 2 than it is to 20.

As Judy Wood would famously ask: "Where did the towers go?"

(Special thanks again to the anonymous donor to me of lots of FOIA data and other images. I have higher resolution versions of the above images, if someone wants them.)

I'm not so sure that there should be a pile of ruble about 20 stories high from the ground level up Paul.
Remember that the basement of the wtc buildings was about 45ft deep and that much of the steel columns fell outward instead of into their own footprint and ended up scattered all over the area as is clearly visible in the superb pictures that you shared here.

I do agree that at first, it looks weird to see two massive buildings like that crumble up without a massive pile (20 stories high) of ruble as an end result, but if you add these two facts (45ft basement and outward projection of outer columns) then it becomes more of a probability no?

[6pounder]

i think that will be a way to look at WHY it was done this way (dustification):

you need a false flag event to invade some countries in the middle east and on the way make some profit BUT(and a big but) you dont want to make too much mess to take care of afterwards.... so how would you destroy such a big infrastructure without taking down 5 blocks with it?... im looking at it from a perspective of a rescue officer (my army spacialization). ive been in enough staged rubble sites of demolished buildings and i know very well how much rubble and mess can be left only from a 3 story building. when i look at the pictures that was presented by Paul i see one funny thing, and is that all you need to do to clean that kind of rubble site is a vacume cleaner and a magnet crane.

when buildings fall there are certin types of collapse's that we in the military used to categorize the level of destruction. but this kind of site doesnt fall in to any category.... if it was what the MSM said it was then in those pictures you would see way more colleteral damage then presented.

[ThePythonicCow]

Remember that the basement of the wtc buildings was about 45ft deep
That 45 ft would be about 4 stories, or about 22 stories worth of pre-collapsed material, at best, had the basements been mostly empty. We're still missing some place to put at least 88 stories worth of material.

The proportion of concrete and steel below ground, in those basement levels, would have been even higher than above ground, to support the 110 stories above ground, so would have provided, and from all I've seen did provide, even less room for ruble from above to collapse into the basement levels than did the above ground levels.

Everything I have ever seen of the demise of WTC 1 and 2 shows these towers dustifying.

Nothing I have ever seen shows anything remotely resembling their million tons of concrete and steel in the resulting debris pile.

[6pounder]

my gf said it reminds her of this:

3d6vgGVqok4

[Ewan]

Steel did not turn to dust.

If it did, what was sold to China?
What did "burners" cut up for months over in the NJ scrap yards?
What were those acres of mountains of wreckage doing there well into April 2002?
What was loaded onto barges crossing the Hudson?
What was loaded onto trucks bound for barges?
What was lifted off the rubble pile by huge cranes, loaders or grapples?
What was cut up on the pile with acetylene torches, thermal lances and chop saws?
What were the armies of first responders scrambling over and into for months?

Some of the steel ended up mixed into "meteorites." The volume is unknown at this time.

See PDF page 40 for the quantity of steel wreckage that was transported away from Ground Zero.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Debris_An_Investigation_of_Ground_Zero_by_Matt_Nelson.pdf

https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/382-9-11-debris-an-investigation-of-ground-zero.html

Why was the remaining steel, and all debris, quickly gathered up and shipped off when it should have been evidence in a forensic crime scene?

[Andrew]

btw: There is another truther/researchers who's name now escapes me (something like Dan Beagle) who used this exact scene as evidence that nukes where used, also claiming that this section of the building turned to dust. :P

In fact, most of what was left of the towers where the steel columns. This can easily be verified by some searching in the web.


As for the Thermite, not sure about that either

Well, dust samples that where collected at the scene contained nano particles of molten metal, which is a smoking gun for the
presence of thermite.
a source (http://911review.com/evidence/wtc_explosives.html)

Maybe she makes a better case for the existence of a free energy device in her book, but from these vids, I can only deduct that the evidence is flawed to say the least.

Nukes would make much more sense to me, this "particle beam" stuff is a bit fantastic for me... BUT, the lack of glass and toilets and file cabinets are pretty interesting & not as explained by nuclear explosion.

I agree the "beams turning to dust" on video wasn't conclusive, though interesting when mixed with this "beam" idea... but definitely not proof of anything.

"free energy" seems like a huge leap even if there is some "beam" used...

I won't be buying the book ;)

Copper wire under high voltage and current loading, over time.... will lose approximately 2 percent of it's mass, and go brittle.

Most electricians are aware of the brittleness factor of copper with a history of extreme loading... and some are aware of the loss of mass aspect. Some outside of the electrical trades are aware of this.

Few pay attention to the seemingly 'pure anomaly' aspect of this data point.

One of those things that is sort of quietly known by some, but never talked about.

It IS possible for a strong enough flash of particular kinds of energy to break the bonding in the cement. MAYBE. But it would probably fry every bit of neural, chemical,and muscular (etc) structure in a biological, within many city blocks. We'd of probably heard stories of spontaneous combustion and whatnot. The radiation breaching the entire vertical building structure, is probably not going to be happening.

We do know that the buildings were basically condemned and it would have taken more expenditure to properly remove the asbestos in the building complex -----than the building complex was worth, if it had no asbestos in it. They were collectively known as one of the (if not the) greatest money pit white elephants in all landholding-building 'for sale' history.

Anyone touching the buildings could not even afford to have the buildings plus a billion dollars given them..to buy the complex, as the cost of asbestos removal was well into the billions of cost and it was mandated that it had to be done. IIRC the port authority had the buildings in hand an no single buyer was ever going to be found, in any part of the world..... as the entire complex was built like a bomb that would kill any company or person who ever touched it.

And suddenly Silverstien buys the complex.

Which is utter complete bull****, so we know ---- just from the sales angle alone, that it was an inside job.

There was stories and some footage somewhere of sudden spontanouus combustion happening.

John Hutchison also demonstrated this with his experiments I believe.

I think you will find the demonstration and evidence in this video by Andrew Johnson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUnI6HzvPFk

[winstonsmith]

Steel did not turn to dust.

If it did, what was sold to China?
What did "burners" cut up for months over in the NJ scrap yards?
What were those acres of mountains of wreckage doing there well into April 2002?
What was loaded onto barges crossing the Hudson?
What was loaded onto trucks bound for barges?
What was lifted off the rubble pile by huge cranes, loaders or grapples?
What was cut up on the pile with acetylene torches, thermal lances and chop saws?
What were the armies of first responders scrambling over and into for months?

Some of the steel ended up mixed into "meteorites." The volume is unknown at this time.

See PDF page 40 for the quantity of steel wreckage that was transported away from Ground Zero.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Debris_An_Investigation_of_Ground_Zero_by_Matt_Nelson.pdf

https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/382-9-11-debris-an-investigation-of-ground-zero.html

Why was the remaining steel, and all debris, quickly gathered up and shipped off when it should have been evidence in a forensic crime scene?

What would you have them do? Leave everything in place and dissect it surgically? The engineers didn't get into gear until OCT 5th, save for a couple who were called in to determine where giant cranes could set up safely.

The steel was cut up into manageable lengths and wholesale carting began almost immediately, even before WTC7 fell at 5:20.

I think everyone reading this thread should watch the NIST videos that show the scene immediately after the towers collapsed. You will see piles four or five stories above grade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdWeQ1aca0I

One must consider that the subgrade levels were at least 70 feet deep, so large quantities could have been crushed down into that space that used to be the plaza, concourse and underground parking. The point is that the towers were EXploded, sending debris upwards of 300 feet away from the footprint in some locations.

The concrete slabs did not provide structural support for the towers, aside from some limited amount of lateral stability. The steel was raised many floors above where the first concrete was poured for office or mechanical floors.

The steel was thickest near the foundation and was much thinner near the roof. The plates that were welded together to create the exterior panels also varied considerably in thickness. The core columns near the base had plates 4"
thick and were box shaped, while the upper core structure were thinner I or H shapes.

All of the specifications for floor elevations in the subgrade can be found on-line. You can view the floors of the towers as well. See here.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html

I agree that more could have been done to save interesting pieces from the scrap yards. A few did attract attention, thankfully.

[Ewan]

Wow! I never knew they began moving debris so quickly. That fact in itself seems amazing, I wouldn't expect that to be one of the first things they'd decide to do.

Here's a picture showing that there really wasn't much volume to upper floors.

https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Fshardsofsilence.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F11%2Famazing-picture-of-the-world-trade-centre-twin-towers-being-built-in-new-york.jpg&sp=25f4df835a9eb3470c922355dfbc064b

That does not detract from a video showing what appears to be a steel beam turning to dust. I don't buy the beam weapon, but given various accounts of paint blistered cars and molten steel underground i wouldn't rule out other technologies.

[ThePythonicCow]

I think everyone reading this thread should watch the NIST videos that show the scene immediately after the towers collapsed. You will see piles four or five stories above grade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdWeQ1aca0I
Would that four or five story pile (still not the 22 expected) be the southwest corner of WTC 3, and/or the northeast corner of WTC 1, a few stories of each of which remained partially standing, in one corner each.

I can't say for sure, of course, but the opening few minutes of that video might be of the northeast corner of WTC 1, after they had partially knocked out the side of WTC 6 closest to WTC 1. If so, the workers watching the cranes work would be standing at roughly street level, where the primary WTC 1 debris pile would have been, had the building collapsed, mostly in place.


The point is that the towers were EXploded, sending debris upwards of 300 feet away from the footprint in some locations.
Yes - some debris exploded sideways. That's one of the complexities of this analysis. It seems that several mechanisms were used to put on this show. We should not ask whether it was mechanism A, B, or C that destroyed the towers, but rather which mechanism provided the most substantial portion of the destructive energy.

[DeDukshyn]

Steel did not turn to dust.



Mainstream media even disagrees with you ... :)

rFP9lj32EvM

[ThePythonicCow]

Yes - some debris exploded sideways.
Of course, even that explosive power, that sent large steel beams sideways at high velocity, might not have been generated by conventional explosives.

Anyway you look at it, the amount of energy that it takes to generate that much fine dust, from that much steel and concrete, that fast (10 or 11 seconds per tower) is immense ... truly immense.

Try breaking a concrete block into talcum powder fine dust with a sledge hammer. The finer you try to get the dust, the more energy you will expend, and the more chemical/molecular bonds you will need to break.

Whatever generated those two massive dust clouds did an awesome amount of work (in the physics sense of "work" -- energy expended) in a very short period of time.

[TargeT]

Whatever generated those two massive dust clouds did an awesome amount of work (in the physics sense of "work" -- energy expended) in a very short period of time.

I'm not very deep into the Dr Wood material, how does she account for the explosions?

[ThePythonicCow]

I'm not very deep into the Dr Wood material, how does she account for the explosions?
I don't recall, to be honest. Her focus is on documenting the primary effect visible in photographs taken that day, one of immense energy and strange effects, over several parts of southern Manhattan.

My view is that other, secondary, mechanisms were also used, from the time the planes (whatever they were) impacted the towers, until the towers were destroyed.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Steel did not turn to dust.

If it did, what was sold to China?
What did "burners" cut up for months over in the NJ scrap yards?
What were those acres of mountains of wreckage doing there well into April 2002?
What was loaded onto barges crossing the Hudson?
What was loaded onto trucks bound for barges?
What was lifted off the rubble pile by huge cranes, loaders or grapples?
What was cut up on the pile with acetylene torches, thermal lances and chop saws?
What were the armies of first responders scrambling over and into for months?

Some of the steel ended up mixed into "meteorites." The volume is unknown at this time.

See PDF page 40 for the quantity of steel wreckage that was transported away from Ground Zero.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Debris_An_Investigation_of_Ground_Zero_by_Matt_Nelson.pdf

https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/382-9-11-debris-an-investigation-of-ground-zero.html

As others have answered, only a tiny, tiny amount of steel was left behind in this destruction. I've been in these towers and up them several times, and as Paul said, they are (were, sadly) truly enormous.

It's important to take into consideration a great deal more evidence, suggesting something very weird happened on this site. It was not a normal collapse in my opinion, or even a normal demolition. Consider Woods' theory on the 'Holes', where a series of circular voids are just punched into numerous areas of the surrounding structures. What force could have created them? These mock-ups I did shows them more clearly. (thanks to Paul for the original images)

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x120/Gwyndor/wtc_holes2_temp1_zps0rqodegd.gif~original

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x120/Gwyndor/wtc_holes-temp1_zps7acxal00.gif~original

Could some sort of space-based energy weapon have inflicted this damage? Maybe this theory explains the absence of debris on the ground. It was zapped into oblivion and/or dustified.

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x120/Gwyndor/wtc_holes3_zpsxi4ecumn.gif~original


As another example, the burned out cars.

This ambulance, burned out nearly completely on the inside rather than the outside.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image156.jpg

A wrecked cop car - but only partially. Why is one half of the car burned to cinders, and the rear in tact?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image11.jpg

A whole series of burned out and flattened cars, parked on FDR Drive, approximately half a mile away from the WTC. What caused that?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/21.jpg

More cars, and another police car, again half burned/crushed, half in tact. Also no where near the WTC, and presumably protected from fallout anyway, being underneath an elevated overpass.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/policecar3.jpg

More evidence is presented at Judy Woods website: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html

[ThePythonicCow]

I can't say for sure, of course, but the opening few minutes of that video might be of the northeast corner of WTC 1, after they had partially knocked out the side of WTC 6 closest to WTC 1. If so, the workers watching the cranes work would be standing at roughly street level, where the primary WTC 1 debris pile would have been, had the building collapsed, mostly in place.
Look at the section from 7 mins to 10 mins in your video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdWeQ1aca0I, winstonsmith.

It seems to me that is the inside of WTC 6, perhaps even after some of the south side of it, closest to WTC 1, was removed, exposing the inside of the "hole" that was punched into WTC 6 on 9/11. One can see part of the south side of WTC 6, torn down, at 3m46s in the video, more so than it was torn down on the day of 9/11.

===

P.S. -- on closer examination of the higher resolution image that I linked in my Post #16 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?88490-The-sheer-volume-of-concrete-and-steel-that-simply-vanished-on-9-11&p=1041413&viewfull=1#post1041413), above, I see that the southwest corner of WTC 6 might have had its exterior destroyed on or soon after the day of 9/11, so that could mean that the destruction to the exterior of WTC 6 that is visible your video was originally caused on 9/11, not by subsequent demolition work.

Sorry.

But I do remain increasingly convinced that the 4 or 5 story pile of ruble that I see being worked in the first 10 minutes (as far as I've watched so far) of your video is the northeast corner of WTC 1, which was not leveled to the ground on 9/11 like the rest of the two towers.

[ThePythonicCow]

At 27:15 in your video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdWeQ1aca0I, winstonsmith, I see the sign for the famous Stairway B, Floor 9, of the North Tower (http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/), where 16 people miraculously survived.

[Eram]

In this part 2 of 4 youtubes of footage shot just before and after the event, you can see a street full of partly burnt and damaged cars.
Starting at the beginning of the youtube.

59ZnibMxHxU

There's a lot of footage actually, if you follow the links to other youtubes from NIST and FDNY etc.
Very interesting and educative (since it is not footage that is usually shown in the regular 911 truth movement) to get a bit of a feel for the context surrounding the collapses.

[tomfellows]

I want to make an important point.

To sum up.
The argument goes: Where did the all the rubble go ?
Looking at the pictures of the WTC site, it's clear that there should
be hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble at the scene.
This quantity of rubble is surprisingly absent.

Viewing footage of the disaster again, it's clear to see that the falling towers
seem to be fading away before our eyes, seemingly disintegrating into dust.
Dr Judy Wood calls this dustification.


My contribution to this is as follows:

My argument is: Where did all the *dust* go ?
We know there should be hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble.
If most of the rubble of both towers were dustified,
then there should be hundreds of thousands of tons of dust.

Imagine you had a "distify" gizmo that turned steel and concrete into dust within seconds.
For example's sake, let's say the building weighed 500,000 tons.
If we dustify the building, we expect 500,000 tons of dust.
There should be a small mountain of dust at the scene.
Ground Zero should caked in dust several storeys high,
And there should be meters high of dust for hundreds of yards, all around the site.
Remember that this is dust from the concrete and steel of two enormous buildings,
both over 100 storeys high.

But what we observe, is dust in the vacinity which is only several inches deep.
Repeated for emphasis: only several inches deep.

So where did all the dust go ?
Are we really going to say, the two buildings blew away in the wind ?

In order for a dust cloud containing concrete dust particles to float away
in the wind, the density of the dust cloud must be close to that of regular air
otherwise, it wouldn't float away, it would just sink.

