Title: 911 What Happened - Not How It Happened - Dr Judy Wood Source:
[None] URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gFW-sZrmSs Published:Nov 16, 2012 Author:Judy Wood Post Date:2012-11-16 10:10:44 by Horse Keywords:None Views:2594 Comments:115
That woman is a total nutcase that could have had a hand in the murder of one of her students. She is being used by disinfo agents to discredit 9/11 truth.
She is being used by disinfo agents to discredit 9/11 truth.
I'm getting REALLY sick and tired of this entire 9/11 thing, and I've been a vocal critic of the government lies since before I even signed up here on 4um half a decade ago.
The disinfo, and the effects it has on unsuspecting readers, has been amazing. They have more power over the general public than those who present facts and actual truth.
So why should I care, when apparently, many of those who proclaim themselves "truthers" don't?
So why should I care, when apparently, many of those who proclaim themselves "truthers" don't?
Real Truthers ALWAYS CARE. Always. We can not give up, we do not forget, we get to the bottom of things and we share what we learn and you can take it or leave it.
Getting to know the truth is about setting ourselves free.
We share the information that others maybe free as well.
Real Truthers ALWAYS CARE. Always. We can not give up, we do not forget, we get to the bottom of things and we share what we learn and you can take it or leave it.
Each and every time I have attempted to present facts when conversing with you in regards to the 9/11 attacks, you have attacked me with a barrage of profantities and insults, along with wild claims with no basis in fact.
Seems to me if you actually cared about what the TRUTH was, you wouldn't behave in that manner.
Since you must have guessed by now I had bozo'd you, apparently you thought you'd play the nice guy in speaking to my handle, trying to score some "points". You're just the gift that keeps on giving.
#36. To: FormerLurker, lod, GreyLmist, wudidiz, RickyJ, horse, itistoolate, christine, all, Ping, pang walla walla bing bang. (#30)
Each and every time I have attempted to present facts when conversing with you in regards to the 9/11 attacks, you have attacked me with a barrage of profantities and insults, along with wild claims with no basis in fact.
Seems to me if you actually cared about what the TRUTH was, you wouldn't behave in that manner.
Since you must have guessed by now I had bozo'd you, apparently you thought you'd play the nice guy in speaking to my handle, trying to score some "points". You're just the gift that keeps on giving.
FormerLurker,
That is the weirdest.... weakest... lamest attempt at a conversation twist and guilt redirection.
I have no clue nor interest in what you do with your settings.
In fact I am tired of addressing you because when ever we converse the subject always seems to stray from 911 and into personal nit pickings. And While I can quote where I have said I was mistaken and what not...whats the point?
Instead of making this about me and you or you vrs the world or any other nonesense thing, instead , how about we talk about what we know.... and what this thread is about.
We know we have all kinds of DEW weapons. D.A.P.A.R. doesn't make wicker baskets. It makes military advancements. It is completely possible DEW weapons were used. They existed at that time... nothing being put forward in this interview was fringe. Ms, Woods even stressed avoiding speculation and grounding our conclusions in what can be proven by peer reviewed... PEER REVIEWED.
Peer Review Definition Dec 26, 2005 ... Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality
So we can see she is not afraid of having her worked double checked and debunked.
To do that though FIRST you must know exactly what it is we are talking about...what the fruits of her labour has been, in said peer review paper.
If you have issue with her findings the point out her work exactly and speak up on what your exact boggle is with her work. And I stress "her" here because I am not wanting to know about the work of others by comparisons. I am familer(sp) with other peoples research. Specifically , if you find flaw in Woods work , I would like to keep it about her work and where you find any issue in it...
Name me ONE which can bring down a 110 story skyscraper.
Just one? I have the internet at my disposal. I could name dozens upon dozens in both practical and plausible to the theoretical yet applicable...
High intensity Laser,microwave resonance, perhaps a micro kinetic pellet...I mean, how much do you know about coil guns? Or DEW weapons in general? Are you intimate with the wide range of subject matter and what is in use?
