The best 911 Videos.

[Norval]

The best 911 Videos.

Well as you all have noticed we don't have much on 9/11.
It's pretty much a done bun as far as that it was an intended demolition.
But what really brought down the buildings?
Torched the vehicles away from the towers?

Watch this series of videos.

Parts 1a, 1b, 1c, and so on.

[unipax]

Yep, seen saw her stuff. Looks possible to me.

I figured they would use any and all demo tech needed. It had to be an unconventional 'top down' demo, and not look too much like a demo. Who knows, maybe other techs were tossed in maybe for testing purposes or who knows what....maybe some tech just to entertain themselves..

Then there was a related story associated with her Lawsuit. The lawsuit would totally expose the lies and lead to the true perps.

The Virginia Tech massacre supposedly took place in her former classroom as professor, and someone claimed that site was chosen for the job in order to intimidate her. I dunno where the lawsuit is now.

[Norval]

There should have been so much more rubble, , , ,
, , , , yes, where did the buildings go to?!?!?
I think the answer is "blowing in the winds".

The basements were left intact, , , , damn good questions she asks and very good reasoning on what is quite apparent in the images.

Also the fact she is beset upon by attacks, , , go figure.

Dr. Judy, great job. :)

[markman228]

This person is not creditable. She refers to data but admits she is only looking at pictures. She compares the king dome demo to the twin tower which is comparing apples to oranges. King dome was pretty much a empty shell standing around 200 ft and not having too much stored energy.
Comparing the dust bloom is an moronic argument. She doesn't help her case when she continually injects the question "where did it all go" and follows with little witty comments and does not provide a alternative solution. She compare two photos of the same scene of fire fighters looking at molten steel and directs the attention to a flash light on the left in one picture and in the other the flash light is gone. Even I could see that the photo was cropped and the items she refers to was cut-out. My list of arguments could go on and I may not have a PhD but I am a civil engineer who has actually spent a lot of time physically involved in construction projects.

So would have served herself better if she would have stated her intention that she suspected that the twin towers where finished off with a beam device and present a theory of how it could be done. I have attached a link that supports my opinion she avoids facts and just relies on pictures.



Pictures can be deceiving, i.e. President Obama being accused of staring at some 16 year old Brazilian girls ass at a international conference when in fact He was helping a person negotiate stepping down.

In my opinion I believe the government at the time allowed it to happen. Condi Rice argument has been they new of an attack could happen but didn't know when and where. Like that is going to happen, O I am going to attack the US let me send a memo to the state department and let them know. An idiot statement by an arrogant administration. It fit into an existing agenda set by Rummy and his crew, and based on Cheney's company being kicked out of Iraq after they invested millions of dollars to build oil infrastructure. In my opinion that is where the conspiracy is and the problems are with the tragedy of 9/11

[Gale]

She compares the king dome demo to the twin tower which is comparing apples to oranges.

That is exactly her point, you missed it.

There should have been huge chunks everywhere, but nope, just dust.
And crumbling into dust in mid air!




civil engineer who has actually spent a lot of time physically involved in construction projects.

Then you should know that building material does not disintegrate into dust all by itself.

[Norval]

Mark,
It should be titled Disinfo Agent totally exposed by Dr. Judy ! ! !
video 1, 3:43
The first question is trying to entrap her with obviously NOT knowing what kind of energy weapon. That is not her point of interest at all, it is that something caused the "dustification" or molecular destabilization of the higher density materials. Side tracking of the stated visible facts in the images presented by Dr. Judy.
5:10
Attempt to side track the statements yet again. What is the scale and type of energy involved. Not relevant to the proof and would be just speculation. Dr. Judy aint falling for it. :lol: Note that he only mentions the metal and not any of the other obviously missing materials. He attempts to side track the vaporization concept too. She catches him and turns it back to the obvious that is shown in the images, dustification.
6:05
He tries to disprove with known science VS what is possible science of our governments or probable ET technology. She makes fun of him now, , :lol: He may not know of a way, but someone does. There are many other energies and forces that can do this dustifaction of materials. Ultra sound is used to break up materials as an example. Duh and doooo.
8:40
Again he detracts by going into points that are not relevant to the truth of dustifaction of the materials in the buildings.
8:55
She brings the topic back on line again.
9:20 She bitch slaps him with his adherence to known things only. Priceless, well done Dr. Judy.
9:30 She again puts him over a barrel by bringing the topic back on line with "what happened" which is obvious in the images.