Regular concrete weighs 2,400 kg per meter cubed
(source: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml )

What is the weight of a meter of air (at sea level) ?
Air weighs 1.3kg per cubic meter (surprisingly heavy)
(source: http://www.faqs.org/qa/qa-5922.html)

So in order to give concrete the same density as air, you'd have
to expand it's volume by 1846 times (calculated via: 2400/1.3)

If you dispersed 1 meter cubed of concrete across 1846 meters of air
it probably still wouldn't 'float' very well since it weighs
exactly double the weight of the air around it.
Perhaps dispersing the concrete across 3692 meters (calculated as 2 X 1846)
of air might allow it to float more easily.

From this i conclude:
If the dust of the twin towers simply blew away, then the size
of the dust cloud would have to be in the order of 2000, or 3000
times the volume of the Twin Towers. That's a staggering volume.
That would have put much of New York under the dust cloud.

Judging by eye, looking again at the 9/11 videos, the actual dust cloud
was only 5 to 10 times the volume of the twin towers, not 2000 or 3000 times.
So where did all the dust go ?

I agree that the evidence supports the dustification hypothesis.

I want to suggest that whatever tool or weapon was used,
it not only dustifies steel and concrete, it also destroys it to nothing.

There simply isn't hundreds of thousands of tons of dust at the scene.
And the 'The Twin Towers blew away in the wind' theory, doesn't hold water.

I'm suggesting the concrete and steel was actually annihilated.
Something which modern science says is impossible.

tom.

[ThePythonicCow]

Judging by eye, looking again at the 9/11 videos, the actual dust cloud
was only 5 to 10 times the volume of the twin towers, not 2000 or 3000 times.
Are you referring to this dust cloud:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/pics/browse_c.jpg
Image found on: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin6.html

[Eram]

I've been able to dig into some Judy Wood material now and although much of her claims seem bizarre and even insane, she actually seems to have a case.

She presents a load of very strange anomalies surrounding the collapse of the towers, which indeed could be explained by the Tesla technology.

Here's a youtube in which some of this technology is shown and explained:
TIqIT9avewU

And here is Woods, talking about The Hutchison Effect & 9/11
L5zbTnfGe3E

[DeDukshyn]

Judging by eye, looking again at the 9/11 videos, the actual dust cloud
was only 5 to 10 times the volume of the twin towers, not 2000 or 3000 times.
Are you referring to this dust cloud:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/pics/browse_c.jpg
Image found on: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin6.html

Or ... maybe this one ... ? (from same site) When you think about ... either of these do not look like smoke at all ... definitely more "dust" qualities than smoke ...

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/pics/NewsdayPlume5_b2510.jpg

[Hervé]

Reposting from:
[...]Indeed, where's/was the heat... the kind that burns car engines but spares flying pieces of paper... thata kinda tough one...

... yet, the answer has been staring in me face for all that time and I even wrote it down a number of times... this is a pyroclastic cloud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_rock):


http://41.media.tumblr.com/95a02c1b3457602e798a17b800b10100/tumblr_nqn0i5Tbxh1uzye00o1_1280.jpg

Above picture was taken from Mt.Pinatubo and that vehicle is fleeing from a pyroclastic flow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow)





http://www.pakalertpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/9-11-WTC-Collapses-Compared-To-Nuke-Detonations.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tYUHEpgzOL4/Tmy7utPJhAI/AAAAAAAAAbU/nbSv7IkvA2Y/s1600/436_9_11_Manhatt_75388016x9.jpg.jpg


... you know... Pompeii, Herculaneum, etc... excepted that this one is COLD!

Nobody got burnt...

So, from there it's very simple:

One only needs to find the trick that turns concrete and steel into some kind of brittle popcorn when shoved into a microwave oven since the mode of formation of "pyroclastics" is as follow:
formed when silicic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica) magma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma) is fragmented in the volcanic conduit, because of decompression and the growth of bubblesI guess that only a Carmody would be able to find a way to provoke a cold fragmentation of, and specific to, concrete and steel with the latter reacting to the process with a latent fusion or spontaneous combustion at the edge of the overall phenomenon.

That would explain those (popcorn) "explosions" going down the floors and not quite reaching the basements...

Which also means that I don't buy the nukes and their shell of iron oxides... because:

No heat, no paper burnt, no flesh burnt, only concrete and steel being fragmented without bublification... kind of "frigo"-clastics" rather than "pyro" ones.

[TargeT]

I guess that only a Carmody would be able to find a way to provoke a cold fragmentation of, and specific to, concrete and steel with the latter reacting to the process with a latent fusion or spontaneous combustion at the edge of the overall phenomenon.

Or Hutchison.... I'll have to look more into this hutchison effect (high frequency resonance destabilization)... very interesting.

I'm going to flip my position back to maybe thinking about buying her book.... the Hutchison effect is key to her entire argument; if I had seen it earlier...




No heat, no paper burnt, no flesh burnt, only concrete and steel being fragmented without bublification... kind of "frigo"-clastics" rather than "pyro" ones.


well, certainly SOME heat... like lots and lots and lots of heat underground at least.... so that's going to have to be approached from a different angle I suppose... perhaps thermite was used in conjunction, as the "weakened structure" would still need core columns cut to collapse in a uniform manor, since the evidence of this "beam" or what ever hutchison effect generator was clearly not very well focused.

It makes sense that the Hutchison effect on a non-resonant structure would be very destructive (think microwave+water) but these non-heat flames are very very strange... almost like a cold plasma release after the structure is exposed to the stresses from resonance.

[tomfellows]

Judging by eye, looking again at the 9/11 videos, the actual dust cloud
was only 5 to 10 times the volume of the twin towers, not 2000 or 3000 times.
Are you referring to this dust cloud:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/pics/browse_c.jpg
Image found on: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin6.html

No, i'm not referring to that dust cloud.
That dust cloud is basically the original dust cloud dispersed over a much greater area.

I'm referring to the initially produced dust cloud.
The one that existed within 1 minute of the towers coming down.
That dust cloud doesn't have the volume to carry hundreds of tons of dust.
(If there was hundreds of thousands of tons of dust in that cloud,
there would be mountains of dust on the floor at ground zero)

I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
in it to account for the mass of the buildings.

Showing me pictures of the original dust cloud dispersing is no answer to my argument.

tom.

[DeDukshyn]

I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
in it to account for the mass of the buildings.


Note there is a difference between pulverization and vaporization. I think the argument re: the topic is mostly for the case of vaporization.

[lucidity]

I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
in it to account for the mass of the buildings.


Note there is a difference between pulverization and vaporization. I think the argument re: the topic is mostly for the case of vaporization.

When you vaporise something, you heat it until it turns to a gas.

Dr Judy Wood specifically considered this 'vaporisation' question.
She rejected vaporisation because of the obvious absence of heat.

be happy

lucidity

[DeDukshyn]

I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
in it to account for the mass of the buildings.


Note there is a difference between pulverization and vaporization. I think the argument re: the topic is mostly for the case of vaporization.

When you vaporise something, you heat it until it turns to a gas.

Dr Judy Wood specifically considered this 'vaporisation' question.
She rejected vaporisation because of the obvious absence of heat.

be happy

lucidity

Being a Canadian and having to deal with 6 months of snow, I do understand well the concept of sublimation, in the sense solid turns to vapour. A dry (on the barometer) day can "vaporize" a decent amount of snow, skipping the liquid stage altogether, especially when a wind is present. Heat is not a required factor for this process to occur.

[ThePythonicCow]

I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
in it to account for the mass of the buildings.

Showing me pictures of the original dust cloud dispersing is no answer to my argument.
So you're saying that the original cloud, before dispersing even as much as Hervé shows us in Post #49 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?88490-The-sheer-volume-of-concrete-and-steel-that-simply-vanished-on-9-11&p=1041984&viewfull=1#post1041984) above, must already have been quite large.

If you're asking for an -instant- big dust cloud, then I think you're asking for the impossible.

If that's not what you're asking for, then I don't understand your comments.

[tomfellows]

I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
in it to account for the mass of the buildings.

Showing me pictures of the original dust cloud dispersing is no answer to my argument.
So you're saying that the original cloud, before dispersing even as much as Hervé shows us in Post #49 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?88490-The-sheer-volume-of-concrete-and-steel-that-simply-vanished-on-9-11&p=1041984&viewfull=1#post1041984) above, must already have been quite large.

If you're asking for an -instant- big dust cloud, then I think you're asking for the impossible.

If that's not what you're asking for, then I don't understand your comments.

You clearly haven't followed my reasoning.

In summary.

hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel, when 'dustified'
makes hundreds and thousands of tons of dust.

There is no evidence of hundreds of thousands of tons of dust at the scene.
There should be dust 5 or 10 or 15 meters high at the scene. There isn't.

In the surrounding streets there should be several feet high of dust.
There isn't. There's inches of dust, not meters nor feet.

2 possibilities.
1. The buildings simply 'blew away' as a dust cloud.
2. The weapon/tool used to dustify the buildings is capable of annihilating matter.

My argument is that, for the concrete to have blown away in a dust cloud, that
dust cloud would have needed to be many thousands of times the volume of the
destroyed concrete and steel. But when you look at the initial dust cloud as it 'floats'
around the nearby buildings... that cloud is clearly nothing like N thousands of times
the volume of the trade towers.

It's only an estimate, but it seems to me that only about 5 or 10% of the matter
in the twin towers has been dustified.

So my conclusion is, this tool/weapon is capable of destroying matter.

[WhiteLove]

yapQLt4DChg

[ThePythonicCow]

[

2 possibilities.
1. The buildings simply 'blew away' as a dust cloud.
2. The weapon/tool used to dustify the buildings is capable of annihilating matter.

My argument is that, for the concrete to have blown away in a dust cloud, that
dust cloud would have needed to be many thousands of times the volume of the
destroyed concrete and steel. But when you look at the initial dust cloud as it 'floats'
around the nearby buildings... that cloud is clearly nothing like N thousands of times
the volume of the trade towers.

It's only an estimate, but it seems to me that only about 5 or 10% of the matter
in the twin towers has been dustified.

So my conclusion is, this tool/weapon is capable of destroying matter.

I think I am following your argument ... to a point.

I am not claiming possibility 2, matter annihilation.

I am claiming possibility 1, the dust cloud.

You observe that the dust clouds seen spreading from the collapsing towers are not, by your estimation, big enough.

I am asking you, what would you expect to be happening, between the last moment that the towers still looked like towers, and the first moment that this hypothesized dust cloud was big enough to match your expectations.

I am observing, finding it rather obvious, that we would not see a tower transform instantaneously into a mile wide dust cloud. There would be visible intermediate states, during which I would expect to be a smaller, denser, dust cloud, briefly driven outward from what had been the tower, every which way, up, down and sideways, by the same immense energy that broke the bazillions of chemical bonds in the concrete and steel, with sufficient kinetic energy to keep that cloud from instantly falling to the ground. If I hold a brick over the floor in my kitchen and let go, it drops straight down. If I put some fine ground salt on my hand and blow on it, it blows outward in a brief "cloud", before losing sufficient horizontal energy that it falls down to the floor.

Lower Manhattan was coated with dust after 9/11, inches thick in places, and the lighter dust particles were small enough to remain floating in the air, like smoke, and blowing out to sea in the wind, looking like a cloud.

[Hervé]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Oa3mFG-MSeQ/UXrjNXzx7sI/AAAAAAAAFGA/sjtTgsbtZL4/s1600/fotos_at8.jpg

http://versijos.lt/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/S%C4%85mokslo-teorin%C4%97-fizika-4.jpg

http://massinjustice.org/Towers%20explode%20into%20debris%20dust.jpg

http://fuza.ru/uploads/posts/2010-02/1265869195_wtc911-14.jpg

https://newshyderabad.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/smoke-and-ash-rise-as-a-world-trade-centre-tower-burns-at-left-centre-after-terrorists-flew-two-airliners-into-the-towers.jpg

http://upload.art.ifeng.com/2015/0911/1441940113828.jpg

[TargeT]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Oa3mFG-MSeQ/UXrjNXzx7sI/AAAAAAAAFGA/sjtTgsbtZL4/s1600/fotos_at8.jpg

https://newshyderabad.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/smoke-and-ash-rise-as-a-world-trade-centre-tower-burns-at-left-centre-after-terrorists-flew-two-airliners-into-the-towers.jpg

http://upload.art.ifeng.com/2015/0911/1441940113828.jpg




in my estimation it's clearly big enough, the volume of matter missing from the site is explained by the dust cloud... if the debris were NOT missing I'd wonder where the hell that dust cloud came from.

[Hervé]

This one needs some particular attention: Look at what's falling and, equally, at what is still standing...


http://fuza.ru/uploads/posts/2010-02/1265869195_wtc911-14.jpg

https://f1.bcbits.com/img/a2726843758_5.jpg

That's this one:
7W0-W582fNQ

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

https://newshyderabad.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/smoke-and-ash-rise-as-a-world-trade-centre-tower-burns-at-left-centre-after-terrorists-flew-two-airliners-into-the-towers.jpg[/IMG]


Look at this. As well as dust being carried off with the wind, or covering the streets, the cars, and the people in inches of grey powder, judging by this picture, I think you'd also find a vast amount of dust is lying in sediment at the bottom of the Hudson.

[Ewan]

Having now watched all the videos presented via this thread I have to say it is pretty convincing stuff. The evidence is strong.

[Hervé]

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yapQLt4DChg

Hi Whitelove, I merged your thread with this pre-existing one on that same subject :)

[ThePythonicCow]

This one needs some particular attention: Look at what's falling and, equally, at what is still standing...
Can you tell us what you are seeing in these images?

[Eram]

Having now watched all the videos presented via this thread I have to say it is pretty convincing stuff. ....

Yes, She makes a convincing presentation.
... but... If you start to dig into other information about 9-11( like I have been doing for the past three days), you also soon realize that she leaves out important evidence that does not support her theory for a DEW (Directed Energy weapon) and I find that disturbing.

Like for instance the many eye witness accounts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nmj6t51Wz8) of people (firefighters, policemen, office workers, and such) who claim to have heard and even experience explosions going of in the 3 WTC towers (1,2 & 7) before, during and after the impact of the supposed air planes. Or for instance satellite pictures that showed intense heat spots on ground zero for many weeks. You cannot simply ignore or sweep of the table without argument such evidence and this is what she seems to be doing with more then a little data and evidence.

It's quite clear that large parts of the buildings turned to dust that day, but as far as I can establish, this was mostly the concrete, gypsum, marble and office furniture. Most if not all of the steel-work landed on the ground, which is clearly visible in Pauls photographs.

The forces that turned all this into dust and managed to eject steel columns hundreds of meters away, and in an arch like path of flight remains unclear. Maybe there was an exotic weapon used and Judy Woods definitely presented a possibility to consider. Still, there is evidence out there that contradicts her theory in some ways, so maybe (Like Paul suggests) there were different techniques for destruction in play, of which some sort of DEW might be one.

I truly hope that there will come a day that the truth comes out or that we will be able to figure it out for ourselves beyond the point of doubt. It will be an ongoing and difficult effort and we have to be careful to avoid the trap of self identification with theories in such a way that we close our minds to common sense and objective evidence.

[ghostrider]

The plejaren looked into 911 , they said two CIA agents and one supervisor brought information to then president Bush and he chose to ignore it ... regardless of how or who did it , George Bush is responsible for the lives lost on that day ...they refer to him as a stupid idoit ....

[Ewan]

Having now watched all the videos presented via this thread I have to say it is pretty convincing stuff. ....

Yes, She makes a convincing presentation.
... but... If you start to dig into other information about 9-11( like I have been doing for the past three days), you also soon realize that she leaves out important evidence that does not support her theory for a DEW (Directed Energy weapon) and I find that disturbing.

Like for instance the many eye witness accounts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nmj6t51Wz8) of people (firefighters, policemen, office workers, and such) who claim to have heard and even experience explosions going of in the 3 WTC towers (1,2 & 7) before, during and after the impact of the supposed air planes. Or for instance satellite pictures that showed intense heat spots on ground zero for many weeks. You cannot simply ignore or sweep of the table without argument such evidence and this is what she seems to be doing with more then a little data and evidence.

It's quite clear that large parts of the buildings turned to dust that day, but as far as I can establish, this was mostly the concrete, gypsum, marble and office furniture. Most if not all of the steel-work landed on the ground, which is clearly visible in Pauls photographs.

