Judges shocked by first time seeing video of WTC 7 collapse in Denmark court, March 2015

a reply to: Debunkology


I see...you have an invisible cast of thousands to wire your building. okay....

To those with eyes to see an ears to hear, the quiet demolition of all three buildings can be explained by Dr. Judy Wood's theory of energy insertion.

The energy is not overpowering, it simply interferes with the normal state of energy present in all atoms. Like magnetism appearing from current though a wire. The materials get weaker and collapse, some extra susceptible materials disaggregate into dust.

Dr. Judy Wood's mechanism is more like salt dissolving in water than fireballs blasting steel to smithereens.

www.drjudywood.com...

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
To those with eyes to see an ears to hear, the quiet demolition of all three buildings can be explained by Dr. Judy Wood's theory of energy insertion.

Ah, the old "beam weapons from space" truther fantasy!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
To those with eyes to see an ears to hear, the quiet demolition of all three buildings can be explained by Dr. Judy Wood's theory of energy insertion.

Ah, the old "beam weapons from space" truther fantasy!

Where does that "quote" come from?

A room of monkeys with computers?

Honestly, who said "beams from space"?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
A room of monkeys with computers?

That would be Judy Woods....

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Dr. Judy Wood did actually.

www.drjudywood.com...

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
A room of monkeys with computers?

That would be Judy Woods....

No web site to support that?

The beams from space implies over powering force, Woods never says that. The energy theory is more like a finesse of electromagnetism and/or nuclear forces.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Dr. Judy Wood did actually.

www.drjudywood.com...

Read the article under the title much?

Dr. Woods said the Star Wars program studied energy weapons. She never said that the energy weapon used on 911 was a beam or from space.

And "beam weapons from space" is not a quote or an accurate representation of the ideas.

Hellobruce lied pretty much.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

And that, at the end of the maze of conflicting and incomplete info and raised tempers, is one good question... would nobody in this alleged elite special forces organization that took down the towers and murdered the office workers and the plane's passengers in a field somewhere (as one scenario has it) blab about treason and the murder of 3,000 fellow citizens and the scrapping of the constitution? Most government folks I know, and most especially the more elite operatives, are basically quite patriotic and most aren't evil crazy.

As someone else in the thread wrote, the government definitely used 911 for the surveillance state agenda and thus the ongoing scrapping of the Constitution, illegal, unjust wars, etc., etc.,... maybe they even intentionally disregarded the clues leading up to 911... but the events seemed to have happened as the "official story" says they did... for the most part, anyway.

I sure know a conspiracy was the first thing I thought of when it happened... and that many 'truthers' are quite intelligent and aren't totally wrong about certain factions within the govt., and have some good points of questioning, but the main 911 conspiracy theories just don't stand up so far. This thread is no different.

The torture, corporate wars, shadow government, and most especially the surveillance issue, needs more outrage and investigation, though... or these arguments won't even be possible once the wrong, worse psychos get their hands on the controls of mass surveillance, that is... and that WILL happen, given enough time.... it's inevitable.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

You might want to do some more reading on her site. Maybe look for where she thought they would have been based.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Debunkology


I see...you have an invisible cast of thousands to wire your building. okay....

you don't know how right you are.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You might want to do some more reading on her site. Maybe look for where she thought they would have been based.

"Beam weapons from space" is still a willfully inaccurate or ignorant way to describe Dr. Wood's theory. Space is as good a place as any. No reason to assume that they could not be in space.

The important part of the theory is that something affects steel and concrete like microwaves affect water. The energy effect might be from a unique combination of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that interferes with the normal electrical molecular bonding states of the target molecules. A complex enough interference pattern could put spikes of energy where energy is always absent. The interference pattern also aims the weapon, in that the effect would only occur where all signals intersected. The emitters could be put in any number of spatial arrangements as long as the intersection of their fields was at the target. And the effect could be more like a catalyst than a knife, requiring very little energy once the proper wave form was established.

From the standpoint of an interference pattern any EMR could be useful, even the ubiquitous background cell tower and media broadcast signals.

a reply to: Debunkology

A lot of architects do find this odd. Before these events to my knowledge no steel structure has collapsed due to fire. Should we humor the possibility I think it would be better Seen as an anomaly. That being said one anomaly is strange, three I the same day stranger. Also to humor it could have happened like that, which if it's in the realm of thought than surely in the realm of possibility. The one thing that strikes me as odd is surely a structure that is suffering from an integrity would fail at the point of most damage, just as a tree would fall. All three straight down is cause for question in it self. Should one side be more damaged than an other it would lean then fall

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Debunkology

A lot of architects do find this odd. Before these events to my knowledge no steel structure has collapsed due to fire.

How many of those steel structures were hit by a high speed heavy jet airliner?

So it looks like when a high speed heavy jet airliner hits a building it will eventually collapse....