First segment ends with her bitch slapping the info agent back on track yet again. You can see by his body language that he is pissed his info control tactics are not working. :lol:

It would be a waste of my time to view any more of the segments.

[Gale]

I guess they will give just about anyone a PhD in the States. Dr Greg Jenkin's really didn't do very well.

[markman228]

O please, I didn't miss anything and I am not blinded by bull. Did you go through all 4 segments of the interview. You guys want to thing some BET took a energy gun and brought the buildings downs, that fine.
She NEVER comes out with that type of statement.
Building, when they DO make a lot of dust and with the modeling capabilities we have today. The twin tower are some of the biggest building we have (had) in this country. There is no physical comparison with similar construction methodology.







notice how high the dust cloud rises beyond the height of the building and why did it rise? Because of the air waves created by the huge impact of the material hit the ground. The two building are totaling different in shape and construction, where as as Norval stated to me that the twin towers are like box the was use to ship the space needle came in. The exterior held the strength, the floors where suspended, sprayed with a lot of fire retardant, multiple layers of sheet rock, concrete, and on and on.
Unlike a controlled demo, the TT was not controlled at all. The USGS mapping shows a significant amount of material spread over a very large area. I believe the debris foot print is masked by the sheer size of the event.

As far as the interview is concerned, I agree with Norval in part. He was using standard known elements to ask a question. But she did not supply a hypothesis of any sort when she could have. She knows she is going to ridiculed so why not go for broke and make the statement what she really believes. Her reasons are her own and it doesn't bother me at all. Everyone is free to add to the noise when and how they want. I am not so rigid that I don't work through a problem or question just because is not a standard line of thought, but I am not going to waste my time entertaining vague questions that aren't backed up by some logic.

[unipax]

In the arena of discussing 9-11, here is my new favorite example for responding to so called "Skeptics who WONT acknowledge the obvious.

It is a Dec 03, 2008 excerpt from discussion of a 'new' collapse video that surfaced in 2008.

************************************************** **

New Building 7 video shows CLEAR controlled demolition.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=68053.80

(note: IMO, xfahctor acts as a "skeptic" here)


Quot=xfactor
I acknowlage something if it is glaringly obvious. This, was far from obvious, glaring or otherwise. the "explosions" occure after the collaps begins. Period. Like I said, it's not that I don't want to believe, I just have yet to see anything solid. There are tons of things that allude to an inside job. But allusion and proof are very different things.

***


Quote=Geolibertarian
A building that hasn't been hit by a plane -- and with only small pockets of isolated fires -- collapsing symmetrically into the path of most resistance at virtual free fall speed isn't glaringly obvious???

Sorry, but anyone foolish enough (or cowardly enough) to believe that there's even a remote chance of that happening without the aid of explosives quite frankly deserves every ounce of Nazi-style tyranny he gets!

***


quot xfahctor;
and THIS is why you guys drive so many people away from your cause. By simply insulting anyone who looks at both the "official" explanation and the "inside job" explanation with equal skeptisism.

***

Qot=GeoLib
If they're more concerned about having their asses kissed than with the truth, then f**k 'em.

Sorry, but you so-called "skeptics" have had seven years to examine the plethora of evidence that the 9/11 truth movement -- beginning with Alex's 911: The Road To Tyranny -- has provided. If, after all this time, and after the thousands upon thousands of people (many of them children!) who've been slaughtered on the altar of the official story, you still don't get it, then you never will.

If it offends anyone that I simply can't stomach the thought of wasting yet another seven years explaining to so-called "skeptics" (very slowly, of course) that there really are basic, universal laws of physics, and that two plus two really does equal four, then so be it.

