Thermate, C4, Micro Nukes Prove 911 Was and Inside/Outside Job

reply to post by pteridine


THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN, BUT YOU GO BACK TO SAME OLE CIRCULAR BS.

There were no tritium exit signs in WTC - referenced proven fact in my articles. There were a few gunsights that were tritium in the wtc SUPPOSEDLY- only noted AFTER it was found out there were no exit signs and they could not account for the dinky amount of tritium found in ONLY ONE LITER, ALL OF THE BUILDINGS COULD HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH GUNSIGHTS AND THEY WOULD NOT BE ANYWHERE NEAR BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS.

Murderers and the scum - accessories - that cover up for them do twist my panties, but mostly in the hope that some just have a visual impairment vs a morality impairment I write important stuff in in bold for so all can read it.

Tired of this BS from a multiple proven lying scammer. Keep posting your unreferenced scam BS. Done with it for a while.

DrEd



[edit on 13-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

Originally posted by EdWardMD
Well, my article hits are going down now - almost 1000 visits in 3 days. No more flags being displayed from new readers here. It appears this thread is going dead. Makes me want to vomit dealing with these scammers and their BS. Be sure and give my Love to the Jones twins and Woodhead.

DrEd
[edit on 12-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

Wish I had cash every time you said "BS". Everything is BS to you and everyone is scammers except you. You should probably take a break and go talk to a real doctor.

Originally posted by Allegory of Illumination
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

#7 said "People, computers, furniture vanished but abundant paper remained intact."

Why would paper be unaffected in the case of a mini nuke/wmd/whatever....?
Curious and Confused.

Thanks ahead to anyone who can help.

I mentioned this in a previous post of mine. I referred to the research done by Dr. Judy Wood, who showed that concrete and steel turned to dust (her website shows steel girders turning to dust on film); and all but one filing cabinet went missing. Not one filing cabinet was found except one, which was shrunk!

Also, cars were flipped and burned out in strange ways (vaporized handles, vaporized engines, etc..).

Here is her website: www.drjudywood.com. It was pretty interesting.


So here we have some strange things happening: the weapon(s) used seemed to be selective. It destroyed only selective solids. Filing cabinets disintegrated, but not the paper. Cars flipped, and engines and car handles burned out. How is that certain material solids were succeptible to the weapon(s), but not others.

Well, this is where it gets interesting! About a week after I started that thread, I woke up to an infomercial on TV on Sunday morning. (That's what happens when you fall asleep on the couch on Saturday night with the TV on!) But it was serendipity that I saw that infomercial, because you know what they were selling? A sonic tool of some sort.

They were selling an instrument that oscillated so fast that it could cut and carve wood, metal, and other dense materials, but it couldn't harm the human finger. They even put a balloon up to the "working edge" of the machine, and showed that although it could cut metal and wood, it couldn't burst a balloon.

When I saw that, I thought....maybe the weapon used (or one of the weapons used) was a type of sonic weapon? Something that emitted frequencies via high speed oscillations that would only turn heavier solids into powder, but not touch lighter solids, such as paper.

Just a thought. Maybe it was a sonic weapon of some sort, or a high frequency energy weapon.....a directed energy weapon (DEW) as Dr. Judy Wood suggested in her website.


edit:

By the way, I'm sure some debunker will come on this thread and try to debunk Dr. Wood again with that "ambush interview" video of her, that makes her look absolutely stupid. If someone does post that video of her on here, just be aware that she was ambushed that day. She was actually at another event that day, watching a friend speak, and some "interviewers" asked to talk to her for a few minutes and then ambushed her with the surprise video, to purposefully make her look stupid and try to debunk her.



[edit on 13-2-2009 by nikiano]

[edit on 13-2-2009 by nikiano]

[edit on 13-2-2009 by nikiano]

reply to post by EdWardMD


Apparently, you are unable to explain the lack of radioisotopes that would accompany any type of nuclear explosion of any size and resort to vituperative rhetoric when you are found lacking. The anomolous tritium will have to wait to be explained but the answer will definitely not be a nuclear bomb.

Your theory is scientifically unsound. No evidence = no nuke. Come back when you have something.

[edit on 2/13/2009 by pteridine]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Well if ya'll didn't write so much BS, I wouldn't have to prove it is BS then say it's BS.