Now, you brought up my miss spelling of D.A.R.P.A. . Was their a reason you did not use proper punctuation of the acronym? Not to split hairs here but this was the exact kind of nit pick bull shit I spoke to earlier. Everyone knew what I meant even you...but only you sought to call it out as if it were a relevant point. Our grammar and minor mistakes their in and of, is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Ms. Judy Woods and her interview here and her work. Try not to detract by distraction but rather , help us stick with the topic at hand. Please.
I'll try hard too.
:)
As for their being no reason for DEW weapons being involved.... well... that is kinda what this interview is about.. and her work... and this whole entire topic that is being discussed.... and you still have not spoken to any flaw or failing you find in her work. You offer alternative theories and that is all well and good but you do not cite what you find to be incorrect , point by point.
Soooooooo.........
Did you wanna talk about her interview and what she suggests?
High intensity Laser,microwave resonance, perhaps a micro kinetic pellet...I mean, how much do you know about coil guns? Or DEW weapons in general? Are you intimate with the wide range of subject matter and what is in use?
You think a laser wouldn't be visible if it were powerful enough to heat up a building sufficiently to cause it to instantly fall into itself? You're confusing Star Trek phasers with what a real laser is. It's simply amplified light, and it simply heats things up. We have NOTHING which can bring down a building, in fact, it's hard enough to heat up a missile in order to destroy it.
Such beams are NOT powerful enough in the atmosphere to do any significant damage except for objects at a very short range.
Ok, so it wasn't a laser.
Microwave resonance? Fancy word for microwave heating effects, where here, we are talking more about anti-personel or (non lethal) weapons designed for combat or riot situations.
Micro kinetic pellet? A hyper-velocity pellet might go through a battleship, but it pretty much just makes a clean hole. It certainly did not nor could it have brought down the WTC.
So can you find any sort of "directed energy weapon" which COULD bring down the WTC?
Whatever directed energy weapon they could come up with still wouldn't fit the available evidence since there were survivors of the WTC collapse. Any directed energy weapon that would turn concrete and steel beams into dust surely would have killed any humans as well.
Any directed energy weapon that would turn concrete and steel beams into dust surely would have killed any humans as well.
There are other factors which eliminates directed energy weapons as well.
One such item is that any sort of weapon powerful enough to disintegrate a skyscraper would need MASSIVE amounts of power, and would most likely be MASSIVE in size. Where would such a weapon be fired from, and where it would it get its energy?
Another is the matter of how would such a weapon be selective in its destructive power, where not only would it not ALSO destroy objects and structures in back of its target, but that it would be able to focus its energy on EXACTLY where it needed to be in order to cause a sequential top down collapse, progressing downwards as the collapse took place.
If we had such weapons, we would be using them right now against any nation that the elites wanted to attack. It would be more devastating than the nuclear bomb, and such unbalanced power would most assuredly result in a global conflict of unmatched proportion.
If we had such weapons, we would be using them right now against any nation that the elites wanted to attack. It would be more devastating than the nuclear bomb, and such unbalanced power would most assuredly result in a global conflict of unmatched proportion.
You keep presuming that such weapons would have to be ours rather than a foreign attacker's but there's no reason for us to go back again to square one and re-establish the obvious fact that America isn't the only country with Directed Energy/WMD technology. We don't need to play parlor guessing games about what's in America's secret arsenals and the secret arsenals of others that can topple your Jonesian-model, which has never logically explained what happened that day anyway. It's already been discussed elsewhere in this 4um at length that the evidence indicates something involving electromagnetism -- perhaps even micro/mini nukes.
We know that there were surivors in Japan within the atomic blast zones. Apparently, you want us to believe that wouldn't be the case on 9/11 with a smaller nuke of some sort or with Directed Energy weaponry either but somehow they would survive being flash-fried by a nano- thermite/thermate explosion -- because it was actually a very low to no-flash form of thermite/thermate that didn't produce much light or heat, just "pancake powder"?? The so-called pancaking powder flew up and outward as the buildings came down. That tells us that there wasn't the weight crashing down that would be required to pulverize the structures.