***


Qot=xfactor
I QUESTION the "official" story for the very same reasons, too many things don't make sense. I'm not looking for ANYONE to explain ANYTHING here to me. I look at things when presented. If they pass muster, I accept them. If they do not, I don't. This "new" building 7 video, doesn't.
You seem to be under the belief that I am blindly buying the governments official story, because of fluoride, brainwashing, tv, or any nimber of other reasons I see posted in this forum thousands of times. I want to make clear that I don't buy EITHER explanation completely right now, becuase NEITHER side has presented solid enough evidence. I didn't say "enough" evidence, because there has been a tsunami of evidence presented by both sides, but minutely little of the evidence on either side is sold. Years of research and mountains of evidence mean little if it isn't solid. It isn't the ammount, it's the content.
DO I believe that 3 buildings can collapse within hours of each other in uniform fashion from fire? Not entirely. But do I believe that they awere all covertly planted with explosives and brought down intentinaly that way? Again, not entirely. Why? Again, I have yet to see anything from either side that shows either story definitively.
You guys have my attention. I'm here. I discuss things. I partricipate in what I feel is a pretty positive way. I am politicly active. I understand the wrongs our government does. I watch with disgust the slow disolving of our republic. I watch and listen with nausia how people have become so blatently stupid and willfully ignorant to it. I do things in my everyday real life to at least try and change what little I can from and with in my corner of the planet. But I also am not put off easily and can ignore insults and ridicule. But how many potential "wake ups" have you guys driven off with that kind of response? There are trolls.....and then there are those who simply require great substance. I assure you sir, I am the latter.
I have watched a number of movies, including "End Game". I have to be honest, End Game was a hard watch, because I find Alex to be difficult to watch. The scene at the end especialy when he is protesting outside the bildeberg convention, shouting in to limo's with his ever present bullhorn, I was almost embarrased for the man. I have yet to see road to tyrany. I didn't watch it simply because it was a Jones movie and after End game, I didn't think I could sit through another one of his films. I have seen other 9/11 documentaries including 9/11 mysteries and loose change (both editions), I sat through those and nodded my head when things made sense, and picked them apart when they didn't. BUT, simply because I can't really say anyhitng about it untill I have seen it, I WILL force myself to watch another Jone's production. I will sit and watch Road to Tyrany.

[unipax]

Qot=markman
In my opinion I believe the government at the time allowed it to happen.

Who did "the govt" "allow" to rig bldg 7 for demolition please?

Can you please be more specific re who you refer to as "the govt"

[unipax]

I have noticed that in some cases, sometimes scientists, architects, and engineers examining 911 collapses sometimes hesitate to stray far enough away from looking "inside the box" to see the truth.....

So often I hear stuff like "Oh no, it cant be Controlled Demo because of...this or that detail doesnt match Controlled Demo..."

To me it just makes sense to gather up all considerations of 911 collapses based upon conventional views of demolition into a package, and drop that package out the nearest window.

The collapses of 911 were unconventional Controlled Demolitions.

The towers required Top Down collapse tech because they were to be blamed on crash damage, fire weakened steel, and the weight of the upper 30 odd story blocks.

IMO, the perps were free to use any and all demo and weapons tech in existence thru their black ops programs. They were free to test their techs if desired. Anything goes.

The perps were also free to use any aspect of their operation to entertain themselves if they so desired. They are homicidal psychopaths and in their minds there are no limits as in the minds of normal humans.

Help is available:
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth www.ae911truth.org/

[unipax]

Supposedly within Ptech's products there exists the ability to backdoor takeover govt computer networks, especially FAA.


In fact, the Sept. 11 commission found, audiotapes and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.



If the documents are valid....the poster Anti Illuminati has copied and posted hundreds of documents from defense contractors websites exposing many parts of the architecture of tyranny, including pictures and names of the corporate people and military personnel involved. Maybe could include BETs among them.

Much is said about Ptech's tech and the Global Info Grid.
Supposedly there exists the ability to backdoor takeover govt computer networks, including all police, DOD, and especially FAA.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=145167.msg878599#msg878599

[Norval]

All things considered I would say that the bets have their "appendages" into everything here by now. They have had many decades to get everyone in line and take full control.

[Norval]

Getting past the obvious numerous other questions about who, what and why, it stands to reason that these buildings were hit with a weapon that destabilizes the molecular structure of certain types of materials. Apparently the denser the faster.

What I found interesting was that this would also explain many of the devastated objects in our solar system that seem to be very dusty. It would also tie in with the major dust storms on Mars decades ago.

Just thinking beyond 9/11. Get over it. Now it's an Info War. :)

[Gale]

A device that destabilizes the molecular structure of material and just dust remains ... hmmmmmm

There were holes with no material per say, could such a device make craters? Could such a device make CSCC's shoulder to shoulder, collapsing the center down leaving no impacter remains? Could such a device make a volcano effect, penetrate the surface down to a depth then have a bubble back up fumes and dust material, like the so called volcanoes on Mars that are not necessarily volcanoes but subsurface destruction? Could such a device make a desert like the desert in Nevada where it could have been all green at one time?

