Dr Judy Woods failed to spot a piece of Flight 175 fuselage on top of WTC5

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
On her website at janedoe0911.tripod.com... Dr Judy Wood posts many photos that she claims are difficult or impossible to explain in terms of either the official explanation for the destruction of the WTC or Prof Jones' thermate hypothesis. Her Fig 62 at janedoe0911.tripod.com... shows the mysterious holes in WTC5. See below

She asks

What could cause these holes? WTC5 is not adjacent to a Twin Tower, as WTC4 and WTC6 were. Thus WTC5 was less likely to suffer damage from the destruction of a Twin Tower than WTC4 and WTC6 were, as shown by Figure 75 on page 6. A piece of aircraft fuselage was allegedly found on the roof of WTC5. Can you find the fuselage piece in Figure 62? If not, you're not alone. When did a fuselage piece shown in Figure 62(c) arrive on the roof of WTC5?


Then she states

The fuselage piece in Figure 62(d) made popular by Popular Mechanics is located between the two raised roof sections of WTC5. This location in the large picture is identified by a circle and arrow in the small photo, Figure 62(d). There is only one aircraft item, the rest is aluminum cladding and other building debris.

janedoe0911.tripod.com...

Well, I can find the piece of fuselage! So would Wood had she magnified her photo more. My image below


is a more magnified view of the gap between the two raised roof sections of WTC5, where the piece of fuselage was supposed to be. It comes from a satellite photo of the WTC at www.noaanews.noaa.gov... Over it I have superimposed for comparison a FEMA photo of debris found on top of WTC5, which shows a piece of fuselage of Flight 175. It can be found at www.photolibrary.fema.gov... According to Wood, it was supposed to have been taken on 10/25/01. Corresponding girders/debris have the same numbers. The section of plane fuselage is easily identified once one makes allowance for foreshortening, which makes objects appear to be nearer to one another along the vertical direction in the FEMA photo than they are in the satellite image.

This means that Wood is wrong in claiming that the satellite image does not show the bit of fuselage, with its accompanying insinuation that it was planted before the photo of the man standing on top of WTC5 was taken. Perhaps before asking so many questions on her website, she should check whether some of them really need raising.



[edit: replaced code tags with the appropriate EX tags]
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Judy needs to be energy beamed to somewhere far away even f this is a one line response that cost me 20 points.


[edit on 20-3-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Let me see if i get this right. I am basing this on some of CB's posts, so who knows?


There were no planes, only holograms. BUT, the molten metal that STEVEN JONES, a CIA disinfo agent, uses to prove thermite is actually molten aluminum from the hologram planes?!?!

Since these hologram planes, that werent really there, left aluminum that melted, that proves thermite couldnt have been used and therefor it HAD TO BE energy beams???



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
Let me see if i get this right. I am basing this on some of CB's posts, so who knows?


There were no planes, only holograms. BUT, the molten metal that STEVEN JONES, a CIA disinfo agent, uses to prove thermite is actually molten aluminum from the hologram planes?!?!

Since these hologram planes, that werent really there, left aluminum that melted, that proves thermite couldnt have been used and therefor it HAD TO BE energy beams???


I never said there were no planes.
I never said there were holograms.
I never said there was molten aluminum.

You're not putting the information I said together properly.

What I said was...

The corporate media broadcast a CGI (this is fact, not theory)

Jones' molten metal has been shown to fabricated



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Good Morning Everybody:

CB_Brooklyn just inspired me to say a few things.

I DO say there were NO planes!
I DO say there might have been holograms — but only if there are enough credible witnesses who saw planes. Under no circumstances were there any physical planes crashing into buildings on 9-11. Therefore any other explanation is more plausible, even the hologram theory. Hologram technology is indeed something the military has been researching since the 1950’s.
I DO say there was molten aluminum. But not from jet airliners.

Finally, whatever aircraft parts were found, were bogus. As in not related to the alleged flights. Which is why no official crash reports were ever written up. Probably, because that would have necessitated including uncomfortably more people into the 9-11 conspiracy.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 3/22/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   
There is NO REASON to fake the planes.

You have literally hundreds of thousands of people from all angles.
Broadcasting from various channels at all angles and heights.
All of this fabrication, all of this technology to do what?
Fake what you don't have to?
Oh, and then how do even begin to explain the explosion from the plane impact, that fireball can't be replicated from stationary bombs. Or space beams or whatever jackassery Judy Wood can postulate. She is enjoying her payoff laughing at you.

Like we don't already have an image problem, and you want to throw this nonsense into it.
Good lord.
I didn't reject this at face value either, when I probably should have just on common sense.





[edit on 22-3-2007 by AwakeAndAllSeeing]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Dear AwakeAndAllSeeing:

The Good Lord ain’t gonna help us here. Cause he had nothing to do with 9-11!

I kind of agree with you — there was no reason to fake the planes with holograms. I mean what for, when you control the media and can show anything you want to on television ‘coverage’. The 9-11 organizers didn’t even need to do a good job of that. Had 9-11 videos been a Hollywood movie, people would have demanded their money back. Each and every single picture of those planes smashing into the WTC’s is so amateurishly assembled, it’s offensive to our intelligence. We only initially believed it because it was too outrageous for us to fathom anything else.

