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:2941 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.
Anyone as lazy as you, so lazy they can not even do a google search for themselves is by no means an activist of any kind.... you're just an angry troll.
Back on ignore... My apologies for taking you off that list.
The term ground zero (sometimes also known as surface zero[1] as distinguished from zero point[2]) describes the point on the Earth's surface closest to a detonation.[3] In the case of an explosion above the ground, ground zero refers to the point on the ground directly below the detonation (see hypocenter).
So go stand under a nuclear detonation and tell us how it feels.
Ground zero is the area on the ground under or at the point of detonation. If you think ANY living creature can survive the temperature of the sun, along with incredible amounts of gamma radiation as well as the blast itself, you just go ahead and keep on believing that.
The term ground zero (sometimes also known as surface zero[1] as distinguished from zero point[2]) describes the point on the Earth's surface closest to a detonation.[3] In the case of an explosion above the ground, ground zero refers to the point on the ground directly below the detonation (see hypocenter).
So go stand under a nuclear detonation and tell us how it feels.
Ground zero is the area on the ground under or at the point of detonation. If you think ANY living creature can survive the temperature of the sun, along with incredible amounts of gamma radiation as well as the blast itself, you just go ahead and keep on believing that.
Maybe you better define what you think are the measurements for the term Ground Zero. Is it the same size as the bomb above it before it explodes? Is it the size of the bomb's pattern of explosion, regardless of any casualties and damages beyond it? Is it just precisely the very middle/hypocenter of the blast? -- a pinpoint? What are the dimensions of a hypocenter? Shima Hospital in Hiroshima? [Ref. your Wikipedia link and the red marked map of Ground Zero there, which looks like a much bigger area than a hospital.] When the WTC is spoken of as Ground Zero, the dimensions are 16 acres. [Ref. your Wikipedia link]
In the first place, as your own Wiki reference says:
The origins of the term ground zero began with the Manhattan Project and the bombing of Japan. The Strategic Bombing Survey of the atomic attacks, released in June 1946, used the term liberally, defining it as: "For convenience, the term 'ground zero' will be used to designate the point on the ground directly beneath the point of detonation, or 'air zero.'"[4] William Laurence, an embedded reporter with the Manhattan Project, reported that "Zero" was "the code name given to the spot chosen for the atomic bomb test" in 1945.[5]
The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the use of the term in a 1946 New York Times report on the destroyed city of Hiroshima, defines ground zero as "that part of the ground situated immediately under an exploding bomb, especially an atomic one."
The term was military slang, used at the Trinity site where the weapon tower for the first nuclear weapon was at "point zero", and moved into general use very shortly after the end of World War II. At Hiroshima, the hypocenter of the attack was Shima Hospital.
The points on the ground directly beneath the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are: the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- closest to the detonations as compared to their surrounding areas within the larger blast and fallout ranges. Ground Zero defined as an Air Zero coordinate point is ridiculous, imo. The bomb-target wasn't just Shima Hospital in Hiroshima. They could have used a regular bomb for that if it was, without all the "Ground Zero" hype. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and there were many survivors there -- more than expected. Depending on the source, 1 (certified) to 165 also survived the bombing of Nagasaki. [165 - Reference the link titorite posted: Hibakusha - Wikipedia; 1 - Reference thesurvivorsclub.org: Meet the Only Survivor of Both Atomic Bombs Dropped on Japan - Tsutomu Yamaguchi]
Secondly, the causal reason we're talking about WWII Japan here is because (at #67) you twisted my general comment (at #59) from "atomic blast zones" to "Ground Zero" but, at that time, you seemed to equate the term with the blast zones generally, too, rather than splitting hairs over the hypocenter line upward to the bomb, as you've done since then.
Me at Post #59: "We know that there were surivors in Japan within the atomic blast zones."
You at Post #67: "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."