[Norval]

When it comes to types and abilities of energy beam weapons all bets are off. The possibilities are endless.

Dr. Judy Wood noticed what others had failed to notice. From what I see in these pics and videos she is correct in her "dustification" theory.

[Bobbi]

What I find most intriguing, especially in light of the supposed "molten steel", is the overwhelming amount of very flammable PAPER! Paper is far less dense than any of the building material and it survived the "blasts" altogether - everywhere. :001_huh:

[sfth13]

I did read something about a year ago and i've been trying to find it. it was about atoms vibrating in solids which is normal. but this article said they were trying to violently vibrate the atoms to have the solid fall apart. they were using electrical current to disrupt the negative and postive charges in the atoms. they also tried sound waves.. they never gave a result of the testing.
and now i can't find it. I hate when that happens.

[unipax]

I dont recall if Judy mentioned this.

I took her theory to require the beams would have come from pretty much directly above each target. I figured an overhead platform that might have been visible at night (at least as a dark spot) unless cloaked.

About a year ago I took it upon myself to represent her theory at a forum of so called 'conservatives' where I had already been educating them re things like electronic ballot fraud in the elections of 2000 & 2004, and controlled demo on 9-11.
They were delighted to see me present her dustification theory. I later realized it was actually counterproducrive at that venue. Whereas some where actually beginning to 'get it' re explosives, beam weapons were way too much too soon for that crowd. Dustification gave the majority the 'right' to throw a 'tin foil hat party' in my honor. I learned the wisdom of growing thick skin which made life much easier there.. Such a lesson it was overall in hindsight.

[Gale]

What I find most intriguing, especially in light of the supposed "molten steel", is the overwhelming amount of very flammable PAPER! Paper is far less dense than any of the building material and it survived the "blasts" altogether - everywhere. :001_huh:

Why would there be paper everywhere but no filling cabinets, no chairs, no desks, nothing to go with the paper. What is there with the molecular structure of paper that makes it different?

Mark, as a civil engineer, explain how steel and cement become dust?

[markman228]

Why ask me how steel and cement become dust....ask Dr. Joy. Which is my point about putting theories out there for public consumption but not providing any specifics of how it could be achieved. Gale's questions implies the steel and concrete was turned to dust....which ignores the some of the physical evidences. The steel was at the site and I provided clips of buildings being demoed that created dust.

My original comment is Dr. Joy is not creditable and that still stands because she does not provide a theory, she just throws questions for an audience to consume. A serious and knowledgeable person should provide or even hypothesize in a reasonable way, i.e. Norval's crater chain hypothesis which no one has yet given a reasonable alternative.

A high energy beam was used to bring down the towers and building 7
Correct? No worries then. So in your analysis where did the planes hitting the towers come in. And how does the plane hitting the pentagon come in.

At the minimum there are two rules of thought. If a energy beam was used, then that would mean the beam was used in conjunction with the planes. Or, there is an entity that stands ready use the opportunity. The third thought would be that the world government orchestrated it to happen and brought all the resources together to pull it off. I have no problem with any of these. But Dr. Joy did not present any type of basis for what she was saying. She just said, look at the snowball picture and injects that the debris could not account for the 2/3 of the building. Maybe she is right maybe she is wrong but she present the picture as fact by using relative height observation. You shouldn't ignore the fact that the picture was not taken at the same height as the Bankers Trust and at 40 stories. It looks to me it was taken at a much lower elevation on Greenwich Street on the right side of the street.

The list goes on and I am not attacking her, I using the same type of analysis method she uses to make her assessment, inconsistency in the information that is being presented as facts.

[unipax]

one more time please...



Quote=markman
In my opinion I believe the government at the time allowed it to happen.



Who did "the govt" "allow" to rig bldg 7 for demolition please?

Can you please be more specific re who you refer to as "the govt"


.................................................. .....................

[markman228]

If you read the post, it's self explanatory what government I am talking about. But I will explain it again. The Bush administration allowed the tragedy to happen.
I never said anything about building 7 in the original post. The subject is about the 9/11 and since the post used Dr. Joy's presentation as the exhibit to start the conversation, I felt to start a discussion based on her findings added to the noise.