All three straight down is cause for question in it self. Should one side be more damaged than an other it would lean then fall

So you think that a small section of the building could support the tens of thousands of tonnes above it, causing it to topple....

a reply to: hellobruce

It was designed to take that hit, and I do acknowledge it was built before the size of those aircrafts. That being said I love playing Devils advocate even against my own points, so yes I do agree the building taking a hit resulting in structural integrity would not be able to fully compensate for affected areas, but I still stand by one side would have more damage than another. One area would fail first creating a chain reaction, pulling other parts with it but I still believe it would lean first then fall. Look up botched demolitions, if the timing is off by milliseconds than the structure won't go strait down into its foundation.

a reply to: hellobruce

youtu.be...

Also, failure wouldn't result in a building falling at free fall speed. Physics wouldn't allow it without intervention of other forces. If you watch a lot of demolition videos a lot don't go as planned resulting in leans, pauses in falling and sometimes the building won't fall all the way even after explosions within beams. If I view myself as intelligent than I must be honest with my self at least I am no expert, and I wasn't there. That being said I'm not sure what "really" happened, but I think there are questions worth humoring. After all, people often times are conditioned, should we not question everything or at least most things than I wonder how that would condition decision makers.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: hellobruce

Also, failure wouldn't result in a building falling at free fall speed.

What makes you claim that they fell at free fall speed? Watch a video of WTC 1 & 2 collapsing, yoiu clearly see the debris falling off the buildings falling at free fall speed, the remainder of the building collapse wave is much slower.

Physics wouldn't allow it without intervention of other forces.

Please state that "physics"

a reply to: hellobruce

Touche, I should have said near free fall speed, speaking in absolute often times shows ignorance. And the physics are simple, the top of the building was first to fail thus fall, in between it in the ground was part of a structure designed not to fall, so failure would happen at a story to story basis. A chain reaction a failures, each take time, and without other forces in play I find it hard to comprehend it would fall at the same speed as controlled demolitions which prove to be hard themselves. But as I said I'm no expert, but my reason tells me if it happened once that would be strange with no other instances to compare it to. Three instances in one day in my mind warrants a hunt for answers to my questions.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
in between it in the ground was part of a structure designed not to fall,

That structure was not designed to stop a tens of thousands of tonnes dynamic load...

A chain reaction a failures, each take time, and without other forces in play

Every time one floor collapsed it added hundreds of tonnes to the falling load, so more force on each collapsing floor.

but my reason tells me if it happened once that would be strange with no other instances to compare it to.

How many other high rise buildings have been hit by a high speed jet airliner?

Three instances in one day in my mind warrants a hunt for answers to my questions.

Then read the NIST reports....

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You might want to do some more reading on her site. Maybe look for where she thought they would have been based.

"Beam weapons from space" is still a willfully inaccurate or ignorant way to describe Dr. Wood's theory. Space is as good a place as any. No reason to assume that they could not be in space.

The important part of the theory is that something affects steel and concrete like microwaves affect water. The energy effect might be from a unique combination of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that interferes with the normal electrical molecular bonding states of the target molecules. A complex enough interference pattern could put spikes of energy where energy is always absent. The interference pattern also aims the weapon, in that the effect would only occur where all signals intersected. The emitters could be put in any number of spatial arrangements as long as the intersection of their fields was at the target. And the effect could be more like a catalyst than a knife, requiring very little energy once the proper wave form was established.

From the standpoint of an interference pattern any EMR could be useful, even the ubiquitous background cell tower and media broadcast signals.

That's what has been said on the tin, not only that the theory would be complete, start to finish as an explanation of the total collapse of the towers. That is not to say that I am convinced that is what happened, but nonetheless, it is a complete hypothesis.
Compare that to what the NIST came up with, it's report only attempts to make a case for 'collapse initiation', with the assumption that a total collapse followed...AKA bad science and even ignore, like here, the story of Kevin Ryan, who worked at Underwriter Laboratories, the company that certified the WTC steel before its construction. Ryan was fired in 2004 for emailing the deputy chief of NIST’s metallurgy division, telling him that the tests UL was commissioned to carry out indicated that “the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.” NIST’s metallurgical tests at that time suggested that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of about 250°C. Ryan was dispensed with for pointing out that the new NIST report seemed to ignore these findings, as it asserted that temperatures caused the steel to “soften and buckle”....AKA ignore.
There's much more, the molten metal dripping down the South tower is....molten metal, while all NIST required for a collapse initiation was a little softening of the steel, and 'puny' outriggers for the floors, but yet you see molten metal dripping down before a total collapse. Now that metal could well have been something other than steel, but it still means there were high temperatures involved that are not part of the NIST report...aka ignore. That report should have been kicked out of touch from the outset because it made a presumption first off based on ignoring stuff that got in the way, and all the pretty pictures and graphics mean nothing if there was stuff going on that they ignored.
It got a bit stiffer with WTC7, so they did even more sophisticated pretty pictures and graphics for that model and fecked that up too, by having to revise for the partial free-fall speed, then cocked up the whole WTC analysis by saying there was no molten metal flowing at the base of the twin towers site. Having got $10M for the WTC7 report alone, I can say though that the NIST are good businessmen, a London Cabbie has...needs to have, more objectivity that they.