The forces that turned all this into dust and managed to eject steel columns hundreds of meters away, and in an arch like path of flight remains unclear. Maybe there was an exotic weapon used and Judy Woods definitely presented a possibility to consider. Still, there is evidence out there that contradicts her theory in some ways, so maybe (Like Paul suggests) there were different techniques for destruction in play, of which some sort of DEW might be one.

I truly hope that there will come a day that the truth comes out or that we will be able to figure it out for ourselves beyond the point of doubt. It will be an ongoing and difficult effort and we have to be careful to avoid the trap of self identification with theories in such a way that we close our minds to common sense and objective evidence.

They may well have had both games in play, explosions and exotic technology. It would be prudent probably.

Sounds of explosions could be things popping under incredible stress I suppose. (Just musing aloud).

Though there are also videos showing people ducking at loud bangs as they run down the street.

[Hervé]

This one needs some particular attention: Look at what's falling and, equally, at what is still standing...
Can you tell us what you are seeing in these images?

Top Photo, below center: Whole panels falling as giant ladder-like pieces (WTC-1) [no thermite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite)/thermate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate) cuts for those]

Top and bottom photo, center-right: A whole corner remaining standing while the rest of WTC-1 is falling. It is that particular corner that is seen "dustifying" in numerous videos.

Good luck trying to find those in here (I haven't found those bits there, although they maybe there):


http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff129/oxfordsystems/wtc-complex-labeled-photo.jpg

[Eram]

[no thermite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite)/thermate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate) cuts for those]

Are you sure about that Hervé?

If not for termite or another force of destruction, what could have made that section to suddenly start coming straight down (instead of falling sideways, which would make more sense)? A sudden sink hole perhaps? :P

I've been looking for that section too, but haven't found it either. It also seems like it is breaking into different pieces when it is falling, so unsure what to look for exactly.

[Eram]

If you start in the middle of your marker with: 1 WTC North Tower and go 3 cm to the left, then 1 cm up. That might be a piece of it.
At least, that is the section that had that column standing after the rest of the building had already collapsed.

[Hervé]

If you start in the middle of your marker with: 1 WTC North Tower and go 3 cm to the left, then 1 cm up. That might be a piece of it.
At least, that is the section that had that column standing after the rest of the building had already collapsed.

If you look at the video (here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?88490-The-sheer-volume-of-concrete-and-steel-that-simply-vanished-on-9-11&p=1042289&viewfull=1#post1042289)), that "spire" is taller than WTC-7 and "fell" inward whereas what we find in the aftermath is the outside shell of the building that fell outward or remained standing.


https://img.rt.com/files/2015.11/original/5646ac93c46188eb458b45cf.jpg


http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/2011/images/11-09-07/Ground-Zero-NYC-September-17-2001_LG.jpg
WTC-1, -6 and -7 in background.

http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg
Notice the hole in that corner... sinkhole, indeed!



Controlled demolition:

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/articles/mar06/looks1.jpeg
Before...

http://www.informationliberation.com/files/200306landmark3.jpg
... after.

[Eram]

You know?
I've always mistaken that standing spire to be part of the outer column of WTC 1 until now. It's because most of the footage that shows it places the column of smoke so far to the side of the spire that had me confused.

Just now is also the first time that I watched your youtube all the way till the end where you see the spire fall down one more time from a different angle.
I must confess that this looks eerily like dustification.

And indeed, little to no evidence of that inner columns laying there on the ground in the photo's.

[lucidity]

I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
in it to account for the mass of the buildings.


Note there is a difference between pulverization and vaporization. I think the argument re: the topic is mostly for the case of vaporization.

When you vaporise something, you heat it until it turns to a gas.

Dr Judy Wood specifically considered this 'vaporisation' question.
She rejected vaporisation because of the obvious absence of heat.

be happy

lucidity

Being a Canadian and having to deal with 6 months of snow, I do understand well the concept of sublimation, in the sense solid turns to vapour. A dry (on the barometer) day can "vaporize" a decent amount of snow, skipping the liquid stage altogether, especially when a wind is present. Heat is not a required factor for this process to occur.

Congratulations on being a Canadian. :-)
Well done for understanding sublimation.

There insufficient heat to vaporize concrete and steel.

be happy

lucidity

[DeDukshyn]

I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
in it to account for the mass of the buildings.


Note there is a difference between pulverization and vaporization. I think the argument re: the topic is mostly for the case of vaporization.

When you vaporise something, you heat it until it turns to a gas.

Dr Judy Wood specifically considered this 'vaporisation' question.
She rejected vaporisation because of the obvious absence of heat.

be happy

lucidity

Being a Canadian and having to deal with 6 months of snow, I do understand well the concept of sublimation, in the sense solid turns to vapour. A dry (on the barometer) day can "vaporize" a decent amount of snow, skipping the liquid stage altogether, especially when a wind is present. Heat is not a required factor for this process to occur.

Congratulations on being a Canadian. :-)
Well done for understanding sublimation.

There insufficient heat to vaporize concrete and steel.

be happy

lucidity

Well I do understand that many of the "effects" we are talking about require technology pretty much beyond our detailed understanding, therefore the effects or mechanics of such technology aren't known. My comment existed within this context. Sorry it was not clear to you :) If we knew what happened or exactly what technology was used ... the debate would probably be over ...

Is there a weapon or technology that can cause the sublimation of dense matter (such as concrete and steel?) besides the natural effects we see with water? I don't know the answer to that; but I do know that what I have seen in the specific beam / support column "vaporisation" videos, where less "dust" is made from a concrete column than you would expect, you have to wonder what is really going on, if the claims of no heat are true.

If you have evidence that no such technology possibly could exist, it behooves you to present it. :)

[ThePythonicCow]

If we knew what happened or exactly what technology was used ... the debate would probably be over ...

Is there a weapon or technology that can cause the sublimation of dense matter besides the natural effects we see with water? I don't know the answer to that. If you have evidence that no such technology exists, it behooves you to present it. :)
Well said :).

[TargeT]

If you have evidence that no such technology possibly could exist, it behooves you to present it. :)

unfortunately this is the realm that we are regulated to.... strong logical conclusions based on substantive "collateral" evidence with a heavy skew to the sources that are the "least" connected.


THIS makes it difficult,l because any "actor" (as in "action" not fake persona) can give a convincing set of statements that (after 14 years of evidence observation) can be extremely solid.

To me, the further we get form an event (time wise) the better the "propaganda" works; at least for the vast majority of the population.

In conjunction with that, the more side "veins" of the original theory; the better (to confuse and derail the topic...) youi see these "people" relay and plan on one thing ( one very powerful thing).... "eye witnesses" are NOTORIOUSLY subjective and easily manupluated... yet the "thing" (evidence) the majority of the public relies on.

Why? because it has the "perfect" hook into our psyche... the unwavering ability for humans to consider themselves in the "right" and the "knowers". Nearly every topic that is passionately defended falls into this category.. manipulated belief.

This is what chases a lot of informed so called "truthers" into the atheist movement, they (we) consider that since we have been lied to on a certain heavily corrupted topic that the WHOLE THING must be tossed out ( we are EASILY polarized (good/bad pretty/ugly fat/skinny... pick a topic, there will be a polarized views based on little but mythos which seems to be intended to divide and conquer the (at least somewhat) critically thinking population).

We ARE powerful, we CAN make a difference... BUT


BUT

we are fighting our selves bcause we have been so heavily compromised.

A few slip out, many do not; this is the hierarchical filtering system "we" have all lived under/with for hundreds if not thousands of years. And it's all based on a DEEP understanding of what we all can find out for our selves, if we were given the opportunity.


We aren't given the opportunity, we are given the failing option of "100% employment" or the lack of... IE: get a good J O B or be shunned from society, take a step back in your career and suffer the same fate; the label of "failure" even though you are one of the few that stepped out side the corporate zeitgeist to offer a desired product (typical free market strategy).

How many of those we often hear have "left the work force" or "taken lesser paying jobs" are accurately reported? In that case the Ego will be such a strong influence (pride in accomplishment, which is good when "in check" and terrible when not) I think our "under employed" and "given up on employment" numbers are probably F A R worse than indicated & the trend will continue as automation takes the global economy by storm.


The only solution I have to this is the same "weak" one I've had for years.... be an E X E L E N T example in your community (I have the trust of STRANGERS because of my work with animals here... they give me the logical fallacy "appeal to authority" on topics that even I consider WILDLY separate from "authority" talking points. Why does this happen? Because our formative years (0-6) are "willingly" given to the state, which teaches from the very first day "appeal to authority" as a meaningful argument and basis for a belief system.

I can't help but think this is all by design.

[Ewan]

Very wothwhile points there TargeT.

The formative years are the most vulnerable ones and it is well known and recognised. Even the parents take part in the conditioning albeit mostly unaware. I wonder how a child would cope without any kind of conditioning, what would it be like to discover a world with no borders or boundaries?

[winstonsmith]

Steel wasn't turned to powder. It was scattered all over the site, up to 300 foot radius.

Here is a photo with a large portion of the exterior panels circled, (maybe west facade), that fell nearly intact toward the NW across West Street. This is the kind of real debris that crushed firefighters.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E097D925456F1330!332&authkey=!APhz0C1F8haKNok&v=3&ithint=photo%2cpng

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E097D925456F1330!332&authkey=!APhz0C1F8haKNok&v=3&ithint=photo%2cpng

If you want to rely on a few fuzzy videos or photos as the evidence of "dustification" caused by some exotic weapon that nobody knows about, then you will end up with fuzzy logic.

I prefer to rely on HI-res imagery**, taken during or soon after the crime was committed. If you watch this video taken during the destruction of WTC1, you will see (@ mark 1:25 ) very distinct, focused, limited range demolition charges being set off along the SW facade CORNER ONLY, racing down the building faster than gravity is pulling the debris. Those are internal in origin, exploding outward, not some space based platform with an unknown power source.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKYW89xEYg0

Could this be the same set of panels that came to rest facing the Winter Garden?

** I am quite certain that an even better quality copy of this clip is available. The imagery NIST provided is purposely degraded, sometimes upwards of 82% in both video and audio specs. If you want to go after the first generation copies of these network news videos, please contact me.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I'm still with Dr Wood on her theory of 'dustification', or whatever other exotic effect made the towers just simply 'go away'. Here's a reasonable comparison to make, suggesting something extraordiary happened on this site:

The 'Pile' of WTC. Looking at this, is it any wonder people ask 'where DID the towers go?' I'm not an engineer or a scientist, but personally I'd imagine there to be a lot more debris than there is for two 100 storey buildings.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3930.jpg

Compare it with WTC7, a building half the size of just one of the WTC towers.
Here's the wreckage of it. It is four or five storeys high.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/pics/Jenkins5.jpg

[Hervé]

[...]

Compare it with WTC7, a building half the size of just one of the WTC towers.
Here's the wreckage of it. It is four or five storeys high.
[...]

Yep! The difference between conventional controlled demolition and unconventional controlled demolition...

[ThePythonicCow]

Steel wasn't turned to powder. It was scattered all over the site, up to 300 foot radius.

Here is a photo with a large portion of the exterior panels circled,
Yes - there was some such debris - but not nearly enough. The debris pile should be over twice the height of Bldg 6, not a small fraction of its height.


demolition charges being set off
Yes, I've little doubt that various conventional demolition charges, thermite, pyrotechnic, and other such were set off ... in addition to the dominant source of energy used to dustify most of the towers.

===

P.S. -- In short -- yes there were conventional explosives and ordinary debris -- but not nearly enough, not even close.

[Eram]

Nobody in this thread is denying that the towers dustified.
It's quite obvious to anyone who studies the collapses that there was major dustifcation going on.
It's only the metal part that winstonsmith and me (maybe others) have problems with.

WTC 7 fell into its own footprint whereas the WTC 1 and 2 got blown up.
Debris (mostly metal parts) falling hundreds of meters away.

for arguments sake: Lets say that the pile of ruble from WTC 7 was 8 storeys high.
If that same ruble was scattered on only an extra width and breadth in every direction of the building, that same pile of ruble would only be just less under 1 storey high.

WTC 1 and 2 did not fall into their own footprint. At all! They got blown up.
You simply cannot expect to see a pile of ruble up to 22 storeys, since most of the material got ejected by fierce force in all directions.

It should be possible to make some calculations to make an estimation on how high the pile of debris should be if only the steel work and 10% of other materials did not get dustified and landed in the area that is visible in the photo's over ground zero.
I'm sure that if I was to try to make such calculations that I would make a big mess of things, so I will not bother. :P
but... I'm pretty confident that the steel work that lays scattered all over the area near ground zero would account for most if not all the steel work that was used in WTC 1 and 2.

I'm not saying that I understand the big hole in building 6 and the flattened part of building 4, but there might be an explanation, other then the use of a DEW for that as well.

[Hervé]

Sure :)

Let's take it one step at a time... where are those 45,000 filing cabinets?

[Eram]

Sure :)

Let's take it one step at a time... where are those 45,000 filing cabinets?

You made them magically disappear :P

OLrYzY3jVPY

[Eram]

The source (http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm) for Judy Woods claim that all the filing cabinets disappeared.

please note that the person in the footage says that he gave up looking for intact filing cabinets.
He does not say anything about little peaces of filing cabinets.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I've read through the entire thread and not once did I see the pan-cake argument brought up in comparison. When I first heard of the pan-cake theory I immediately went, "aha, that's it!". It made perfect sense. It was only after more careful consideration that I rejected it. Many people still hold this position. It is the official story as well.

The pancake effect explains pulverization and dustification of material directly in the path of the main thrust of the collapsing building. You would have both crushing pressures and heat forcing molecular bonds apart and secondary particle collisions resulting in fine dust. But although you would have most of the debris in a neat pile in the sub floors and above, there would be significant side impacts that would logically expel material laterally and in parabolic or even hyperbolic arcs. That didn't seem to happen, at least not to any great extent.

By this process, there would be missing mass, as evidenced by the massive debris cloud. Is it enough to account for the observed missing debris, I don't know.

What I am saying is that , without looking too close at the dynamics of a pancake effect, it is a satisfying explanation.

It is these anomalies that leave us wondering: the giant holes in the buildings, the melted cars, the bizarre disappearing steel beams, the filing cabinets, the almost perfect destruction of seven high rise buildings, each coming down in their own footprints, all ostensibly by co-incidence and luck, no seismic correspondence to the collapses, and other strange occurances.

No known effect can account for these discrepancies.

So as Sherlock Holmes is quoted as saying (paraphrased and generalized), in the absence of the possible, the impossible must be considered.

It must have been exotic weaponry, probably space-based, in concert with conventional methods, that brought those towers down.

One thing is for sure, it was intentional - and it was not brought about solely by 19 hijackers with box cutters.

[Hervé]

OK, now consider the "shape" that thing is in when located in an adjacent, small store basement... nothing fell on it... that store was not set on fire... yet, that thing, suffered a similar fate as some cars parked ways away from those towers... getting the picture, yet, that something very unconventional took place there that affected metal while leaving papers unscathed?

[ThePythonicCow]

It's only the metal part that winstonsmith and me (maybe others) have problems with.
There was no where near enough steel left visible, as steel, anywhere near the WTC, after the towers crashed.

And even the energy required to dustify the concrete that finely was far more energy, applied much more quickly (10 seconds per tower), than conventional mechanisms can explain.

As I've noted before, the finer the powder you make, the more energy it takes, as more and more chemical bonds must be broken. Try pounding a cinder block or a brick into talcum powder with a sledge hammer ... you'll be one tired body well before you're done.

[Curiosity]

OK, now consider the "shape" that thing is in when located in an adjacent, small store basement... nothing fell on it... that store was not set on fire... yet, that thing, suffered a similar fate as some cars parked ways away from those towers... getting the picture, yet, that something very unconventional took place there that affected metal while leaving papers unscathed?

Hi Herve,
Every time I hear the paper unscathed and metal melting I flash back to the times I've tried to throw paper into a camp fire. If you don't wad it up it flies away from the fire unscathed. Food for thought.

[Hervé]

Well, all right.

Then think of the normal, conventional temperature that's needed to melt the metal of a filing cabinet (http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm), overall, without triggering a spontaneous combustion of the paper it contains. Even better: try it :)

[Curiosity]

Well I'm sure any paper that was in any cabinet that melted turned to ash, and any paper that was thrown lose was found unscathed.

There was simply too much conventional heat involved to say ALL paper was unscathed. I can see where a lot of paper got tossed around by air pressure, wind and heat without ever catching fire.

[Hervé]

Then, why is the paper in THAT filing cabinet (http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm) NOT burnt?

[Curiosity]

Well, all right.