[markman228]

I am sorry it's not Dr. Joy Wood, its Judy Wood. Oops

[unipax]

If you read the post, it's self explanatory what government I am talking about. But I will explain it again. The Bush administration allowed the tragedy to happen.
I never said anything about building 7 in the original post. The subject is about the 9/11 and since the post used Dr. Joy's presentation as the exhibit to start the conversation, I felt to start a discussion based on her findings added to the noise.

Bush admin
Thank you


and who did the govt allow to rig #7 for demolition?

(if it wasnt done as per Dr Judy's claim)

Or, if not rigged for demo, how did #7 collapse please?

thnx markman

ps
my take re Bush is that he was out of the loop until much later that day, or maybe even until the next day or whenever it was that he was told what he was allowed to know, and then informed of his choices.

[Bobbi]

Actually, there is a video of Mr. Bush acknowledging the crash into the building outside the kindergarten classroom, whereafter the "staged" announcement was made to him about the plane crashing into the building.

[markman228]

I never directed my comments towards Mr. Bush....I directed them toward the administration. Takes more than one to form a conspiracy.

How individual buildings came down is not the issue and I haven't looked at all the information related to building 7. It seems there are a couple of theories flying around on that one.

Let me ask you this...in what circumstance does a person use 2 dimensional pictures (photographs) as data. Maybe they are evidence but they are, in my opinion can not be considered as data. Why, because pictures are very easily manipulated, i.e. her refers to the ambulance being park on the ground floor but you can tell the picture was taken from a hire elevation about 50 ft away. If the person was actually at the same level and not stand on a debris pile when they took the picture then you couldn't see the roof of the ambulance, but you can.

The last clip in Part 1 is very telling. There is a huge section of one of the towers falls over and it's the top of the tower....so how does that fact fit into the mix?



Just something to think about

[Gale]

Why ask me how steel and cement become dust....ask Dr. Joy. Which is my point about putting theories out there for public consumption but not providing any specifics of how it could be achieved. Gale's questions implies the steel and concrete was turned to dust....which ignores the some of the physical evidences. The steel was at the site and I provided clips of buildings being demoed that created dust.

My original comment is Dr. Joy is not creditable and that still stands because she does not provide a theory, she just throws questions for an audience to consume. A serious and knowledgeable person should provide or even hypothesize in a reasonable way, i.e. Norval's crater chain hypothesis which no one has yet given a reasonable alternative.

A high energy beam was used to bring down the towers and building 7
Correct? No worries then. So in your analysis where did the planes hitting the towers come in. And how does the plane hitting the pentagon come in.

At the minimum there are two rules of thought. If a energy beam was used, then that would mean the beam was used in conjunction with the planes. Or, there is an entity that stands ready use the opportunity. The third thought would be that the world government orchestrated it to happen and brought all the resources together to pull it off. I have no problem with any of these. But Dr. Joy did not present any type of basis for what she was saying. She just said, look at the snowball picture and injects that the debris could not account for the 2/3 of the building. Maybe she is right maybe she is wrong but she present the picture as fact by using relative height observation. You shouldn't ignore the fact that the picture was not taken at the same height as the Bankers Trust and at 40 stories. It looks to me it was taken at a much lower elevation on Greenwich Street on the right side of the street.

The list goes on and I am not attacking her, I using the same type of analysis method she uses to make her assessment, inconsistency in the information that is being presented as facts.

I asked you how steel and cement turns to dust because as a civil engineer you might have some ideas.
All those pictures of ground zero don't show 110 story skyscraper worth of steel. There are pictures of steel turning to dust, how is that possible? Judy's word is dustification.
Isn't building 7 the FEMA building, that was taken down?
There was no plane that hit the pentagon.
I will agree 9/11 was orchestrated but a figure head such as president isn't in the loop to do that job. A president is a just a figure head for plausible deniability.
Wouldn't the planes be the distraction? They would have certainly been good for painting the buildings as the target.


in what circumstance does a person use 2 dimensional pictures (photographs) as data. Maybe they are evidence but they are, in my opinion can not be considered as data.

There is a big list, NASA, ESA, all the space agencies, law enforcement....

[markman228]

It not up to me to provide a reasoning behind her theory behind steel and concrete turning into dust, that is her responsibility. I would suggest you ask her and let us know what she says. It's a very valid and simple question which she should be answered in a couple of paragraphs if not less.