DrEd

reply to post by nikiano



Good ole Wood - head of the byu crew. Debunk what? Is it from outer space, is it hutchinsons, lasers, microwaves, deep vibrations band saws etc, etc, etc - shes named everything under the sun and stuff that has not been proven to exist and still hasn't named which one - let alone its power source- -. it's anything but a nuke

which in the most likely scenerio was Israeli -, the primary classic textbook example for all the evidence must be ruled out when it's got massive craters, 2 billions pounds of instant building dust, massive tritium - covered up as 'traces' 'below 'human concern' and 'less than epa reportable' - almost 800 ppm TRITIUM - WAY MORE THAN ANYONE SHOULD CONSUME EVEN ONCE LET ALONE DAILY - instead of an actual number - STEVY JONES NUKE.

Good ole stevey and woodhead. BS over 'ghost planes'. What a coincidence. Neither Woodhead nor the Jones - (Stevey -We've corrresponded privately and through rense articles - and somehow after he said 'no tritium traces BS - means no nukes' - twins will address the MASSIVE TRITIUM AND HOW THEY CALL IT TRACES.

He's been shown the Tritium was 55 TIMES BACKGROUND and immediately stopped corresponding. Woodhead knows too. None of the BYU crew - the real israelites - will address even just the tritium, let alone proven massive craters, 5 acres of land at 2k in an anaerobic, chlorine fueled fire, covered in 2 billion pounds of building silicon? - the majority of the dust, etc, etc, etc.

None will address how they called 55 TIMES BACKGROUND = TRACES AND STILL WILL NOT. Deny, ignore, and lie (traces = 55 times normal - I want to see them explain that firetrucking out and out scumbag LIE). CIA control the revolution orgs IMO BASED ON THE FACTS.

DrEd

[edit on 14-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

reply to post by EdWardMD



Hi Mr. ed,

In order for you not to have to experience your cheeks turning red hot, I humbly suggest you familiarize yourself with DARPA's budget papers from the period
2000 - 2007.

Millions upon millions of dollars were requested to running projects that you rather
mischievously heap scorn upon.

Previously one was able to link to the papers, but now they are no longer available
for public scrutiny on their site - I just found out.

Perhaps the budget papers can be found in other ways, but I'll leave that to others.

I think I got a passage from one page somewhere, and will try to find and post it
later!

Prof. Jones Denies/Ignores/Misrepresents Proven Tritium Levels 55 Times
Background Levels

HardEvidence (Jones' handle on the new pseudo 911 scholars site) wrote: Actual measurements of tritium levels in pre-1950 (pre-H-bomb testing) rain and wines shows that ordinary tritium background levels vary over a broad range, but withvalues up to about 10 or 11 Tritium Units. (Jones paper in the Journal of 9/11Studies,
journalof911studies.com...\-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf )

But the tritium found at Ground Zero, after 9/11, was BELOW 10 tritium units!
That is, the tritium found at GZ is totally consistent with measured prosaic
background levels.

Absence of tritium above background levels implies absence of mini-hydrogen bombs at the WTC." (No response when the levels were proven 55 Times Higher than Background.)

More from the Jones letter:
“Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained
3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure…”

www.clayandiron.com...

How does this fit in with a supposed 'Scientific Method'? It doesn't. This is
entirely inconsistent with the scientific method of evaluating ALL THE EVIDENCE.

I would also suggest you take a look at: Phenomenon Archives: Heavy Watergate, The War Against Cold Fusion
video.google.com...
About midway through the documentary goes into Jones' muon BS.

I would also suggest you listen to the Fetzer interview regarding the California Grand Jury initiative with John McCarthy: A very insightful interview with John McCarthy on 911 Truth and the Citizens Grand Jury debacle.
johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com...\w_john_jimfetzer_20070605.mp3

Proof of 55 Times Background Levels via USGS data: Update: Proves Micro Nukes in the WTC www.thepriceofliberty.org...

The USGS report also states there were NO Tritium 'exit signs' in the WTC. It also gives examples of 100 times the supposed plane's Tritium values that did not show any residual Tritium and a massive amount of Tritium in another accident that were thousands of times greater than supposed WTC sources of Tritium that did show residual Tritium levels.