So — no, it wasn’t necessary to simulate planes on site at the twin towers. But it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to use real aircraft. Because real aircraft wont fly through a wall of 14 by 14, quarter inch thick steel box beam columns with only 25” of open space in between, and solid nearly 5 ft wide 3/8” thick steel plate belts of steel (spandrels). Not to mention all the other obstacles behind that outer wall of voodoo.

And generating fireballs, if that is indeed what they did as opposed to simply editing them in as special effects in a studio, is easier than a trip to grandma’s house. Surely you know that.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
holograms....give me a break!!!! Helicopter rescues....what about the guy who shot that 30+ minute video from hoboken. Before the tower collapsed he said he saw a heli drop a rescue line, then the building started to crumble. Its on another thread here!!



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
energy beams and holograms, do you people have any idea of what you are saying.

can you imagine if something had gone wrong, like the holographic projection stopped dead. but the explosion still occurred.

because believe it or not , not all the people with video camera's were CIA agents.

how do you explain the towers starting to fall from the exact point they were hit if an energy beam was used.

Christ why do we bother


this F*cking Cr*p should be in the skunk works.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmocow
holograms....give me a break!!!!


Dear Cosmocow and tombangelta:

Airplanes smashing into the towers….give all of us a break!!!

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and state that 9-11 was the first time in United States Aviation history that commercial passenger plane crashes above land were not officially investigated with officially written up reports.

Geez, now why is that? Could it be that those four ‘plane crashes’ never happened? The mainstream media version of 9-11 is what belongs into skunk works.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
It's crap like this that gives 9/11 Truth a bad name.

I refuse to debate the patently ridiculous hologram theories - pro or con!



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
CB_Brooklyn

Your claim of *fact* of CGI employed by the media has no basis in reality. None.

Wizard_In_The_Woods

If it was holograms and energy beams then countries like Russia would know about this, I am sure they have technology that would and could detect such things. There is no basis to start talking about holograms, if the explosions occured in ways that we don't think looked right is one thing, but to make the next leap of logic and say the planes were holograms I think is very unwise and clouds the evidence pool.

We have to keep our eyes focused on what can be seen as truly circumstantial and build this case, brick by brick.

CB has already compared CNN's footage to a Cartoon. That in my mind will go nowhere in the search for truth.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear AwakeAndAllSeeing:

The Good Lord ain’t gonna help us here. Cause he had nothing to do with 9-11!

I kind of agree with you — there was no reason to fake the planes with holograms. I mean what for, when you control the media and can show anything you want to on television ‘coverage’. The 9-11 organizers didn’t even need to do a good job of that.
--------------This is irrelevant. There are hundreds of thousands of witnesses, and documentation. There is no reason to fake footage either --------------


Had 9-11 videos been a Hollywood movie, people would have demanded their money back. Each and every single picture of those planes smashing into the WTC’s is so amateurishly assembled, it’s offensive to our intelligence. We only initially believed it because it was too outrageous for us to fathom anything else.

--------------What is offensive to my intelligence is disinfo. -------------


So — no, it wasn’t necessary to simulate planes on site at the twin towers.

-----------so you have no real motive for this nonsense------------------

But it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to use real aircraft. Because real aircraft wont fly through a wall of 14 by 14, quarter inch thick steel box beam columns with only 25” of open space in between, and solid nearly 5 ft wide 3/8” thick steel plate belts of steel (spandrels). Not to mention all the other obstacles behind that outer wall of voodoo.
------------500+ mph, 100 tons. Do your own calculations. ----------


And generating fireballs, if that is indeed what they did

------------oh, so all those New Yorkers imagined it now? Maybe there were under the spell of some Darpa MKUltra Collective Mind Controll Space Alien Trance-----------

as opposed to simply editing them in as special effects in a studio, is easier than a trip to grandma’s house. Surely you know that.

--------------see above since this point is also irrelevant------------

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


It's one thing to question everything you see , read and hear; but to believe every halfwitted explanation for it is missing half of the equation for investigation.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply. I believe in free speech, freedom of thought/expression etc.. but when we're trying to put the truth together, this is not the venue for it.

If ATS had a "rep" counter, yours would be reading negative 10^99999 right now.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Dear Original Conspiracy Believers:

I have to hand it to the orchestrators of 9-11 — they successfully pulled off the most pivotal part of their plot, to convince the public that there were passenger plane crashes. No matter what — those images have been branded into the minds of nearly all of us for life.

Yet it’s all so simple. I’ve written this before and I’ll write it again. On 9-11 the ‘attack on America’ was presented to us like a cheap magical carnival act. The difference being that a magic trick show, we know that — no matter how well performed — the magician didn’t really pull a dozen bunnies out of the hat, or actually saw the lady in half (while she’s laughing and remains alive). But why do we doubt there? It all looks so real. We disbelieve because we intuitively know that those things aren’t possible.

But when four big-ass commercial airliners disappear without a trace — as they did on 9-11 — we accept this, no questions asked. A nine millimeter bullet traveling also at 500 mph would have hopelessly bounced off those quarter inch thick steel perimeter columns at the WTC’s. Yet we ignore that fact and trust that the rest of the planes — all 150 feet of them — would have somehow, someway vanished in into a black hole only 35 ft deep (at the South Tower).

You see, I’d rather believe in magic tricks, such as holograms which do exist, than the physical impossibility of the airplanes all-out disappearing through massive steel walls.

Won’t get fooled again,
The Wizard In The Woods





new topics
 
0

log in

join