How do you know that there is not enough steel. It looks to me to be a lot of steel in the pictures she is using..... at the tail end of Part 1 the pictures do show a lot of steel. The problem comes from how to quantify the amount of steel is there which can't done just by just looking at pictures. It's not creditable for a person with her credentials to spew a theory without providing substantive evidence.

The examples you gave like NASA, uses photos but they also use actual data like telemetry, wave analysis, and spends the money to crash or send equipment into the surface of another moon or planet. Law enforcement takes a picture of a crime scene but they are used a exhibits, not evidence. The pictures are backed up by taking samples, conduct some calculations, and test theoretical assumptions.

It seems to me, as I have stated before, that if she was serious she would have taken the time to test some of her conclusions and not just present it as a matter of fact, or I should say interesting points for others to come up with conclusions.

[Norval]

The fact is most of the building was missing.

The fact is as she stated.
Something "dustified" the materials of the buildings.

I see the buildings, , , , blowing in the wind. :lol:

[markman228]

Not a fact, a theory with no substantive information to support it. She could have built a case for her theory but for some reason didn't.

Of course you see dust as the case whenever a building falls.

[Bobbi]

Let me ask you this...in what circumstance does a person use 2 dimensional pictures (photographs) as data.

Actually, you answered your own question in another post:


Law enforcement takes a picture of a crime scene but they are used a exhibits, not evidence.

From the Random House Dictionary - Exhibit (law) To submit (a document, object, etc.) in evidence in a court of law.

Evidence - ground for belief; that which tends to prove or disprove something; proof. 3. (Law) data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Going further - Syn. 3. information, deposition, affidavit. Evidence, Exhibit, Testimony, Proof refer to information furnished in a legal investigation to support a contention. Evidence is any information so given, whether furnished by witnesses or derived from documents or from ANY OTHER SOURCE: (My caps) . . . An Exhibit in law is a document or article that is presented in court as evidence: . . .

As a paralegal for 20 years, let me assure you that photos are used extensively as data of proof. Duh!

[markman228]

So what you are saying is if I presented photos of blood spatter, a broken window, a messed up room and that is it, that is enough to successfully convict an individual of a crime.
In that context I can't see how it could be considered as evidence. I would have to show a crime was committed, possible DNA matches, something other than just pictures. And even so, if an alternative rendition was presented then you have introduced reasonable doubt.

I feel Dr. Judy provides no supporting evidence to justify her position which amplifies the noise factor and hurts her creditability. My contention has always been a general lack of methodology to her theory. She is trying to inject reasonable doubt into the conversation but lacks a methodology, evidence, or real DATA to support her position. Proving a negative is not a valid argument.

In the beginning, she compares 9/11 to Hiroshima and using the same type of observation assessments as she does, the pictures don't show a lot of debris, so what is keeping a person from ascertaining that the same energy beam was used at Hiroshima. By only looking at the pictures, there really isn't enough debris to account for an entire city being gone and what allowed some of the structures to remain standing. The evidence for Hiroshima are eyewitness account, residual radiation and statements made by the US government, for a start.

The Doctor spends her time speculating and making adolescent comments. Why didn't she use her knowledge of material to run tests on the burned out cars, dust particle disbursements, debris field modeling and the list goes on. As a professional she should have known the risks she was taking and taken proper steps to make her insinuations into evidential data.

I am sorry and I don't want anyone to not pursue the thought process, but to align yourselves with this person and so called evidence, devalues your goal. The goal, for what I understand, is to introduce a probable alternative to the towers collapsing the way they did. I am fairly confident that this group and the brain power behind it could articulate a better argument using Dr. Woods premise.

[unipax]

markman

If you have seen even one of the several videos of the collapse of #7, and since you say the Bush Admin allowed it to happen, what is your opinion of how / why / who / what caused #7's collapse please ?

[markman228]

Unipax, no problem. I don't think Dr. Wood is being held to the same how/why/who/what's standard. She throws out ambiguous insinuations, so what are her specific answers to the same questions.

I didn't see in the video's where she answers those basic questions.

Bush admin. was warn that an attack was eminent and no action was taken. Condi Rice explanation for this was they didn't know the how, where, and when. WEAK! Like a potential aggressor will send the US a memo with detailed information about a impending attacks. That is the problem, the discussion we are having here I would consider secondary.

