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:1389 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.
It's already been discussed elsewhere in this 4um at length that the evidence indicates something involving electromagnetism -- perhaps even micro/mini nukes.
So now you think radio waves brought down the towers? Explain to me how a radio wave brought down a 110 story building. As far as any sort of nuke, that has been eliminated due to the facts I present further below, which I have also previously presented on other threads.
We know that there were surivors in Japan within the atomic blast zones.
Oh really? Go find ANY reference on the Internet which exists that states there were survivors at Ground Zero in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The temperature turns as hot as that of the Sun, so go find me some people who survived several millions degrees of heat, besides being dosed with levels of radiation which would instantly kill them.
Apparently, you want us to believe that wouldn't be the case on 9/11 with a smaller nuke either of some sort
You were selling neutron bombs earlier, then once you figured out they emit WAY more radiation than coventional nuclear devices, and would have killed people in surrounding areas instantly with lethal radiation, you decided to move to the "micro-nuke" idea.
What part of sequential failure do you not understand? For one, a nuclear device would ONLY have blown out the immediate area of detonation, it would not have resulted in a top down collapse, floor by floor, of the structure.
A bright burst would have been visible, and there would have been an instant pulverization of surrounding structure, most likely in a spherical pattern.
or with Directed Energy weaponry either
Again, point out what sort of weapon would cause a sequential floor by floor collapse at near free fall speed. Where would it be fired from, and where would it get its energy?
Find ANY sort of DEW technology online that could cause a sequential failure to occur...
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"??
Do you know what an EXPLOSIVE is? Have you ever seen conventional explosives used to bring down a structure? Conventional explosives produce tremendously high pressure, pulverizing anything in their blast radius. Larger bursts produce the sort of pulverization witnessed in the WTC collapse.
Advanced explosives composed of nano-thermite would most likely provide not only much higher pressures than conventional explosives, but also would be fine tunable in terms of detonation speed depending on their particle size.
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.
With the underlying floors having their support links destroyed by explosives sequentially, there would be little or no resistance to the collapsing mass of debris coming from above. As the air between the floors was instantly compressed to extremely high pressure by the sudden compression of space between the collapsing mass and the floor below, enhanced by the explosive high pressure coming from the explosives themselves, debris was ejected outwards at explosive speeds.
As the debris fell, a huge void of air was formed above the collapsing mass, causing air to rush in from all directions to fill that void. That air contained clouds of dust and drifted upwards once the air in the void had returned back to normal pressure.
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.
You're trying to dismiss known facts as if they didn't exist. Planes DID impact the towers, since there is not ONE person who has come forward stating that they had a clear view of the impact area and saw no plane, but did witness an explosion.
The entrance holes were there, and there WAS smoke rising from the damaged areas.
Remote controlled aircraft crashing into the towers is a much more likely sceneraio than relying on Captain Kirk and the starship Enterprise firing a controlled phaser blast from Earth orbit.
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.
For one, if the planes were flown remotely, it'd be known EXACTLY where they would impact.
It would not be difficult to avoid placing explosives in the area of planned impact.
Everyone who watches that video should be amazed at all the debris flying at WTC 1 from WTC 2 as it fell and it was practically like water off a duck's back -- no significant damage from it. Very sensationalistic, too, how WTC 1 started crumbling like on cue at the word "praying".
Everyone who watches that video should be amazed at all the debris flying at WTC 1 from WTC 2 as it fell and it was practically like water off a duck's back -- no significant damage from it
So what are you peddling now? Are you trying to say that the towers never collapsed, that they're still standing?
Me: Everyone who watches that video should be amazed at all the debris flying at WTC 1 from WTC 2 as it fell and it was practically like water off a duck's back -- no significant damage from it
FL: So what are you peddling now? Are you trying to say that the towers never collapsed, that they're still standing?
Don't be obtuse. It has nothing to do with me peddling anything. It is simply an obvious fact that WTC 1 was not significantly damaged from the barrage of debris during the downing of WTC 2, as we're told other buildings farther away were. Serendipity doesn't explain it, imo. If you can't, then wake up.
It is simply an obvious fact that WTC 1 was not significantly damaged from the barrage of debris during the downing of WTC 2, as we're told other buildings farther away were.
You are stating a non-fact. You were NOT there to witness the damage, and there were no close ups of the exterior walls of the uncollapsed tower after the collapse of WTC 2.
Secondly, those other buildings were damaged because debris hit the TOP of those buildings and were traveling at greater speeds since they were LOWER than the tower which collapsed.
Huge chunks of debris didn't hit the other tower, whereas large solid chunks of debris obviously DID hit the lower buildings. In fact, aren't you telling everyone that the entire building turned to dust? If it was nothing but dust, then how was dust supposed to damage the other tower?
Besides what I just posted in terms of your claims that WTC 1 was undamaged by the collapse of WTC 2, exactly what ARE you trying to say? Are you stating that the buildings did NOT collapse? Or are you saying that the videos of the collapse were produced in a super secret Hollywood studio, and that they actually simply disintegrated like on Star Trek?