Then think of the normal, conventional temperature that's needed to melt the metal of a filing cabinet (http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm), overall, without triggering a spontaneous combustion of the paper it contains. Even better: try it :)

You can throw a whole newspaper or a stack of paper into a fire and the center will remain unburdened. I'm talking about fire hot enough to melt glass and tin cans etc. but not cause spontaneous combustion of a thick stack of paper. I've seen it burning piles of trash. I've had to restart the fires with kerosene to get the paper to burn and even separate the paper. So I'm not surprised at all from finding paper in the conditions at ground zero. I don't think that alone holds enough water to prove exotic weaponry was used.

[Curiosity]

Then, why is the paper in THAT filing cabinet (http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm) NOT burnt?

If you do some research I think you will find that this common. Metal Cabinets melting, small metal file boxes melting from extreme heat and the paper and other contents inside unscathed.

[Curiosity]

Another thing you have to consider is, this file cabinet being presented as the only one found. Should we believe this?

[ThePythonicCow]

It is often true that some specific detail of a larger event, when reduced to a few specifics and a handful of words or images, can apparently be explained in multiple ways.

I challenge those who are claiming that conventional means might entirely explain the destruction of the WTC towers (and the inner half of WTC 6) to closely examine the images collected by Judy Wood in her "Where did the towers go?" book, and then claim that conventional means explain all that those images show.

Rather than tossing words about ... well, "it" (some specific detail) could be caused, give or take, by conventional means ... instead please first actually examine a substantial body of the evidence, and then tell us if you really believe that only conventional means were used.

Also, for that matter, even if only conventional demolition means were used for all the WTC destruction ... still that's a lot of conventional demolition ... requiring a lot of preparation ... and putting the lie to the official story.

We risk not only playing games with "well, this specific could be explained some other way" word games, but also getting distracted by whether the means were conventional or not. Either way, we lose focus on a larger problem: 9/11 was a major false operation ... big time., anyway you look at it.

(Though what I would claim is the evident, to those who look with an open mind, use of non-conventional means is itself another big problem for the bastards in power ... if only most people realized it.)

[Curiosity]

It is often true that some specific detail of a larger event, when reduced to a few specifics and a handful of words or images, can apparently be explained in multiple ways.

I challenge those who are claiming that conventional means might entirely explain the destruction of the WTC towers (and the inner half of WTC 6) to closely examine the images collected by Judy Wood in her "Where did the towers go?" book, and then claim that conventional means explain all that those images show.

Rather than tossing words about ... well, "it" (some specific detail) could be caused, give or take, by conventional means ... instead please first actually examine a substantial body of the evidence, and then tell us if you really believe that only conventional means were used.

Also, for that matter, even if only conventional demolition means were used for all the WTC destruction ... still that's a lot of conventional demolition ... requiring a lot of preparation ... and putting the lie to the official story.

We risk not only playing games with "well, this specific could be explained some other way" word games, but also getting distracted by whether the means were conventional or not. Either way, we lose focus on a larger problem: 9/11 was a major false operation ... big time., anyway you look at it.

(Though what I would claim is the evident, to those who look with an open mind, use of non-conventional means is itself another big problem for the bastards in power ... if only most people realized it.)

Paul it took some of the best experts in the world a long time to prove that jets , jet fuel, office fires and so called pancake theory could not explain how these building fell. Then it took years to prove that certain types of conventional demolitions were involve.. I don't think any of those experts claim that conventional demolitions,(what they have proven with physical evidence), alone, brought those buildings down??

In order to disprove something you need process of elimination through physical experimentation. To prove something you need to recreate the same results with the same materials under similar conditions.

The problem we face is the perpetrates of this crime know nobody can prove they used a non conventional weapon simply because nobody has access to that weapon to recreate the same results. It doesn't mater how many things you come up with that can or can not explain what you see in pictures.

A good point that you make Paul is they will keep throwing things on the table to keep us eating so we look nowhere else.

[Eram]

I challenge those who are claiming that conventional means might entirely explain the destruction of the WTC towers (and the inner half of WTC 6) to closely examine the images collected by Judy Wood in her "Where did the towers go?" book, and then claim that conventional means explain all that those images show.

First of all, I don't claim that it must have been conventional means per se.

I have not yet read her book.
Only several presentations, interviews and her website.

So far, a strong argument in favor of a low heat DEW system case that she makes (imo) are the elevated levels of Tritium.

Yet, I find that many aspects of her case building are disturbing to say the least.
You can not simply pick and choose the evidence to build a case with and deny all evidence that is not in favor of your theory, which she does.

For instance: The evidence that there was a large body of intense heat involved in the destruction is overwhelming and is imo one of the strongest points of evidence that the official explanation is a big cover up.
- NASA photo's of intense heat spots, weeks after the destruction
- Many buildings with raging fires right after the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 (go watch all the NIST and FDNY footage)
- eye witness accounts from fire men who reported pools and rivers of molten steel.
- burning cars

Woods response:
- NASA photo's: "Nehh, these are not hot spots. It must be something else"
- Buildings on fire: She seems to total ignore this.
- Rivers and pools of molten steel: "these poor men don't know what they are looking at, so their brain invents a story around it. This was cold liquid steel, not hot".
- burning cars: footage of two firemen who walk between a row of cars on fire, so it must be cold fire like effects of the DEW and not hot flames.

These are just a few examples, but i could go on and on in this fashion.

Am I the only one who thinks that this is a disturbing and irresponsible way of building a case?


We risk not only playing games with "well, this specific could be explained some other way" word games, but also getting distracted by whether the means were conventional or not. Either way, we lose focus on a larger problem: 9/11 was a major false operation ... big time., anyway you look at it.

I'm not distracted Paul.
9-11 is the biggest magic trick that has been pulled on humanity in recorded history and almost every shot that is fired today between nations and factions of nations is a direct result of this trick. Not to mention the emerging totalitarian police state(s).

Still, it is also important to try and find out what exactly happened to the WTC complex and even though I think that it might be near to impossible to find the answers, I will never give up trying.

[ThePythonicCow]

Am I the only one who thinks that this is a disturbing and irresponsible way of building a case?
If someone is trying to make the case that one particular mechanism, be it explosives, thermite, micro-nukes, sub-basement nukes, directed energy or jet fuel, caused all the destruction to the WTC buildings, then I just ignore that part of what they are saying.

If someone is trying to make the case that some particular mechanism was used (perhaps not exclusively) in the destruction of the WTC buildings, then I consider the evidence they present for that.

I read Judy Wood as making the case that some highly non-conventional mechanism was used at the WTC on 9/11. She makes an excellent case for that, in my view. This includes making the case that it could not have been -just- conventional mechanisms that caused that destruction. I agree. I do not find her positions on that at all disturbing or irresponsible.

If she goes further and claims that no conventional mechanisms were present, then ... well for the most part, I so routinely ignore any such claims that I wouldn't even notice such.

The one place I recall that I disagree with Judy Wood is in her claim that there were no "nuclear or atomic" bombs used, because, in her view (as I understand it), such bombs have too obvious blast radii and effects. In my view, there are likely micro-nukes with finely engineered blast radii, that could for example have been used every few floors within the core columns of the two main WTC towers, to destroy their structural integrity, prior to a more exotic "directed energy" weapon being used to convert the resulting steel (and concrete) fragments and particles into the fine dust that created that immense dust cloud and that resulted in a one story rubble pile instead of a twenty story rubble pile. Such micro-nukes could have been engineered to not even cause noticeable effects at the exterior walls of the towers ... just wreck the core columns.

Roughly speaking, what I presently figure is that:

Conventional pyrotechnics were used to make an impressive sight when the "planes" hit, Conventional explosives were used at the same time, to cut the plane shaped holes in the exterior walls where the "planes" supposedly hit.
Either large conventional or micro-nukes were used in the basement, at the same time as the planes hit, to destroy the towers sprinkler systems.
Various thermite cutter charges were used, during the subsequent hour, to weaken the towers.
Other bombs went off here and there, to take out specific targets within the towers during that hour.
Micro-nukes pulverized the core columns to start the "collapse" of the towers.
Directed energy then immediately dustified the "collapsing" towers, before they had a chance to fall.

[Curiosity]

I just want to throw this out there.

If a DEW was used and it wasn't the USA that fired it, that would explain why US officials are so bent on cover ups and lies and many other explainable actions.

[DeDukshyn]

...

Roughly speaking, what I presently figure is that:

Conventional pyrotechnics were used to make an impressive sight when the "planes" hit, Conventional explosives were used at the same time, to cut the plane shaped holes in the exterior walls where the "planes" supposedly hit.
Either large conventional or micro-nukes were used in the basement, at the same time as the planes hit, to destroy the towers sprinkler systems.
Various thermite cutter charges were used, during the subsequent hour, to weaken the building.
Other bombs went off here and there, to take out specific targets within the building during that hour.
Micro-nukes pulverized the core columns to start the "collapse" of the towers.
Directed energy then immediately dustified the "collapsing" towers, before they had a chance to fall.



Paul ... there's a clear motivation for each of 1 through 6 on your list ... what is the motivation for number 7? This one is not clear to me. Why the need to do this? What wouldn't have been accomplished if this didn't happen?

[ThePythonicCow]

...

Roughly speaking, what I presently figure is that:

7. Directed energy then immediately dustified the "collapsing" towers, before they had a chance to fall.



Paul ... there's a clear motivation for each of 1 through 6 on your list ... what is the motivation for number 7? This one is not clear to me. Why the need to do this? What wouldn't have been accomplished if this didn't happen?

The dustification of the towers. converting them to a mushrooming, rapidly expanding, cloud of dense dust, was the "Wow!" factor ... the impossible factor, that enabled the immense fraud of 9/11 to be perpetrated.

If you do something that people can basically understand, in their full view, there is a practical limit to how much you can lie about what happened.

If you do something that is beyond their comprehension, then they usually suspend their own understanding, and just accept whatever they are told. They abandon all hope of personal understanding.

That's why they soft-pedaled the destruction of WTC 7 ... that was apparently mostly done by more ordinary controlled demolition means, so they didn't want it to be a major meme of 9/11. The destruction of the WTC1 and WTC2 towers on the other hand was the "WTF, over?" primary and dominant meme of 9/11. It was the coup de grâce, the ultimate blow to our innocence. The entire event was orchestrated to ensure that as many people as possible, in the US and even world-wide, were watching, live, when those towers "blowed up, real good."

The dustification of the two main towers was also the key means of impressing those in more important positions, who might doubt or resist ... "There's a bigger force than you know ... shut-up, head-down and don't dare mess with that force!" Someone else is running this show, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Sometimes I've wondered if even people as high up in the power chain as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush were taken back by the dustification of the towers ... not expecting it, and fearful of the powers that made that happen.

(It also made the clean-up easier, and destroyed the physical evidence of the crime better.)

[Curiosity]

I can agree with "made the clean-up easier". But what physical evidence did it destroy?

Why would they use a DEW when conventional demo methods worked fine?

Maybe we have it backwards.

The use conventional demo methods was used to cover up or distract from the DEW evidence?

[ThePythonicCow]

I can agree with "made the clean-up easier". But what physical evidence did it destroy?

Why would they use a DEW when conventional demo methods worked fine?
Conventional demolition would have left a 20 story high pile of ruble, with bits and pieces of the fragmentary remains of the damage caused by conventional explosives.

... and my key point was that this was the Wow! factor ... the making of a modern day mythology.

One of the masterminds of 9/11 was an expert in creating just such mythology: Philip Zelikow (http://rense.com/general78/rapestory.htm).

[Eram]

Paul ... there's a clear motivation for each of 1 through 6 on your list ... what is the motivation for number 7? This one is not clear to me. Why the need to do this? What wouldn't have been accomplished if this didn't happen?

A DEW would also add to the ever present "divide and conquer" tactics.

An internal dispute over what exactly happened of course weakens the build up for a momentum that could challenge the official narrative.

[PurpleLama]

I ascribe currently to the idea that it was an op within an op within an op. Perhaps those in charge of the planes didn't expect the demolition, and those in charge of the demolition didn't expect dustification. So the cia flew in some planes, and the oligarchs pulled some buildings, and the Nazis turned that sh!t to dust. Its an idea I picked up from JPF. The exact order was just off the cuff, JPF just said it was an op within an op within an op, although I bet JPF might agree that the Nazis were at the end of the line.

[ThePythonicCow]

Its an idea I picked up from JPF.
JPF -- Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, I presume.

===

P.S. -- Yes -- From 9/11 Musings (http://gizadeathstar.com/2010/12/911-musings/):

Well, truth to tell my own take has always been that there is an "op within an op within an op"

...For reasons I shall get into, I believe the middle layer became aware of the existence of the innermost at the moment of the collapse of the Twin Towers. The nature of that collapse, and the fact that it could NOT have been any kind of controlled demotion (conventional [demolitions charged, thermite] or unconventional [chain-molecule fuel air bomb]) was a message sent by "someone" to "our" elite, imo. On this view, the significant evidence is not the airplanes (or lack thereof), but the physics signature of the collapse of the towers themselves.

[DeDukshyn]

...

Roughly speaking, what I presently figure is that:

7. Directed energy then immediately dustified the "collapsing" towers, before they had a chance to fall.



Paul ... there's a clear motivation for each of 1 through 6 on your list ... what is the motivation for number 7? This one is not clear to me. Why the need to do this? What wouldn't have been accomplished if this didn't happen?

The dustification of the towers. converting them to a mushrooming, rapidly expanding, cloud of dense dust, was the "Wow!" factor ... the impossible factor, that enabled the immense fraud of 9/11 to be perpetrated.

If you do something that people can basically understand, in their full view, there is a practical limit to how much you can lie about what happened.

If you do something that is beyond their comprehension, then they usually suspend their own understanding, and just accept whatever they are told. They abandon all hope of personal understanding.

That's why they soft-pedaled the destruction of WTC 7 ... that was apparently mostly done by more ordinary controlled demolition means, so they didn't want it to be a major meme of 9/11. The destruction of the WTC1 and WTC2 towers on the other hand was the "WTF, over?" primary and dominant meme of 9/11. It was the coup de grâce, the ultimate blow to our innocence. The entire event was orchestrated to ensure that as many people as possible, in the US and even world-wide, were watching, live, when those towers "blowed up, real good."

The dustification of the two main towers was also the key means of impressing those in more important positions, who might doubt or resist ... "There's a bigger force than you know ... shut-up, head-down and don't dare mess with that force!" Someone else is running this show, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Sometimes I've wondered if even people as high up in the power chain as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush were taken back by the dustification of the towers ... not expecting it, and fearful of the powers that made that happen.

(It also made the clean-up easier, and destroyed the physical evidence of the crime better.)

While I do clearly hear you, I'm not sure I fully buy that. I mean the towers coming down was the "wow" factor ... not sure if a giant cloud of dust would be worth the use of very expensive and very specific technology to assist with this "wow' factor, that would have been there, even without the "dustification" process. I do agree with the fact that such tech really does seem to have been used ... but I am not sold on "wow" factor - it would have still existed ... Curiosity's post subsequent makes some sense, but that begs the question ... "why a DEW?" - what about what happened required such technology?

Perhaps the "dustification" was a mere side effect?

[ThePythonicCow]

While I do clearly hear you, I'm not sure I fully buy that. I mean the towers coming down was the "wow" factor ... not sure if a giant cloud of dust would be worth the use of very expensive and very specific technology to assist with this "wow' factor, that would have been there, even without the "dustification" process. I do agree with the fact that such tech really does seem to have been used ... but I am not sold on "wow" factor - it would have still existed ... Curiosity's post subsequent makes some sense, but that begs the question ... "why a DEW?" - what about what happened required such technology?

Perhaps the "dustification" was a mere side effect?

Dr Joseph P Farrell explains it better than I can (thanks to PurpleLama for making that connection), in his blog post that I linked above: 9/11 Musings (http://gizadeathstar.com/2010/12/911-musings/).

The dustification was the most immediately obvious visible manifestation of the application of a highly "unconventional" technology ... a spectacle that had no satisfactory explanation by any ordinary, even nuclear, publicly known mechanism.

It's one thing to destroy the towers. It's another thing to do it by a means that is dramatically impossible by any publicly recognized mechanism. Such is the basis of creating myth, in ancient times and in modern times.

A few will decide that they can and will understand, and pursue the truth of what really happened, trusting their own ability to observe, analyze and understand. Most will decide that they cannot or choose not to personally reach more reliable insights than what they are told by experts, officials, friends, family and neighbors, and will shrug and accept what they are told (as did I, between 2001 and 2007, when I was more focused on Linux CPU and Memory management for very large multiprocessor systems than I was on 9/11 or other larger affairs.)