[unipax]

Unipax, no problem. I don't think Dr. Wood is being held to the same how/why/who/what's standard. She throws out ambiguous insinuations, so what are her specific answers to the same questions.

I didn't see in the video's where she answers those basic questions.

Bush admin. was warn that an attack was eminent and no action was taken. Condi Rice explanation for this was they didn't know the how, where, and when. WEAK! Like a potential aggressor will send the US a memo with detailed information about a impending attacks. That is the problem, the discussion we are having here I would consider secondary.

thanks markman

How about my question though;

What is your opinion of how / why / who / what caused #7's collapse please?

Have you seen video of #7 collapsing?

What made #7 fall down, in your opinion as an engineer, or even as a regular person ?

[Gale]

It not up to me to provide a reasoning behind her theory behind steel and concrete turning into dust, that is her responsibility. I would suggest you ask her and let us know what she says. It's a very valid and simple question which she should be answered in a couple of paragraphs if not less.

It's not a theory, she did not pose a theory. She even states she is only asking questions. So I must ask, why go off on her for just asking questions?



It seems to me, as I have stated before, that if she was serious she would have taken the time to test some of her conclusions and not just present it as a matter of fact, or I should say interesting points for others to come up with conclusions.

What conclusion? She had no conclusions. She asked questions, she asked where did 2/3 of the tower go?

[Bobbi]

So what you are saying is if I presented photos of blood spatter, a broken window, a messed up room and that is it, that is enough to successfully convict an individual of a crime.
In that context I can't see how it could be considered as evidence. I would have to show a crime was committed, possible DNA matches, something other than just pictures. And even so, if an alternative rendition was presented then you have introduced reasonable doubt.


The photos of blood spatter - A picture of this nature would be able to quantify the direction of the attack, the amount of force that was applied, the type of weapon that was used, the range of the attack (a face shot or from a distance) and the color of the blood would also indicate different areas of the body that had been injured, etc.

Messed up room - A messed up room could indicate whether there was a struggle, a ransacking, how many people were present, what was occuring prior, during and after the mess - a timeline, etc.

Broken window - This could provide what caused the broken window, a rock, a metal object, a gloved hand, a bullet, etc. Glass breaks differently depending on the object used for entry.

Every one of these could easily convict or clear a suspect of a crime. Granted, other "evidence" is added to these items for a clear determination of the crime, together with witness testimonies, etc.

Considering her pictures were acquired from several different sources, the fact that their commonalities and consistencies in what is seen and not seen is the telling factor.

As Gale stated, Dr. Judy openly states that she isn't making any conclusions, it's not her field of expertise. But her questions are valid and those with the necessary expertise would take it from there. No different than the photographer at a crime scene. It's not his job to determine what happened, but to document the evidence for someone with the necessary background to analyze. His questions come forth as what photos he took.

[Norval]

My thanks to Dr. Judy Wood for what she proposes in her presentation of her "dustification", and I will say it, theory. The most important part is how this ties in with the ET / UFO / Bible connection.

The videos and pictures clearly show that some type of energy beam weapon was used causing "dustification" or destabilizing of the molecular bonds of the more dense materials in the buildings. Note too the vehicles and what happened to them. Note that the far less dense paper didn't ignite or burn. Note the damage to other nearby buildings. Those videos and pictures show that those buildings were turned to dust and blew away in the wind. There is way too much material missing as was pointed out.

The really big point of all this is that there exists a weapon that can do this.
The bad ETs and their puppets may have demonstrated that "fire can be called down from the heavens".

[markman228]

Unipax, I will take a look just give me some time

[Gale]

BTW Did anyone ever collect some of the paper that was in the streets and at ground zero? What was that all that paper? Was it ever examined?

[unipax]

Actually, there is a video of Mr. Bush acknowledging the crash into the building outside the kindergarten classroom, whereafter the "staged" announcement was made to him about the plane crashing into the building.

You mean when he said he thought "Not a very good pilot" ...?

Claims were made that since that (first ) crash was not on any public tv that day, perhaps W watched it on 'private' tv.

I done recall what the explanation was. Of course I suppose it is possible that the tape made by the Naudet Bros was quickly made available to W & Co. Just another one of those curiosities I guess

[Bobbi]

What it indicates is that prior to any media coverage, or public knowledge for that matter, of the "crash", Bush was already aware of its, shall we say, implementation. Foreknowledge. The timeline of the video clearly shows that Bush was discussing the "crash" long before entering the kindergarten classroom. That whole scenario of the secret service whispering in his ear in the classroom was entirely staged. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the whole thing was even rehearsed beforehand.