9/11 was an Act of War against us, not some campfire-story fashion show that has to be reduced to conformity with a short-stack of thermitic flap- jacks, syrupy molten metal, and remote controlled butter-planes on the side to suit your group. Just for kicks, you might want to explain how crashing and exploding planes wouldn't severely damage the sequencing of a preset controlled demolition or immediately trigger a C4Thermitic one.
Why is it that you think a directed energy weapon could be contained within such a narrow range as the building and produce such massive damage yet leave human survivors? Please, we all weren't born yesterday. The firemen heard explosions before the building started coming down. What you saw on TV was tons of explosives going off sequentially on each floor. You ask what about the impact zone? Well, you think there was no real planes, so that shouldn't be a problem for you, but you will also notice that the impact zone was the only area that did not explode, the rest of the building did, but the impact area didn't. Obviously they didn't have any explosives in that area.
Why is it that you think a directed energy weapon could be contained within such a narrow range as the building and produce such massive damage yet leave human survivors? Please, we all weren't born yesterday. The firemen heard explosions before the building started coming down. What you saw on TV was tons of explosives going off sequentially on each floor. You ask what about the impact zone? Well, you think there was no real planes, so that shouldn't be a problem for you, but you will also notice that the impact zone was the only area that did not explode, the rest of the building did, but the impact area didn't. Obviously they didn't have any explosives in that area.
You are right that it isn't a problem for no planers like me that the alleged impacts didn't damage or trigger a preset controlled demolition. Your debate team, though, should have some plausible hypotheticals about it besides serendipity. Thanks for your statement that there were no explosives in those areas but how could anyone be confident that explosive impacts would be contained so as not to interfere with or trigger the areas that were prepared with explosives? They couldn't, imo. I'm not against the idea of conventional controlled demolitions being used as well that day, probably as backup and cover for the evidently unconventional methods that pulverized the structures. What we saw on TV was like a terrifying art show. Since Jones hasn't adequately explained the devastation and you don't think exotic weaponry was used, what's the alternatives left? I doubt you want to consider the possibility that it was completely staged media fakery but, however it happened, Jones' Pied Piper routine is defunct.
Your debate team, though, should have some plausible hypotheticals about it besides serendipity. Thanks for your statement that there were no explosives in those areas but how could anyone be confident that explosive impacts would be contained so as not to interfere with or trigger the areas that were prepared with explosives?
GreyLmist, what part of "they would have known where the planes would impact if THEY flew them via remote control to their targets" do you fail to understand? Both you and YOUR team divert attention away from actual hard facts, and lead your readers and followers on trips down the rabbit hole. The more bizarre your claim, the harder you push it, while tearing down those who find holes in your theories.
If anything, you're just the flip side of what the main stream media provides, where they tell ONE impossible story, and your "team" provides the OTHER impossible stories, with both sources mixing in a BIT of truth in order to make it all seem believable.
When all the actual facts and evidence are examined, and the ongoing coverup considered, it becomes clear that YOUR "team" is acting in concert with the MSM team to misdirect readers and obfuscate the entire body of 9/11 knowledge with impossible and implausible events, and lead people away from what REALLY happened on that day.
GreyLmist, what part of "they would have known where the planes would impact if THEY flew them via remote control to their targets" do you fail to understand?
Aside from the facts that remote control wouldn't make planes able to exceed their structural limits at such high speeds and low altitudes and that it wouldn't prevent them from being broken apart on the outside of the buildings when they hit, it also would not guarantee that they would explode, splatter fuel and burn inside the buildings without damaging preset demolitions or immediately igniting thermitics. I would think that's just common sense.
it also would not guarantee that they would explode, splatter fuel and burn inside the buildings without damaging preset demolitions or immediately igniting thermitics. I would think that's just common sense.
Explosives could be set in areas where the planes would have been KNOWN to NOT impact.
Specialized explosives exist which can only be triggered by detonators.