A rich variety of disinformation methods can be, and are being, used to keep understanding marginalized. Our society at large still buys into the myths of 9/11, in some variant or other.

[Curiosity]

DEW? If we are to believe such a weapon was used in 9/11 we have to ask a few questions.

Who would have access to such?

How would it work?

Where would it have been fired from?

What would it do?

We're taking the idea that it looked like dustifacation, then saying it must have been some kind of energy weapon without producing credible verifiable information to those questions.

So lets see what we can come up with.

here is what I've found on my first attempts .

http://www.space.com/1934-weapons-directed-energy-warfare-21st-century.html

http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Counter-Directed-Energy-Weapons.aspx

I'm sure Judy Woods must have some info to back these claims, or something to verify the existence of a DEW that could produce such results.

[Curiosity]

More on Directed energy weapons. So far I don't see anything that remotely resembles the destruction the alleged DEW did on 9/11. I haven't watched the second video yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR_pjzW98dM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4HMkiH3-E

[ThePythonicCow]

More on Directed energy weapons. So far I don't see anything that remotely resembles the destruction the alleged DEW did on 9/11. I haven't watched the second video yet.
You won't find official public releases of whatever was used as the primary source of energy to destroy the towers.

[M-Albion-3D]

Weighing in here, to me, the entire Judy Woods directed energy weapon thing is nothing more than a trumped up disinformation campaign. A straw man of fallacious concoctions in order to steer new truth seekers into a state of confusion.


Looking at the evidence (which is no evidence at all) from Woods, she completely avoids and ignores the real evidence established thus far that thermite and nano thermite together with appropriately placed explosives brought down these buildings - period.


The real perpetrators of 9/11 are running scared as they know their time is coming to an end!


Christopher Bollyn explains further.


eP7NqKv7Ik0

[DeDukshyn]

More on Directed energy weapons. So far I don't see anything that remotely resembles the destruction the alleged DEW did on 9/11. I haven't watched the second video yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR_pjzW98dM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4HMkiH3-E


DEW is a very broad term for any directed energy weapon including already existing microwave weaponry. There were several buildings in the area a DEW could have been fired from (a DEW would fire an invisible beam(s)), technically, it may be possible to fire one from a satellite, there was a mysterious black bomber that circled the area the entire time, the weaponry may have been triggered from inside the buildings themselves and the remains discarded into the ocean along with a lot of the other rubble.

The main issue is as Target eloquently explained, is that the effects we see in this "dustification" aren't known to be caused by any technology that we know of already existing. And there's plenty I am sure we don't know in this regards. So exactly what type of weapon it was and how it worked are still pretty big variables.

After watching the concrete and stele beams "dusitify" again in some of the video ... some sort of sublimation seems quite feasible to me ... I still have to find some better videos of that ... I know they are out there ... :)

[Hervé]

It's actually pretty plain: Controlled Explosive Decompression:


9YeKHhIj2ag

... without the heat.

[ThePythonicCow]

Looking at the evidence (which is no evidence at all) from Woods, she completely avoids and ignores the real evidence established thus far that thermite and nano thermite together with appropriately placed explosives brought down these buildings - period.

Judy Wood has spent far more time than most of us looking at the evidence. Perhaps you should study her book and do the same.

Thermite likely was present, as were a variety of mechanisms ... but thermite and conventional explosives don't come close to explaining what she documents in her book.

[ThePythonicCow]

It's actually pretty plain: Controlled Explosive Decompression:
My guess is that volcanoes hide the key difference, beneath the ground. Volcanic eruptions start with already liquid (molten) material, and only need to eject it, to let it decompress. The energy required to liquify the rocks that end up being emitted as ash and dust from the volcano is first accumulated within the earth over a long period (days, months, years, ... I don't know.)

The towers started with solid concrete and steel. The towers were de-solidified, in 10 seconds each. That was the hard step, the step requiring immense energy, rapidly applied. Then indeed the decompression looks similar.

That's why there were so many odd effects, such as melted car engine blocks, weirdly twisted steel girders, and half rusted hulks of cars (but vast reams of unharmed paper), in the blocks surrounding the WTC; that immense, highly unconventional, and rapidly applied energy "leaked" out into the near-by vicinity.

I would not expect to see such odd effects near volcanoes. If you manage not to get buried in ash or swept up in a lava flow, then you, and your steel car, can survive a volcano in fine shape.

[Curiosity]

More on Directed energy weapons. So far I don't see anything that remotely resembles the destruction the alleged DEW did on 9/11. I haven't watched the second video yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR_pjzW98dM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4HMkiH3-E

DEW is a very broad term for any directed energy weapon including already existing microwave weaponry. There were several buildings in the area a DEW could have been fired from (a DEW would fire an invisible beam(s)), technically, it may be possible to fire one from a satellite, there was a mysterious black bomber that circled the area the entire time, the weaponry may have been triggered from inside the buildings themselves and the remains discarded into the ocean along with a lot of the other rubble.

The main issue is as Target eloquently explained, is that the effects we see in this "dustification" aren't known to be caused by any technology that we know of already existing. And there's plenty I am sure we don't know in this regards. So exactly what type of weapon it was and how it worked are still pretty big variables.

After watching the concrete and stele beams "dusitify" again in some of the video ... some sort of sublimation seems quite feasible to me ... I still have to find some better videos of that ... I know they are out there ... :)

I have a problem with some of these ideas.
DEW or any kind of secret weapon technology would be very expensive and they would not have it where they needed to dispose of it or risk of it being exposed.
Why would they risk using such a weapon when conventional demo tech was all that was needed?

"So exactly what type of weapon it was and how it worked are still pretty big variables."
This is a good point. Not only 'big variables', but a broad variety of unknowns and inaccessible data/weapons, there lies the problem of ever proving such a theory.

When you start putting together the capabilities of conventional demolitions technology you find that it can heat concrete and hot concrete easily explodes into dust. Steel also melts and vaporizes.

But that still leaves us with the problem of "The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11"


Really we will never know if it vanished or not, because nobody gathered the evidence that would back that theory.

[ThePythonicCow]

I have a problem with some of these ideas.
DEW or any kind of secret weapon technology would be very expensive and they would not have it where they needed to dispose of it or risk of it being exposed.
Why would they risk using such a weapon when conventional demo tech was all that was needed?
An inability for someone to explain why someone else did something does not refute evidence that it was done.


Really we will never know if it vanished or not, because nobody gathered the evidence that would back that theory.
Many have gathered and presented that evidence, including Judy Wood, and this thread. The evidence shows that most of the million tons of concrete and steel that formed the two WTC towers were no longer at the world trade center, after the two towers erupted into a massive dust cloud.

[winstonsmith]

DEW? If we are to believe such a weapon was used in 9/11 we have to ask a few questions.

Who would have access to such?

How would it work?

Where would it have been fired from?

What would it do?

We're taking the idea that it looked like dustifacation, then saying it must have been some kind of energy weapon without producing credible verifiable information to those questions.

So lets see what we can come up with.

here is what I've found on my first attempts .

http://www.space.com/1934-weapons-directed-energy-warfare-21st-century.html

http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Counter-Directed-Energy-Weapons.aspx

I'm sure Judy Woods must have some info to back these claims, or something to verify the existence of a DEW that could produce such results.

Here are three more questions I would like to explore and seek answers to:

1. How does a space based, or even terrestrial based DEW, attack four sides of a square building simultaneously to create the symmetrical collapse spectacle? (In the case of WTC2, everything below the tilted section point)

2. How does a DEW begin the attack at the damaged impact zones and not the roof?

3. What energy source is there and what amounts would be required to do all of this work?

Do you see the logistics problem here?

If it were space based it would have to be very accurate and be attacking from four compass points at once, at an angle to avoid hitting the roof first. It would have to be able to move downwards as well and be able to penetrate any debris that got in the way of "seeing" the floors not yet attacked. Can you really expect a satellite to be that accurate? After all we are talking about an extremely high energy event, not a cell phone call.

If it were ground based, it would have to be set up in surrounding buildings, with a clear view of the entire tower and require a sufficient power source..

So the candidates might look something like this, the Deutschebank (S), WTC7 (N), the Millenium Hotel (E) and the WFC (W)

But the DB was damaged by WTC2 collapse and WTC7 was damaged by WTC1. Would this DEW be able to do its work through a closed window, or would it have to be mounted on the roof?

In the case of WTC2, a significant portion of the core remained for a short time after the facade and floors fell way. It succumbed as a unit, dropping straight down, though the imagery doesn't tell us if it was top down or bottom up. Did the DEW miss hitting this portion of the core?.

Please don't hand wave all of the logistics away by saying, "Oh well, everything is possible, because we don't know anything about the weapon." That is way too convenient.

[Curiosity]

I have a problem with some of these ideas.
DEW or any kind of secret weapon technology would be very expensive and they would not have it where they needed to dispose of it or risk of it being exposed.
Why would they risk using such a weapon when conventional demo tech was all that was needed?
An inability for someone to explain why someone else did something does not refute evidence that it was done.


Really we will never know if it vanished or not, because nobody gathered the evidence that would back that theory.
Many have gathered and presented that evidence, including Judy Wood, and this thread. The evidence shows that most of the million tons of concrete and steel that formed the two WTC towers were no longer at the world trade center, after the two towers erupted into a massive dust cloud.

Is this irrefutable proof of a DEW? No.

Can this effect be reproduced with conventional weaponry and demo tech? Yes.

Did anybody gather the dust and weigh it to prove it vanished, which would be irrefutable proof? No. Impossible to do, is what I'm saying.

I'm not against the Idea that DEW or other unbeknownst to the public weaponry tech was used. What I'm saying is we will never be able to prove it.

[Curiosity]

DEW? If we are to believe such a weapon was used in 9/11 we have to ask a few questions.

Who would have access to such?

How would it work?

Where would it have been fired from?

What would it do?

We're taking the idea that it looked like dustifacation, then saying it must have been some kind of energy weapon without producing credible verifiable information to those questions.

So lets see what we can come up with.

here is what I've found on my first attempts .

http://www.space.com/1934-weapons-directed-energy-warfare-21st-century.html

http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Counter-Directed-Energy-Weapons.aspx

I'm sure Judy Woods must have some info to back these claims, or something to verify the existence of a DEW that could produce such results.

Here are two other questions I would like to explore and seek answers:to:

1. How does a space based, or even terrestrial based DEW, attack four sides of a square building simultaneously to create the symmetrical collapse spectacle? (In the case of WTC2, everything below the tilted section point)

2. How does a DEW begin the attack at the damaged impact zones and not the roof?

3. What energy source is there and what amounts would be required to do all of this work?

Do you see the logistics problem here?

If it were space based it would have to be very accurate and be attacking from four compass points at once, at an angle to avoid hitting the roof first. It would have to be able to move downwards as well and be able to penetrate any debris that got in the way of "seeing" the floors not yet attacked. Can you really expect a satellite to be that accurate? After all we are talking about an extremely high energy event, not a cell phone call.

If it were ground based, it would have to be set up in surrounding buildings, with a clear view of the entire tower and require a sufficient power source..

So the candidates might look something like this, the Deutschebank (S), WTC7 (N), the Millenium Hotel (E) and the WFC (W)

But the DB was damaged by WTC2 collapse and WTC7 was damaged by WTC1. Would this DEW be able to do its work through a closed window, or would it have to be mounted on the roof?

In the case of WTC2, a significant portion of the core remained for a short time after the facade and floors fell way. It succumbed as a unit, dropping straight down, though the imagery doesn't tell us if it was top down or bottom up. Did the DEW miss hitting this portion of the core?.

Please don't hand wave all of the logistics away by saying, "Oh well, everything is possible, because we don't know anything about the weapon." That is way too convenient.

When you start asking prudent questions, the 'Energy Beam Weapon' theory all but falls apart. IMO.

We still cant dismiss the use of an unknown weapon though.

The theory that even A&Es presentations are also disinformation to cover up DEW or some other exotic weapon used by an entity other than the USA to attack us. This theory IMO explains far more for reason of lies and cover up than anything else.

[DeDukshyn]

I have a problem with some of these ideas.
DEW or any kind of secret weapon technology would be very expensive and they would not have it where they needed to dispose of it or risk of it being exposed.


We don't know the size or complexity of such a device. The second Iraq war saw use of DEWs (as microwave weaponry) attached to the backs of standard battle tanks, I do believe Target can vouch for this (having served there). The stories I heard is that these microwave weapons could burn and crinkle up cars, not unlike what we have seen at ground zero.




Why would they risk using such a weapon when conventional demo tech was all that was needed?
This is an interesting question, and one I brought forth to Paul, but by searching for possibilities of that motivation, rather than ignore it, will lead us further in the quest of unanswered questions.

[Curiosity]

The stories I heard is that these microwave weapons could burn and crinkle up cars, not unlike what we have seen at ground zero.


On the contrary, a single burned up or crinkled up car is nothing like tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete and hundreds of cars. Not even close. These DEW pinpoint targets, small targets.

What would it take to do this on a massive scale as alleged at WTC 9/11?

[Hervé]

All right, let me dig something from under the non-existent ashes... and just to re-ash (pun-pun-pun):



...

:rant:


Why do the people who start threads on 9-11 keep missing the obvious?

1) It was planned long in advance (if only to co-ordinate the military to hold an interdisciplinary drill on that specific date);

2) Accordingly, anyone in the loop banked on it from the Deutsche Bank, Bush family, Silverstein, DOD (2.3 trillion $$ budget hole paper trail... gone), PATRIOT act, etc... as in "Never let a good crisis go to waste;"

3) Huge media coverage -- hammered world wide -- of 3 buildings turned into volcanic ashes in a matter of minutes.

And that one is the OBVIOUS: Huge media coverage -- hammered world wide -- of 3 buildings turned into volcanic ashes in a matter of minutes.

THREE buildings and their contents turned into volcanic ash in front of the entire world's eyes!

To say the least, that's no ordinary weapon!

Any precedent scenario?

WW II wasn't ended until they were ready to explode their atomic bombs over Japan... that plunged the entire planet into a cold war and a nuclear arm race which separated the world into two blocks and their "satellite" slave countries for "protection" otherwise known as "racket."

Then the "earthquake machine" put Japan finance ministers under a gun held to their heads for them to follow Rockefeller's whims... or else... Haiti was another warning to the world's non-compliant leaders (Clinton's relief funds website for Haiti was put up a few days before the Haiti quake... ooopppsss... have Haitians ever seen the color of these funds?)

Then 9-11 and the OBVIOUS use of a non-ordinary weapon for the world to see... if that's not a message to world leaders similar to the nuclear bombing of Japan but, this time, in the hands of "terrorists," that is: "anywhere, anytime;" I don't know what is!

Anyway, that's my "WHY!"

... and the "how" is still under more wraps than "Project Manhattan" ever was... hummmfff... Project Manhattan... Manhattan... project...

[DeDukshyn]

These DEW pinpoint targets, small targets.
...

"These DEW ..."? Which DEW?

Entirely your speculation. Microwave weapons can be either focused for use at a specific range or more broadly, for example, crowd dispersion - already known and displayed technology. Take the microwave emitter out of your microwave oven and try to fire it up and see the effects. You will find that these emitters have very specific focal points - dependent on the size of your oven -- making them ideal for such uses as we propose happened on 9/11. Can microwaves be passed from space to Earth via a focused beam? I believe this is possible, and many studies in the area of solar energy from space as an infinite energy resource has shown this possibility. Therefore we can't rule out satellite use, or high altitude heavy bomber use in my opinion. At the same time I'm not 100% microwaves were the exotic weapon(s) used at 9/11, but there are effects seen that seem not unlike what one might expect with high powered microwaves.

[Curiosity]

If they wanted to show the world somebody has some exotic weapon of this nature, "create a WOW effect" the official story would have pushed that Idea. Instead they tried to cover up the obvious demolitions used to bring these buildings down claiming it was "jets and jet fuel etc."

"To say the least, that's no ordinary weapon!"

They did use unconventional tech, weapons grade nano thermite for one thing.

Compering WWII, atom bomb etc. is comparing apples to oranges. They used the a bomb to bring the japs to their knees and stop the war. They didn't kwwp it a secret after they used it.
They brought down WTCs to create war on another country. And they didn't claim some country has exotic weapons and we have to go after them.

To totally different scenarios.

¤=[Post Update]=¤



These DEW pinpoint targets, small targets.
...

"These DEW ..."? Which DEW?