I watched the video as a part of a conspiracy theory documentary up in Alaska (2005). I wish I could remember the name, but I can't. There were quite a few different ones. All I do remember is that this particular one was highly touted by the conspiracy theorists and it was extremely difficult to find - may have even been banned by that time already.

It could have been one done by the French. Again, I saw so many I simply can't recall.

[Gale]

One of the early videos was done by the French demonstrating that no plane hit the pentagon but that same French video did question ground zero burning for days. But now was that burning or fuming? The cloud that came off ground zero (as Dr Judy noted) was not typical smoke but more like fumes.

[unipax]

That whole scenario of the secret service whispering in his ear in the classroom was entirely staged. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the whole thing was even rehearsed beforehand.

makes sense.
never figured that one.
of course.
duh.
thanks Bobbi

maybe W is a little smarter than he appears to be, and was in the loop earlier than I guessed.

there were stories that he was kinda isolated in his big plane and Cheney wouldnt return his calls until later that day. That could be BS too

[unipax]

How much did W know and when did he know it?

I still vacillate on how much he was in the loop, and when.

Even in the likely event the classroom whisper was staged. How much did he know?

They could have kept him compartmentalized to whatever degree they wanted to,, even to the point of him not fully knowing why a classroom whisper moment was being rehearsed.

Many say Cheney was more in the loop than W. I could see that with their histories compared. Cheney=insider. W=problem child.

Then they would not be interviewed separately for the 9-11 ommission commission.

[Norval]

Bobbi found this on Yahoo News this morning,

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=AmXmHfLEDhuO2h30D0NZeNSevZx4;_ylc=X3oDMTVkZG9 hYmRzBF9TAzIwMjM1MzgwNzgEX3MDOTYzOTMxMzkEYQMxMDAyM TAgbmV3cyA5MTEgcGhvdG9zIElWBGNwb3MDMwRnA2lkLTIwNDI 1BGludGwDdXMEaXRjAzAEbHR4dANOZXdhZXJpYWxwaG90b3NvZ jkvMTFyZWxlYXNlZARwa2d2AzE4BHBvcwMyBHNlYwN0ZC1mZWF 0BHNsawN0aXRsZQRzbHBvcwNGBHRlc3QDNzAx/SIG=12htdv7v2/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/new-images-of-9-11-released-18068997

They released the videos shot from aircraft now, , , after 9 years, ,

[Norval]

And some more recent news, , ,
Dr. Judy Wood on the Coast to Coast show back in May of 2011. about two hours long.



Another interesting video to watch is this one.
Lose Change, the final cut.



The Trailer is here.

[Gale]

Pretty good videos, now I want Dr Judy's book to read.

[Norval]

Zenbuoy sent us this interview of Dr. Judy Wood, we think it's worth a listen. There are two segments, each an hour long.

Included: Dr. Wood Discounts Hoagland's claims

The very timely talk with John and Dr. Wood is now up and running. Spread it around to everyone you know, please.
It is a true doosey.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok-the-talk/2011/09/06/dr-wood-and-john-lash-the-quintessential-talk-on-911-hour-1

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok-the-talk/2011/09/06/dr-wood-and-john-lash-the-quintessential-talk-on-911-hour-2

[sfth13]

I got this video in an email so i wanted to share if you haven't seen it yet...

[Norval]

Now that was good, , , , , best five minutes I spent this morning.

[Norval]

Note that it is stated that information could "jeopardize public safety" at about 3 mins, in the video SFTH posted?



Note here again is the statement about at about 11:10 "jeopardizing public safety", and the question is asked, "How could it jeopardize Public safety?"

What are your thoughts?

[Gale]

Obviously, "THEY" the perpetrators will never reveal the truth. The truth would cause a public outcry for heads to roll.
I think the public safety issue mentioned would be mass public reaction. I also think this is adding more voices to the chaos eventually to be more smoke and mirrors.
You can scream until your blue in the face, there will be no honesty from this world's governments. The governments are too deep into coverups to figure their way out. That is my opinion.

[Norval]

Unipax and I agree too, , , :)