The Hibakusha link states that 210,830 were still alive in March of this year. If you disagree, you could ask the Japanese government about that, I suppose. But if you really think that temperatures "as hot as that of the sun" were confined by Ground Zero definition in Hiroshima to the hypocenter of Shima Hospital, you shouldn't be too disagreeable, imo. I don't know at what point you actually think "ANY living creature" would have to be on this planet to survive such a temperature emanating from Japan -- the poles, maybe -- but, of course, when investigating the possibility (however remote) of nukes at the WTC on 9/11, we are not doing so on the same scale as the bombings of Japan.
Edited to expand quote from Post #67 and for spelling.
So you are now on record stating that it is possible to stand directly under a nuclear detonation and live to talk about it.
Your entire reason for this is because you are trying to say that a nuclear bomb could have been detonated in both WTC towers, with nobody being affected by lethal gamma radiation, and that they would survive several millions of degrees of heat. Of course this heat would not have turned cement dust to glass in your universe, nor would the blast have totally destroyed the structure instantly.
Do you think we'll be sending a manned ship to land on the sun sometime soon as well?
So you are now on record stating that it is possible to stand directly under a nuclear detonation and live to talk about it.
Your entire reason for this is because you are trying to say that a nuclear bomb could have been detonated in both WTC towers, with nobody being affected by lethal gamma radiation, and that they would survive several millions of degrees of heat. Of course this heat would not have turned cement dust to glass in your universe, nor would the blast have totally destroyed the structure instantly.
Do you think we'll be sending a manned ship to land on the sun sometime soon as well?
I don't know why that line copied from your post but I have not said that it is possible to stand directly under a nuclear detonation and live to talk about it. Everyone at the Shima Hospital hypocenter in Hiroshima reportedly died from the explosion. Everyone in the Hiroshima blast zone did not.
Nor have I said that a nuclear bomb could have been detonated in both WTC towers with nobody being affected by lethal gamma radiation. In fact, I posted commentary at Post #76 from a Lt. who may have been exposed to gamma rays.
You are the only one who insists on talking about standing directly under a nuclear bomb. I was talking about such blast zones more generally. Where in the WWII Japan cities targeted do you think the "several millions of degrees of heat" stopped and cooled down enough for there to be any survivors? Since there were survivors, even near the blast center, maybe you should ask yourself if we'll be sending a manned ship to land on the sun sometime soon as well -- not me. How big do you think those cities were?
I don't think it takes "several millions of degrees of heat" to turn cement dust to glass. Do you just make anything up that you want to pin on me and think it's going to fly or what? Again, we aren't talking about the same scale of bombs as over Japan. Even so, you don't really know that there weren't people killed from much smaller nukes at the WTC. You just presume they were killed from jet fuel/office fires and a thermitic "blast furnace" -- and "pancaking".
Edited for grammar, next to last sentence of paragraph 3 and last sentence of the last paragraph, after the hyphenation there.
For one, you are trying to sell the notion that nuclear explosives were used to bring down the towers. That IS what you're saying isn't it?
You ignore the VERY real fact that nuclear explosions produce LETHAL radiation. Such radiation would have killed any humans within the immediate area instantly.
You ALSO ignore the fact that nuclear explosions produce temperatures comparable to that of the sun. We are not talking about an air burst thousands of feet over the target, we (more like YOU) are talking about a device INSIDE the WTC towers.
Thus, temperatures within the WTC WOULD HAVE BEEN in the millions of degrees. Yet you overlook such critical facts.
You ALSO overlook the fact that a nuclear detonation would have created a spherical burst, and would have been VERY noticable had it of happened.
So YOU ma'am overlook ALL critical facts, stomp your feet that it HAS to be as you say, and accuse those who are better educated than you of either being stupid or planting "disinfo".
I'm out of time for dealing with your flack at the moment. When I get back, you should have something posted in response to my question about your remote control theory, the airports and the FAA being in on it. Also, plan to discuss your varied building-collapse scenarios.
You're the one peddling that idea. For YOUR story to be true, where no actual planes took off that day, not only the airports but the victims and their families ALSO would have had to of been in on it.
Or are you also saying those victims never really existed either?