Entirely your speculation. Microwave weapons can be either focused for use at a specific range or more broadly, for example, crowd dispersion - already known and displayed technology. Take the microwave emitter out of your microwave oven and try to fire it up and see the effects. You will find that these emitters have very specific focal points - dependent on the size of your oven -- making them ideal for such uses as we propose happened on 9/11. Can microwaves be passed from space to Earth via a focused beam? I believe this is possible, and many studies in the area of solar energy from space as an infinite energy resource has shown this possibility. Therefore we can't rule out satellite use, or high altitude heavy bomber use in my opinion. At the same time I'm not 100% microwaves were the exotic weapon(s) used at 9/11, but there are effects seen that seem not unlike what one might expect with high powered microwaves.

How did it pinpoint massive targets and bypass others?

[Hervé]

[...]
Compering WWII, atom bomb etc. is comparing apples to oranges. They used the a bomb to bring the japs to their knees and stop the war. They didn't kwwp it a secret after they used it.
[...]

Japan was ready to surrender and sign any papers long before the bombs were dropped, "they" kept the war going till they were able to produce those bombs and drop them. These bombs were intended to demonstrate something else to other world leaders and literally put a gun to their heads! There too, there was a massive, world wide hammering of the visuals of these bombs effects...

[Curiosity]

[...]
Compering WWII, atom bomb etc. is comparing apples to oranges. They used the a bomb to bring the japs to their knees and stop the war. They didn't kwwp it a secret after they used it.
[...]

Japan was ready to surrender and sign any papers long before the bombs were dropped, "they" kept the war going till they were able to produce those bombs and drop them. These bombs were intended to demonstrate something else to other world leaders and literally put a gun to their heads! There too, there was a massive, world wide hammering of the visuals of these bombs effects...

I don't think that's quite the way history books read. I recall the Japs weren't ready to sign until the second bomb was dropped.

In any case, why didn't they uses this concept after 9/11. Instead they tried to cover everything up.
Just doesn't make sense.

This documentary gives us a good idea of where we are at with DEW and laser tech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4HMkiH3-E

[DeDukshyn]

How did it pinpoint massive targets and bypass others?

The same way light can be focused to burn ants through a bag of water or a magnifying glass - we all know distance to target is crucial, dependant on the magnification strength / style. There needn't be a focused beam all the way from source to target. The energy can converge at said target, where the effect is active at that convergence. I failed to make that clear in my previous post, but that is one of the things I was trying to get across.

A few emitters positioned within reach from surrounding buildings, for example, could create the convergence at the targets, while not needing to worry about what is in between, as there is only enough energy or resonance at the convergence target to do the intended damage. But I am just throwing out "how" such things might be possible ... I don't really know, I haven't seen these weapons work, but I can imagine how they might, based on what I know and can speculate within reason.

In 3D lighting realms (light simulations), such concentrations of energy (in the case of 3D it is visible light) through a method of refraction is called "caustics" - because they tend to "burn" whatever they fall onto ("Burn" means to blowout the specular highlight in my context - indicating an excess of concentrated photons (energy) ) - the distance from refraction is very specific or else there is no "Burn". Since microwaves are just an extension of visible light, the exact same principles apply.

How'd they burn the glass at the middle without damaging along the path? :) From converging energy sources at the target point in 3D space. Note the level of accuracy.

http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00FBMQvnZqdJcm/Top-Grade-3D-Laser-Engraving-Crystal-CL-067-.jpg

[ThePythonicCow]

Is this irrefutable proof of a DEW? No.



Stawman (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html)
===


Can this effect be reproduced with conventional weaponry and demo tech? Yes.



Ignoring the counterevidence (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/onesided.html)
===


Did anybody gather the dust and weigh it to prove it vanished, which would be irrefutable proof? No. Impossible to do, is what I'm saying.



Stawman (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html)
===


I'm not against the Idea that DEW or other unbeknownst to the public weaponry tech was used. What I'm saying is we will never be able to prove it.



Stawman (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html)
===

I have no reliable way of knowing whether (1) I am more confused than I realize, (2) you're still in denial, as I was for many years, (3) you're choosing, consciously or not, to continue to spread disinformation about 9/11 ... but I do have a fairly reliable way of concluding that I should quit responding to your posts ... it's not good for my blood pressure <grin>.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


How'd they burn the glass at the middle without damaging along the path? :) From converging energy sources at the target point in 3D space.
Awesome cat - thanks!

[ThePythonicCow]

Japan was ready to surrender and sign any papers long before the bombs were dropped, "they" kept the war going till they were able to produce those bombs and drop them. These bombs were intended to demonstrate something else to other world leaders and literally put a gun to their heads! There too, there was a massive, world wide hammering of the visuals of these bombs effects...
Or ... if our ordinary conspiracies are starting to get boring, and you'd like to travel on the wild side, take a look at some of Miles Mathis commentary on World War II and the atomic bomb:

The Bikini Atoll Nuclear Tests Were Faked. (pdf) (http://mileswmathis.com/bikini.pdf)
Was Dresden also Faked? (pdf) (http://mileswmathis.com/dresden.pdf)
The Nuclear Hoax. (pdf) (http://mileswmathis.com/trinity.pdf)

P.S. - For more skeptical analysis of atomic bombs, see Daniel's Where’s the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-Shattering Kaboom! (http://www.conscioushugs.com/tag/nuclear-tests/).

Sorry ... :focus:

[araucaria]

A few emitters positioned within reach from surrounding buildings, for example, could create the convergence at the targets, while not needing to worry about what is in between, as there is only enough energy or resonance at the convergence target to do the intended damage. But I am just throwing out "how" such things might be possible ... I don't really know, I haven't seen these weapons work, but I can imagine how they might, based on what I know and can speculate within reason.

This sounds like a highly sophisticated version of a rather old technology: the Knickebein system of two converging beams used to guide Germans to their targets in World War II in what is known as the “Battle of the Beams”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beams

[Eram]

I remain skeptical toward the presence of a DEW.
Too much of the chore evidence that Woods explains as a signature for a DEW is already been occupied by the proven (beyond the point of doubt) presence of nano thermite and it's residue (metal nano spheres).

Nano thermite, especially in the amount that has been found in the dust samples can very well explain for the dustification process, the burnt cars, the free fall motion, the absence of heavy seismic impact and the glowing puddles of metal at the bottom of the ruble.

Woods says that if thermite was used, then we would haven been blinded by the light.
With regular first generation thermite, this might have been true (maybe), but nano thermite does not burn as bright as the regular one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dShGYuU_Wks). In fact, it is more an explosion instead of a burning process, with much less light involved.
Placed in the inner chore columns, there is no need for bright flashes outside the WTC towers.

Woods points toward certain anomalies that cannot directly be explained by nano thermite alone, but many of them can be explained without the necessity of the presence of a DEW.
Some seem a mysterie indeed and could fit into the theory of a DEW, like the molten file cabinet with some unburnt pieces of file holders, but with the chore argument (dustification) occupied by the nano thermite, you are left with little to go on.

My main argument is this:
Nano thermite in large enough quantities have been proven to exist within the collected dust samples.
This is now lifted far beyond the point of theory, speculation and belief.
It is a smoking gun that will hold up in a court of law.
It explains for all the chore arguments that Woods produces in favor of the DEW, so in effect, she is left almost empty handed.
please watch this youtube if you are unfamiliar with the research behind the nano thermite:
GM3DkC1skY0

On top of that: Many of the circumstantial evidence or hints at evidence can be proven incorrect beyond the point of doubt. Glowing cheeto's, half burnt police car on FDR drive, flattened cars on top of each other and more are just the result of sloppy detective work.

I do understand that the use of thermite alone presents us with some big problems.
How did it get there in the quantities that it did?
And on every floor!!!
But the fact is that it did.
The footage of the collapsing towers clearly show the outward explosions racing down the building under the dust cloud of falling rubble and you can not simply go and ignore this.

[PurpleLama]

I wonder, if there is any information to show whether building 7, which collapsed that evening, had likewise an apparent loss of mass as what appears to be the case with the towers.

Also, Eram, I don't think anyone would refute the use modern, high tech demolition techniques were used in the destruction of the towers, it's just that the full picture of the destruction does indeed seem to be something beyond what any one method could account for, be it jet fuel (ha!), or dynamite, or thermite, or micro nukes, or directed energy, or whatever. I believe nothing known or merely possible but unknown should be beyond the purview of this inquiry. The explosions you refer to can be clearly seen on many of the videos of the event, so none would deny that.

[winstonsmith]

I wonder, if there is any information to show whether building 7, which collapsed that evening, had likewise an apparent loss of mass as what appears to be the case with the towers.

Also, Eram, I don't think anyone would refute the use modern, high tech demolition techniques were used in the destruction of the towers, it's just that the full picture of the destruction does indeed seem to be something beyond what any one method could account for, be it jet fuel (ha!), or dynamite, or thermite, or micro nukes, or directed energy, or whatever. I believe nothing known or merely possible but unknown should be beyond the purview of this inquiry. The explosions you refer to can be clearly seen on many of the videos of the event, so none would deny that.

Had to be a loss of mass because you saw the same expanding pyroclastic flow. You see pyroclastic flow at conventional demolitions.

What is the conclusion?

WTC7 was attacked by a DEW?

Were the towers done by controlled demolition?

[DeDukshyn]

What if the main motivation for the attacks was to erase specific information? And all the "wow" factor, the "terrorist" connections, and excuse to invade Iraq, where a mere case of "not letting a good crisis go to waste." Perhaps specific information that was perhaps spread across the two towers and building 7. We all know several alphabet entities had offices in building 7. Would standard demolition techniques do the trick? Would hard drive clusters, NAS's or even individual PC Hard drive data potentially survive a standard demolition, from what I know, I would say so ... Can a DEW, for example a microwave weapon, damage a hard drive enough to render its data useless? Not sure, but it seems plausible ... Maybe it's purpose had nothing to do with actually felling the towers ... we know building 7 was previously rigged with explosives that brought it down ... perhaps it had to be brought down because everyone would wonder how all the data / info was erased / damaged, even when nothing really physically traumatic happened to the building ...

I do know that a German company was given some recovered hard drive pieces to attempt to gather data from. Before they even had begun it was said that absolutely no data would be recoverable - before the eattempt ... interesting. The German company did manage to find enough good data that supported the claims of massive inside trading and other anomalies in the days leading up to 9/11.

Just some food for thought ... It still does seem to me like there was something "microwavy" or "energetic" in nature, used. So I'm still thinking of motivation, since I do agree with the idea that a DEW was probably not required, or maybe even not useful, or intended, to bring the buildings down.

[Eram]

Also, Eram, I don't think anyone would refute the use modern, high tech demolition techniques were used in the destruction of the towers, it's just that the full picture of the destruction does indeed seem to be something beyond what any one method could account for, be it jet fuel (ha!), or dynamite, or thermite, or micro nukes, or directed energy, or whatever.

This morning, it suddenly dawned on me what was in the back of my mind, nagging me to come out all these days.

It is the fact that the first step to bring the house of cards down has been produced. Real life professors who investigated the dust, made publications, offered them for peer review and have them so far unchallenged. The group of people, engineers, professors, and what have you with a title and prestige to their name who join this train is growing.
This is HUGE!

All of a sudden, there is this PhD lady, who says: evidence, evidence, evidence and comes up with a theory that totally denies the one evidence, the smoking gun, the first significant nail in the coffin of the big magic trick.
This theory overlaps or hijacks almost all the characteristically trades of the use of thermite.

Maybe it is time that we let this sink in for a minute.

[DeDukshyn]

Also, Eram, I don't think anyone would refute the use modern, high tech demolition techniques were used in the destruction of the towers, it's just that the full picture of the destruction does indeed seem to be something beyond what any one method could account for, be it jet fuel (ha!), or dynamite, or thermite, or micro nukes, or directed energy, or whatever.

This morning, it suddenly dawned on me what was in the back of my mind, nagging me to come out all these days.

It is the fact that the first step to bring the house of cards down has been produced. Real life professors who investigated the dust, made publications, offered them for peer review and have them so far unchallenged. The growing group of people, engineers, professors, and what have you with a title and prestige to their name who join this train is growing.
This is HUGE!

All of a sudden, there is this PhD lady, who says: evidence, evidence, evidence and comes up with a theory that totally denies the one evidence, the smoking gun, the first significant nail in the coffin of the big magic trick.
This theory overlaps or hijacks almost all the characteristically trades of the use of thermite.

Maybe it is time that we let this sink in for a minute.

I think we all have to keep in mind the possibilities that anyone can be a disinfo agent ... at the same time, they might just believe in their theories strongly - which would look pretty much the same from the outside.

[DeDukshyn]

... <trim> ...
This documentary gives us a good idea of where we are at with DEW and laser tech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4HMkiH3-E

On this point, I think at least a few of us might be thinking ...

Such documentaries do not account for the delta between "high tech" and "top secret" for the public and the average layman, and actual "high tech" and "top secret" technologies that have been developed by the world's most advanced private tech weapons firms and thus advanced militaries. I imagine, and have also heard anecdotally, that this delta is enormous. How big it is in reality ... who knows, but we have to factor this in. The SR-71 remained a pretty good secret for many, many years, before info on it became publicly available ... and Bill tells me (based on some sources he trusts I am sure) that some of the info out now, after the plane has been "publicly" retired, is still not reflecting the reality of the capabilities of this machine -- 50 or so years later. And it's just a plane. An amazing one mind you, but still just a plane.

Of course none of this makes getting to the truth easy, but it has to be considered in the equation.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

If we want to prove anything specifically destroyed the Twin Towers or WTC7, we're going to have an uphill struggle, because to really prove it in a convincing way we would need lots and lots of specific detail, corroboration, and some way of reproducing our theory, even if only with models and demonstrations upon replicas of structural members. With very limited data on physical evidence and no original structural documentation this is obviously difficult. This has to be the first thing that changes.

It's far easier to prove that the official story as presented by FEMA and then NIST was a self-contradictory joke that didn't even address 99% of the actual collapses. Their reports only went as far as what they argue was required for some kind of collapse scenario to become possible, and they had nothing to say once things actually got moving. NIST's own experimental results, which they later redubbed as "computer calibrations," proved that their hypothesis was impossible.

NIST heated trusses until they were glowing red, and they did nothing to "pull" exterior columns inward, as if there would be any reason to suspect this in the first place since the fact that steel sags with heat does not mean that it actually weighs more or in any way exerts more force upon the column. If anything the truss should have been pushing the columns outwards because the "sagging" is actually a result of the steel trying to expand with heat but having no room to do so, held fast on the ends, so it bends in the middle instead.

If enough attention was drawn to how completely ridiculous and counter to science and engineering principles this hypothesis from the government is, we might be able to open the path for a second, international an independent investigation with access to original structural documentation and physical evidence, and with all data open source for the public to also see. This might seem like a pipe dream for the moment but an in-depth forensic investigation was never done for those buildings, and it is what is needed.

[Eram]

About the building 6 anomaly:

Judy Wood claims that the large hole in the middle of the building and the initial absence of a large pile of ruble can not be explained, unless you apply the DEW theory.

Actually: She is dead wrong!

The WTC 6 building (http://mpoverello.com/2011/09/09/911-%E2%80%93-the-significance-for-customs/) was a 8 storey high building above the ground.
It also contained several underground levels. I have not been able to find how many, but since the WTC 1 and 2 had 7 underground levels (70 ft deep), we can assume that WTC 6 had at least 2 and probably up to 4 underground levels.

If we look at the photo below, we can all count the amount of cut through storeys.
It's 8 storeys right?
If you look carefully, you can see where the ground floor was and that it is also cut through with beneath it a pile of ruble that you can easily imagine to extend several storeys deep.

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

So in my view, there is no mystery as to where all the material that once made up for the hole in WTC 6 went.
It went down into the basement, together with the ruble from WTC 1 and 2 that fell on top of it.


I think we all have to keep in mind the possibilities that anyone can be a disinfo agent ... at the same time, they might just believe in their theories strongly - which would look pretty much the same from the outside.

Absolutely agreed here.

I am not out there to destroy Judy Wood.
All I am interested in is to elevate speculations about 9/11 and what happened into the realm of knowledge.

ps: mods, Is it possible to upload a picture from a computer directly into a thread, or into a PA file from which you can insert it into a post?
I'd like to be able to upload photo's in which I added some "paint" work.

[Hervé]

[...]
ps: mods, Is it possible to upload a picture from a computer directly into a thread, or into a PA file from which you can insert it into a post?
I'd like to be able to upload photo's in which I added some "paint" work.

You cannot post an image directly from a computer, you would need to first upload it as an attachment to the Avalon server or upload it to one of those "PhotoBuckets" kind of sites and embed the link (url) in an img format (see: How do I embed an image in a post? (http://projectavalon.net/FAQs.htm#5) or : "How to Tips" with Visuals for Links, Quotes, Images, etc. (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?66104-How-to-Tips-with-Visuals-for-Links-Quotes-Images-etc.)).

[winstonsmith]

About the building 6 anomaly:

Judy Wood claims that the large hole in the middle of the building and the initial absence of a large pile of ruble can not be explained, unless you apply the DEW theory.

Actually: She is dead wrong!

The WTC 6 building (http://mpoverello.com/2011/09/09/911-%E2%80%93-the-significance-for-customs/) was a 8 storey high building above the ground.
It also contained several underground levels. I have not been able to find how many, but since the WTC 1 and 2 had 7 underground levels (70 ft deep), we can assume that WTC 6 had at least 2 and probably up to 4 underground levels.

If we look at the photo below, we can all count the amount of cut through storeys.
It's 8 storeys right?
If you look carefully, you can see where the ground floor was and that it is also cut through with beneath it a pile of ruble that you can easily imagine to extend several storeys deep.

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

So in my view, there is no mystery as to where all the material that once made up for the hole in WTC 6 went.
It went down into the basement, together with the ruble from WTC 1 and 2 that fell on top of it.


I think we all have to keep in mind the possibilities that anyone can be a disinfo agent ... at the same time, they might just believe in their theories strongly - which would look pretty much the same from the outside.

Absolutely agreed here.

I am not out there to destroy Judy Wood.
All I am interested in is to elevate speculations about 9/11 and what happened into the realm of knowledge.

ps: mods, Is it possible to upload a picture from a computer directly into a thread, or into a PA file from which you can insert it into a post?
I'd like to be able to upload photo's in which I added some "paint" work.

The WTC6 low-rise did have several levels below grade. This is elevation 250/253
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/subLevels/SKA12-84_0.png

This is elevation 264--Parking
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/subLevels/SKA11-84_0.png

Here is elevation 274-- Parking
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/subLevels/SKA10-84_0.png

[winstonsmith]

[...]
Compering WWII, atom bomb etc. is comparing apples to oranges. They used the a bomb to bring the japs to their knees and stop the war. They didn't kwwp it a secret after they used it.
[...]

Japan was ready to surrender and sign any papers long before the bombs were dropped, "they" kept the war going till they were able to produce those bombs and drop them. These bombs were intended to demonstrate something else to other world leaders and literally put a gun to their heads! There too, there was a massive, world wide hammering of the visuals of these bombs effects...

I don't think that's quite the way history books read. I recall the Japs weren't ready to sign until the second bomb was dropped.

In any case, why didn't they uses this concept after 9/11. Instead they tried to cover everything up.
Just doesn't make sense.

This documentary gives us a good idea of where we are at with DEW and laser tech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4HMkiH3-E

In this documentary it says the laser is capable of heating the very small missile target to 1200F.

Does this sound like enough energy to pulverize concrete? It certainly isn't enough to vaporize, or demolecularize, or melt steel. The energy requirements to do just one floor would be next to impossible to sustain.

[DeDukshyn]

[...]
Compering WWII, atom bomb etc. is comparing apples to oranges. They used the a bomb to bring the japs to their knees and stop the war. They didn't kwwp it a secret after they used it.
[...]

Japan was ready to surrender and sign any papers long before the bombs were dropped, "they" kept the war going till they were able to produce those bombs and drop them. These bombs were intended to demonstrate something else to other world leaders and literally put a gun to their heads! There too, there was a massive, world wide hammering of the visuals of these bombs effects...

I don't think that's quite the way history books read. I recall the Japs weren't ready to sign until the second bomb was dropped.

In any case, why didn't they uses this concept after 9/11. Instead they tried to cover everything up.
Just doesn't make sense.

This documentary gives us a good idea of where we are at with DEW and laser tech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4HMkiH3-E

In this documentary it says the laser is capable of heating the very small missile target to 1200F.

Does this sound like enough energy to pulverize concrete? It certainly isn't enough to vaporize, or demolecularize, or melt steel. The energy requirements to do just one floor would be next to impossible to sustain.

Why are we even talking about lasers? Are you suggesting we use a comparison between specific-use missile defence system lasers, and their intended use, and the effects that appear to be related to some energy weapon potentially used on 9/11 (very clearly not a laser) ? ... Microwave and particle beam weapons are not lasers.

[Eram]

If enough attention was drawn to how completely ridiculous and counter to science and engineering principles this hypothesis from the government is, we might be able to open the path for a second, international an independent investigation with access to original structural documentation and physical evidence, and with all data open source for the public to also see. This might seem like a pipe dream for the moment but an in-depth forensic investigation was never done for those buildings, and it is what is needed.

Personally, I think that the biggest problem with exposing the official story is not so much the facts that contradict their theory, but the psychological implications that will result from admitting that their theory is a bad joke.

People with authority know full well that they risk loosing their job and are up against forces that are beyond imagination if they speak out.
Living with yourself in awareness that your own government pulled this off is also unbearable, so they choose for the third option. Denial

You see this often in situations where the lie affords to maintain the comfort zone they live in.
In a Family where incest is committed, often many members of that family sort of know about it.
Their common sense tells them that something is very wrong, but the ego instinct intuitively knows that to investigate the very question will lead to an experience that they feel unable to face.
So, they choose denial. Often on an unconscious level.

Bringing facts to light is very important, but there also has to be a movement that will break the taboo around the official story of 9/11.

How?
I don't know.

[Curiosity]

The mention of whether or not Judy Woods theory is disinformation by design or whether she just believes deeply in her theory brings question to the validity of her theory.
The one thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the fact that she has publications on the market. This puts her motivations in the category of "for profit".

[DeDukshyn]

The mention of whether or not Judy Woods theory is disinformation by design or whether she just believes deeply in her theory brings question to the validity of her theory.
The one thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the fact that she has publications on the market. This puts her motivations in the category of "for profit".

Just because myself or certain others never draw final conclusions without overwhelming fact, and subsequently expressed that does not make one person's research or theories any more or less accurate (but thanks for the flattery). It does not bring any change to the validity of her theory at all, it only brings change within your mind. Tighten that up ... ;)

Believe nothing, yet consider everything.:)

[ThePythonicCow]

The mention of whether or not Judy Woods theory is disinformation by design or whether she just believes deeply in her theory brings question to the validity of her theory.
The one thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the fact that she has publications on the market. This puts her motivations in the category of "for profit".

Judy Wood's research, presented as high quality images in her book, stands, independent of her conclusions from viewing those images.

Look at those images for yourself ... you may well come to similar conclusions as did Judy Wood.

[Curiosity]

Believe nothing, yet consider everything.:)

This is my position. I don't question the 'possibility' that such technologies exist, nor do I doubt the gov would do such a thing with said technology. I just need hard physical proof to believe. Like Nana thirmite in dust IS hard physical proof that Nana Thermite was used, along with eye witness testimony and video collaboration of explosions.

I don't think there is even a whistle blower claiming such tech, as what Judy Woods claims was used, even exists?
So we have nothing at all to support what she claims other than pictorial hypothesis.

Also everything she claims is "evidence" (and evidence is not proof), of DEW or some exotic weapon, can be reproduced with conventional weapons, common and uncommon demolitions methods. ;

So maybe decades from now more info will come out like it usually does to show some hard proof supporting Judy Woods claims. But until then I'm leaning on the no proof side. And BTW before this thread I was more on the side of DEW being used. But after asking pertinent questions I find no hard evidence to support her claims.

[DeDukshyn]

Believe nothing, yet consider everything.:)

This is my position. ... <trim> ... I just need hard physical proof to believe.

Wait a second ... that doesn't add up! ... :P

[Curiosity]

Wait a second ... that doesn't add up! ... :P

I believe nothing without hard physical proof. What's confusing with that?

[DeDukshyn]

I believe nothing without hard physical proof. What's confusing with that?

Even "hard physical proof" can be misinterpreted, misunderstood, misevaluated, planted by someone to make you believe, etc. Stats can be manipulated to paint almost any picture, and surveys can be designed to give the desired result. A lack of "hard physical evidence" doesn't change outcomes that we observe. So even at the point where you are comfortable enough to "believe something outright", you have basically locked the door on that particular conclusion. However, more evidence may come out later, that refutes your "conclusion" -- but you have already locked that door. Leaving "conclusions" until the end of the Universe (the only actual conclusion that exists), is the only way to keep those doors unlocked. Once one has locked a door, their stance becomes rigid. then Others can use that rigidity to move you in the direction of their choosing - the rigidity allows that to occur.

Sorry for getting philosophical, but my statement "believe nothing, consider everything" allows one to humour some things as "fact" perhaps, but keeps the door open to allow for relentless improvement in discovering the "Truth". There is no truth that sets one free. The closest thing I have found to setting me free is my refusal to conclude a solid "belief" in anything, while at the same time, considering everything. Truth is relative. Like beauty. The statement "Believe nothing, consider everything" when, honoured, reveals that finding "truth" is a journey, not conclusions, as the truths you find may indeed change over time, as your views and perceptions change over time. People who blindly support Donald Trump, for example, have much different "truths" than I do. But to them, those truths are real, and to me, mine are real ... belief is the problem. replace all belief with considerations, and the relationship to "truth" changes.

I am not saying we shouldn't consider and explore, I am saying we should never stop considering and exploring ... :)

[Curiosity]

...

The closest thing I have found to setting me free is my refusal to conclude a solid "belief" in anything, while at the same time, considering everything. Truth is relative. Like beauty. The statement "Believe nothing, consider everything" when, honoured, reveals that finding "truth" is a journey, not conclusions, as the truths you find may indeed change over time, as your views and perceptions change over time. People who blindly support Donald Trump, for example, have much different "truths" than I do. But to them, those truths are real, and to me, mine are real ... belief is the problem. replace all belief with considerations, and the relationship to "truth" changes.

I am not saying we shouldn't consider and explore, I am saying we should never stop considering and exploring ... :)

I like you analogy, using Trump for example. lol.
Truth is what an individual believes in. Truth and beliefs vs fact and reality, not the same.

[DeDukshyn]

I like you analogy, using Trump for example. lol.
Truth is what an individual believes in. Truth and beliefs vs fact and reality, not the same.

And the realization has to be ... any one of us will only know "truths and beliefs", reality is unique to a combo of perception and perspective, and unless one is "all knowing", one's view is filtered through perception and perspective ... if the approach to this is careful ... it can be freeing. :)

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Bringing facts to light is very important, but there also has to be a movement that will break the taboo around the official story of 9/11.

How?
I don't know.

Historically, it happens by younger generations replacing the older ones in society. When people grow up exposed to certain controversies they seem to be more able to think clearly about it than the older generations to whom the controversies come as a shock to their belief systems. Copernicus is one example, and investigations into the explosion of the USS Maine is another.

It's not a very encouraging answer but it may be the case here as well.

[Curiosity]

Here are some figures and stats to dig into.

Vaporizing the World Trade Center
Is Much of the World Trade Center Missing?
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM

Concrete Pulverization
Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html


The Core Structure Of The World Trade Center Towers
Was A Steel Reinforced, Cast Concrete, Tubular Core.
http://www.911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html

1.3 Can We “Count” The Debris?
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=145&Itemid=60

I haven't examined all this yet but I will then get back here with some thoughts.

[winstonsmith]

Where the debris went. It wasn't dust.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?168254-1/fresh-kills-landfill-tour

[DaveToo]

Believe it or not, volcanoes hold the key to understanding how the WTC towers were demolished on 9/11.

On our planet, pyroclastic flows occur in only two instances:

1. During volcanic eruptions
2. During nuclear explosions

We can quickly rule out volcanic eruptions having occurred as each of the three towers came down.

Take a good look at the following videos and photos to get a good grasp of what pyroclastic dust flows look like.

Volcano pyroclastic flows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tc0-6zVx2w

Nuke, small yield
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jkaPHPRC1o

WTC towers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXV6lh9TPK0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg4f6LGCOGU

Volcano:
https://ibb.co/gHCivU
https://ibb.co/d6EtUp
https://ibb.co/dsPDvU
https://ibb.co/dCPk9p

Nuke:
https://ibb.co/j9Fgzp
https://ibb.co/numzkU

WTC towers:
https://ibb.co/d8LdC9
https://ibb.co/nwigX9

Pyroclastic clouds are rich, dense, cauliflower-like, rapidly expanding and hot.

[Hervé]

Believe it or not, volcanoes hold the key to understanding how the WTC towers were demolished on 9/11.
[...]
Hi Dave, I moved your post to this thread and recommend you have a look at post #49 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?88490-The-sheer-volume-of-concrete-and-steel-that-simply-vanished-on-9-11&p=1041984&viewfull=1#post1041984).

[DaveToo]

hello Siblings,

I thought i was familiar with all the evidence on 9/11 until is saw this.

This video was distributed by richplanet.tv: Highly recommended.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yapQLt4DChg

be happy

lucidity

Richard Hall, nice guy that he is, is a dyed-in-the-wool Dr. Wood disciple.
And a preaching one at that!
He goes around wherever he can giving lectures on Dr. Wood and her DEW theory.

I went down many a rabbit hole on my 9/11 journey. I left no stone unturned.
Heck I will admit to everyone here that for a very brief period I too was a Dr. Wood proponent
and also a Richard Hall proponent.

But that love affair didn't last long.

I was quite satisfied with all the research I had done up until a couple of years ago.
Then quite by accident I discovered Heinz Pommer, a German nuclear physicist.

The rest as they say is nuclear history!

I would strongly encourage those who haven't seen his lectures to check out these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxC_8Kuagcw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se5BDbEbtwU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbwYEzrB-g0

[gord]

hello Siblings,

I thought i was familiar with all the evidence on 9/11 until is saw this.

This video was distributed by richplanet.tv: Highly recommended.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yapQLt4DChg

be happy

lucidity

Richard Hall, nice guy that he is, is a dyed-in-the-wool Dr. Wood disciple.
And a preaching one at that!
He goes around wherever he can giving lectures on Dr. Wood and her DEW theory.

I went down many a rabbit hole on my 9/11 journey. I left no stone unturned.
Heck I will admit to everyone here that for a very brief period I too was a Dr. Wood proponent
and also a Richard Hall proponent.

But that love affair didn't last long.

I was quite satisfied with all the research I had done up until a couple of years ago.
Then quite by accident I discovered Heinz Pommer, a German nuclear physicist.

The rest as they say is nuclear history!

I would strongly encourage those who haven't seen his lectures to check out these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxC_8Kuagcw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se5BDbEbtwU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbwYEzrB-g0


I tried to post those three Pommer videos on The Unz Review and the post was rejected.

[Baby Steps]

Thanks for sharing the Pommer videos, their description of a directed nuclear fountain, contained by the bathtub base structure of the towers and therefore directed upwards in a super heated chimney effect makes allot of sense.


The Russian nuclear scientist who previously had suggested larger nukes that dustify the towers from the base makes less sense to me as we can see progressive destruction from the top going down..however the fact that the debri piles were so low, does suggest a bomb created cavity to accommodate.

However the nuclear plasma chimneys, which work to soften the cores of the towers, do not account for recordings of explosions going off after the planes had hit, nor accounts of detonations in the basements leading to people emerging from there with their skin hanging off(indicating nuclear flash injury)

It seems unlikely that each tower could have had two or more separate nuclear events, at the base, one prior to collapse and one during it

[TomKat]

hello Siblings,

I thought i was familiar with all the evidence on 9/11 until is saw this.

This video was distributed by richplanet.tv: Highly recommended.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yapQLt4DChg

be happy

lucidity

This is fully explainable. It's called the Boxcutter Effect :-)

[DaveToo]

Thanks for sharing the Pommer videos, their description of a directed nuclear fountain, contained by the bathtub base structure of the towers and therefore directed upwards in a super heated chimney effect makes allot of sense.


The Russian nuclear scientist who previously had suggested larger nukes that dustify the towers from the base makes less sense to me as we can see progressive destruction from the top going down..however the fact that the debri piles were so low, does suggest a bomb created cavity to accommodate.

However the nuclear plasma chimneys, which work to soften the cores of the towers, do not account for recordings of explosions going off after the planes had hit, nor accounts of detonations in the basements leading to people emerging from there with their skin hanging off(indicating nuclear flash injury)

It seems unlikely that each tower could have had two or more separate nuclear events, at the base, one prior to collapse and one during it

That's a pretty good very brief summary of Pommer's work Baby Steps.
He does go into detail about the points you make at the end of your post.

He is certain (and I concur) that there were multiple devices used to bring down the towers, each serving their own important purpose.
The primary mechanism of course being the nuclear devices beneath each of the three towers.

In addition to those were more conventional bombs and thermite.

[Baby Steps]

DaveToo

Agree, and cannot help but wonder if the progressive collapse described by Fire department witnesses as "POP! POP! POP!"
as successive floors were dustified were not also mini nukes.

the alleged 17 suitcases

[Baby Steps]

knew too much to live

[DaveToo]

It seems unlikely that each tower could have had two or more separate nuclear events, at the base, one prior to collapse and one during it

The explosions in WTC1's basement occurring prior to the plane crash were likely caused by more conventional explosives.

However, if you have understood Pommer's latest theories from the past couple of years, he is suggesting 'slow-cooking' nuclear devices were used. That is, they were activated at a certain time and started to do their own thing. The exact time that the plasma would break through the containment at the base and be released to shoot up through the tower's interior columns was unknown.

It's entirely possible that the explosions that occurred in the basement were unpredictable results of the slow-cooking device.

[winstonsmith]

The exact time that the plasma would break through the containment at the base and be released to shoot up through the tower's interior columns was unknown.



There are several very good reasons to disregard buried nukes as a demolition mechanism.

1. In WTC1, 14 people were unharmed in a stair near the 4th floor.
2. There is no visible evidence of destruction rising from the base.
3. How smart can this nuke be, to know exactly how high to rise, into different levels of each tower, and REVERSE DIRECTION, to begin visibly destroying the towers from the top down.
4. The B6 slab was undamaged. See figure 26 here http://www.drjudywood.com/wtc/ (This is not an endorsement of Wood's theories, just a link to a photo she features)

[DaveToo]

The exact time that the plasma would break through the containment at the base and be released to shoot up through the tower's interior columns was unknown.



There are several very good reasons to disregard buried nukes as a demolition mechanism.

1. In WTC1, 14 people were unharmed in a stair near the 4th floor.
2. There is no visible evidence of destruction rising from the base.
3. How smart can this nuke be, to know exactly how high to rise, into different levels of each tower, and REVERSE DIRECTION, to begin visibly destroying the towers from the top down.
4. The B6 slab was undamaged. See figure 26 here http://www.drjudywood.com/wtc/ (This is not an endorsement of Wood's theories, just a link to a photo she features)

Winston I don't have time at the moment to go into detail with my reply, as I'll be busy for a few weeks still.
However it seems you haven't taken the time to check out the research of Heinz Pommer who I reference above.
He has been meticulous in his work.
He has covered the four points you bring up and is able to explain each of them as it fits with his nuclear theory.

Please take the time to catch up on his research. I think it will be time well-invested.

[DaveToo]

jaybee I hope you find my reply to your post here.


"good old 9/11 eh.... evidence and counter evidence can be conjured up for every aspect of it and every layer of every aspect...

Myself I think a more covert and experimental technology was used on the WTC area on 9/11 and that oddities with the fires around the world at the moment could indicate an off shoot of that technology...

Perhaps the basis of the technology itself is an offshoot of the original nuclear experiments - they've had decades to work on it - "

I thought that replying in a 9/11 thread would be more appropriate than in the Wildfire thread we started to derail.

If you read some of my posts near the end of this thread you will see that I discovered Hans Pommer a few years ago.
What better authority to discuss the possibility of nuclear devices having been used on 9/11 than a nuclear physicist?

He is suggesting 'nuclear devices' were used, not nuclear bombs. That's a big difference.
He came to this conclusion after examining all of the evidence very carefully.
And not nuclear devices exclusively.

The nuclear devices he describes would certainly have fallen into the category of 'covert and experimental technology'
that you mentioned.
If you haven't checked out this man's work yet I highly recommend you do.

[oz93666]

The Russian nuclear scientist who previously had suggested larger nukes that dustify the towers from the base makes less sense to me as we can see progressive destruction from the top going down..

Yes ... that's clearly disinformation ...There is a slight of hand in his presentation ...He reports seeing pulverized (dustified) rock at Russian under ground nuke detonations , but this only occurs because containing rock allows incredible pressures ... Nothing was containing the towers , so this cannot happen ...

As Judy Wood says it was a directed energy weapon ...But she doesn't know how or where ... Members here know about the SSP , the secret government have craft which can cloak and have these sort of weapons... The most reliable source we have informs us that one cloaked craft firing a DEW dustified the towers ... These same craft are out now starting forest fires all over the globe using other types of DEW . They want to convince us it's global warming burning up the planet ...Soon the malevolent ET's will arrive offering a solution.

[DaveToo]

The Russian nuclear scientist who previously had suggested larger nukes that dustify the towers from the base makes less sense to me as we can see progressive destruction from the top going down..

Yes ... that's clearly disinformation ...There is a slight of hand in his presentation ...He reports seeing pulverized (dustified) rock at Russian under ground nuke detonations , but this only occurs because containing rock allows incredible pressures ... Nothing was containing the towers , so this cannot happen ...

As Judy Wood says it was a directed energy weapon ...But she doesn't know how or where ... Members here know about the SSP , the secret government have craft which can cloak and have these sort of weapons... The most reliable source we have informs us that one cloaked craft firing a DEW dustified the towers ... These same craft are out now starting forest fires all over the globe using other types of DEW . They want to convince us it's global warming burning up the planet ...Soon the malevolent ET's will arrive offering a solution.

The Russian you are referring to is Dimitri Khalezov.
Heinz Pommer and I agree that he is off on his theory for nukes.

Please take the time to read up and on Heinz Pommer.

The only thing Judy Wood is correct about is that a DEW was used.
Not the type she is thinking about (she never says what it looks like nor how it was deployed).
The directed energy weapon that was used was a nuclear one.

The nuclear devices were situated in the basement levels of the towers and directed upwards through the towers.
Pommer lays everything out.
He explains the explosions (and how people could have survived in the stairwells) etc.

[oz93666]

The Russian you are referring to is Dimitri Khalezov.
Heinz Pommer and I agree that he is off on his theory for nukes.

Please take the time to read up and on Heinz Pommer.

The only thing Judy Wood is correct about is that a DEW was used.
Not the type she is thinking about (she never says what it looks like nor how it was deployed).
The directed energy weapon that was used was a nuclear one.

The nuclear devices were situated in the basement levels of the towers and directed upwards through the towers.
Pommer lays everything out.
He explains the explosions (and how people could have survived in the stairwells) etc.

I did look into him a long time ago ... can vaguely remember ...
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/7nR9nfs0aMGF8GV_IJahX74x1CrfsIowHtkxFkakdMKSy91mh_9IVv-9b8NZX6uI-5SayPzXPzQdg0wgOfDAIVckQQlcOoGD1Sa5cgDo

Neutron radiation "evaporating" inner core doesn't make sense ... Evaporation means the steel reached a temperature where it vaporized 2865C impossible for many reasons ... it Dustified .. somehow the atomic bonds were broken without expenditure of much energy

Early nuke test were done with the nuke atop of a flimsy steel tower 3mm "L" beams , but no steel was evaporated just buckled

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EstFW23U0AAFbjO.jpg

I don't need to tell you how thick the steel was in the towers!!

The controllers are encouraging the nuke myth ... building those two blue pools ... and people like Pommer will find the nuke idea attractive because nukes is the only thing they know!

We know the cabal have vast amounts of different exotic weaponry Pommer has no idea about

[jaybee]

jaybee I hope you find my reply to your post here.


"good old 9/11 eh.... evidence and counter evidence can be conjured up for every aspect of it and every layer of every aspect...

Myself I think a more covert and experimental technology was used on the WTC area on 9/11 and that oddities with the fires around the world at the moment could indicate an off shoot of that technology...

Perhaps the basis of the technology itself is an offshoot of the original nuclear experiments - they've had decades to work on it - "

I thought that replying in a 9/11 thread would be more appropriate than in the Wildfire thread we started to derail.

If you read some of my posts near the end of this thread you will see that I discovered Hans Pommer a few years ago.
What better authority to discuss the possibility of nuclear devices having been used on 9/11 than a nuclear physicist?

He is suggesting 'nuclear devices' were used, not nuclear bombs. That's a big difference.
He came to this conclusion after examining all of the evidence very carefully.
And not nuclear devices exclusively.

The nuclear devices he describes would certainly have fallen into the category of 'covert and experimental technology'
that you mentioned.
If you haven't checked out this man's work yet I highly recommend you do.


Thanks.... I will definitely check that out when I have the head space to get into it...

The difference between 'nuclear bomb' and 'nuclear device' is noted...

A few years ago I spent a lot of time going through the YouTube videos of nuclear explosions to see if I could spot any UFOs in the vicinity... :).... looking frame by frame by tapping on the pause button...

On one of them at one point a beam of light passed through the mushroom cloud - through the hottest part that was glowing red.... after I mentioned it on another forum and posted the video with a still... it disappeared and I think many of those videos carefully omit anything like that - - just throwing that out - I don't know what that beam of light was or how it could fit in with 9/11 but I can imagine there might be a connection... ???

[winstonsmith]

I have checked out Pommer and stand by my rebuttals. The buried nukes theory is ridiculous on its face. defies observations, videos and common sense physics.

[winstonsmith]

"The nuclear devices were situated in the basement levels of the towers and directed upwards through the towers."

Think about this for one minute.
How does one achieve this without damaging the basement (B6) foundation and slab?
How does one effect a rise of a damage wave without any damage visible at the lower 90 levels?

Makes no sense.

[DaveToo]

I have checked out Pommer and stand by my rebuttals. The buried nukes theory is ridiculous on its face. defies observations, videos and common sense physics.


"The nuclear devices were situated in the basement levels of the towers and directed upwards through the towers."

Think about this for one minute.
How does one achieve this without damaging the basement (B6) foundation and slab?
How does one effect a rise of a damage wave without any damage visible at the lower 90 levels?

Makes no sense.

Given your comments and questions above it is clear that you have not checked out Pommer carefully enough.
He covers each and every comment/question in detail in his videos and accompanying documents.

[DaveToo]

Thanks.... I will definitely check that out when I have the head space to get into it...

The difference between 'nuclear bomb' and 'nuclear device' is noted...

A few years ago I spent a lot of time going through the YouTube videos of nuclear explosions to see if I could spot any UFOs in the vicinity... :).... looking frame by frame by tapping on the pause button...

On one of them at one point a beam of light passed through the mushroom cloud - through the hottest part that was glowing red.... after I mentioned it on another forum and posted the video with a still... it disappeared and I think many of those videos carefully omit anything like that - - just throwing that out - I don't know what that beam of light was or how it could fit in with 9/11 but I can imagine there might be a connection... ???

You definitely need to have the head space and open mind to get into Pommer.
After taking in a few of his early videos I was certainly drawn into his ideas/theories but
had quite a few questions about what he was proposing.

I started to have a private correspondence with him and he cleared up all of the questions I had.
I don't rely on Pommer for all of my nuclear conclusions but his current theory as to what kind
of nuclear device was used makes a lot of sense given what we saw occurring on 9/11, in particular
the smoke clouds emerging at the base of the towers prior to demolition as well as the significant
video interference from radiation before the towers came down.

I don't know about light beams/UFO's associated with nukes, that's beyond my nuke research at the moment
and Pommer doesn't mention them in his research.

But speaking about light beams...
I do think the light beams striking WTC1/2 a split second before each plane hit the towers is very significant.

[oz93666]

"The nuclear devices were situated in the basement levels of the towers and directed upwards through the towers."

Think about this for one minute.
How does one achieve this without damaging the basement (B6) foundation and slab?
How does one effect a rise of a damage wave without any damage visible at the lower 90 levels?

Makes no sense.

The Nuke idea is just flat out impossible ... We saw many thousands of tonnes turn to dust ..No radiation interaction does this , that is not the way neutrons or any other radiation effect matter.

Any theory has to explain ALL the evidence ... Themate was used , evidence of residue in dust samples , metal coulomb cut at 45 degs. .. This started the collapse , then after 3 secs the disintegration beam from a cloaked UFO ...

They had to get it falling first , otherwise it would have disintegrated just as it stood there .. melted away to dust without falling ...Some people might have found that suspicious !

Then the question ...Why dustify it at all? Thermate would have brought the towers down buy itself ...Yes but there would have been a mountain of steel coulombs hundreds of them all cut at the tell tale 45Deg angle .. would have taken months to remove and hundreds of workmen would have seen them ... they were dustified to destroy the evidence. ( divine providence allowed at least one to survive )
Thermate explains smoke seen at base of towers before collapse .
(Thermate is Thermite +Sulphur...more effective)
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/upload_2018-1-27_13-52-44-png.31319/

[DaveToo]

"The nuclear devices were situated in the basement levels of the towers and directed upwards through the towers."

Think about this for one minute.
How does one achieve this without damaging the basement (B6) foundation and slab?
How does one effect a rise of a damage wave without any damage visible at the lower 90 levels?

Makes no sense.

The Nuke idea is just flat out impossible ... We saw many thousands of tonnes turn to dust ..No radiation interaction does this , that is not the way neutrons or any other radiation effect matter.

Pommer is not saying radiation turned the columns to dust. By saying so, it shows that you have not done your homework on Pommer.
Please check out his videos and spend at least a few hours to learn what he is saying.




Any theory has to explain ALL the evidence ... Themate was used , evidence of residue in dust samples , metal coulomb cut at 45 degs. .. This started the collapse ,

Pommer's theory DOES explain all the evidence.
Yes he believes thermate/thermite was used (so do I). It had a specific use to prep the buildings for the nukes.



then after 3 secs the disintegration beam from a cloaked UFO ...

That is total speculation with zero evidence.
The beauty of Pommer's theory is that we have tons of evidence for it.



Then the question ...Why dustify it at all? Thermate would have brought the towers down buy itself ...Yes but there would have been a mountain of steel coulombs hundreds of them all cut at the tell tale 45Deg angle .. would have taken months to remove and hundreds of workmen would have seen them ... they were dustified to destroy the evidence. ( divine providence allowed at least one to survive )

It was dustified because it was the most efficient way to destroy the buildings and leave neighboring buildings intact.



Thermate explains smoke seen at base of towers before collapse .


No thermate wouldn't explain the smoke. Did you see smoke on the side of the building when metal was pouring out shortly before demolition?

[oz93666]

[QUOTE=DaveToo;1440858]
Pommer is not saying radiation turned the columns to dust. By saying so, it shows that you have not done your homework on Pommer.
Please check out his videos and spend at least a few hours to learn what he is saying.
[QUOTE]

It's your job in this debate to explain what did turn steel to dust , not refer me to videos ... no known radiation . or "shock wave " can do this .

[DaveToo]

[QUOTE=DaveToo;1440858]
Pommer is not saying radiation turned the columns to dust. By saying so, it shows that you have not done your homework on Pommer.
Please check out his videos and spend at least a few hours to learn what he is saying.
[QUOTE]

It's your job in this debate to explain what did turn steel to dust , not refer me to videos ... no known radiation . or "shock wave " can do this .

I don't have any job here. :)

If you are interested in finding out about Pommer's theories it's best to get it straight from the 'horse's mouth' so to speak, from Pommer himself.

As I said, he will explain/answer all the questions you have about this.

[ExomatrixTV]

Dustification | Episode 3, IRREFUTABLE: Classified Free-Energy Technology Revealed to the World

x2IMiQzFu6I

[Delight]

Judy Wood coined dustification I think. She hs been really clear that conventional means don't account for the anomalies.

aWNzq9OWGmY

[Delight]

The rearview hindsight is interesting. Directed energy weapons? We are close to free energy?

v2usd1k/?pub=mpxgj

[PlasmaVortex]

Judy wood blew me away when i learned about the bathtub at the base of the towers that was the game changer for me, if it did break even slightly well you can probably guess what happens to New York, therefore it was like almost surgical in its precision. Whats interesting is that weather radar can now pick up flying ant colonies so imagine that resonance tolerance weaponised.

[Blastolabs]

This video is made by a physicist (https://remoteview.substack.com/)who, before 9/11, was working on the same type of technology that was used to vaporize the twin towers.

It is fairly high level but also extremely in depth, worth watching for sure. Explains in detailed the Judy Wood information from the perspective of two physicists.

The video also explains how Richard Gage, the guy who came up with the "controlled demolition" narrative was a key player in the cover up of cold fusion in the late 1980's. So this Richard Gage covered up cold fusion after the famous experiments in the 1980's and covered up cold fusion as the cause of 9/11.

cTi0bLvfY6E