The next time anyone sees any of my above buddies be sure and ask them how 55 times normal = traces or show how my basic math calculations are incorrect. Because until then the Doc says that in his opinion based on the facts, -they are scumbag liars - have been and still are.

Ed Ward, MD

Well I found it surprisingly easy, but its shorter than I remember, and only deals with
3-D imaging!

A shame I can't show you the adjoining passages and pages, which deals with
sophisticated laser weaponry, but I hope you at least will get the idea of what I'm
trying to tell you!


from page 123:

".....
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century."

reply to post by EdWardMD


Here is an interesting exchange I had with Ed Ward - like many, many other posters here, he has 1 or 2 good points, but then simply ignores the most powerful evidence of all. Then, he becomes abusive when you point this out. Ho hum.


www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

reply to post by nikiano

That's absolutely right. And here's some more background to that:

www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

Also, a video I made is linked below - the comments posted by RedlinedMeter are interesting. I wonder who redlinedmeter (on the youtube posting) is/was:

www.youtube.com...

Where are all these debunker's websites? Where are there court actions? Where are there theories? Or do they simply hide behind anonymous handles? (My name is Andrew Johnson if you haven't already worked it out).

Originally posted by EdWardMD

How does this fit in with a supposed 'Scientific Method'? It doesn't. This is
entirely inconsistent with the scientific method of evaluating ALL THE EVIDENCE.

Because until then the Doc says that in his opinion based on the facts, -they are scumbag liars - have been and still are.

You talk about the scientific method but are not using it. You call out mini-nukes but have only an anomolous tritium analysis as evidence. No other evidence of a nuclear bomb is presented. You talk about craters but craters are the foundation excavations for the buildings. Craters made by bombs require exlosive removal of a great deal of earth, which has not been seen, accompanied by a shock wave which has not been seen.

You have no idea of what a nuclear device would do in the middle of New York City and, fortunately, none ever went off. I don't expect you to really understand your error, because you are only a physician and not a scientist.

I also note that you are fixated on the phrase "scumbag liar" so I presume that will be your mindless, bullying response this post.

Originally posted by EdWardMD
Prof. Jones Denies/Ignores/Misrepresents Proven Tritium Levels 55 Times
Background Levels

It's clear why Jones wouldn't want to talk about tritium much - he might upset Pons and Fleischman.

Why is Mr Ward Denying/Ignoring/Misrepresenting (nay, make utterly false statements about) Dr Wood's research?

AT LEAST Dr Wood mentions Tritium HERE:

www.drjudywood.com...

It's referenced in several places on her site! What are you up to? As if we didn't know!!

Anyway, the evidence at the WTC MATCHES the effects seen in John Hutchison's experiments - but gives only small clues as to the location of the weapon system.

Where were your nukes? Who made them? Who planted them? Your own criticism of Dr Wood applies to yourself!! What does that make you?

[edit on 14-2-2009 by izopen]

reply to post by EdWardMD


I gotta ask you though. If this was a micro-nuke or whatever, riddle me this: Why did the exterior columns bend inwards prior to collapse? What type of explosives can cause a building to quietly have its exterior columns bend inwards about 3-5 seconds before collapse?




Also are you aware that there is a limit to the smallest size a nuke can be, before it is no longer able to detonate? There is also the big problem of radioactive fallout from detonating ANY nuclear device inside a large building, (or inside two). an airburst of a nuke will allow for a "clean" detonation with little to no fallout. But inside, at ground level, or underground, the radioactive fallout would have blanketed almost the entire island of Manhattan.

A funny thing about any sort of a nuke, or having a few tons of high explosive or a kiloton of explosives exploding in a downtown setting: the blast would have shattered windows in highrises and buildings miles away, especially if it was detonated 80 floors up. Remember the PEPCON explosion? That was estimated to have exploded with the force of a 1 kiloton nuclear airburst. Once you start getting into these forces, you have to remember how much force even a ton of high explosive has and what is the damage. Even a 0.1 kiloton nuke would launch solid steel far from the WTC site. A "micro-nuke" would still be a VERY noticeable detonation.

And lets not forget radiation burns.

Would you like to see how 100 tons of TNT exploding looks like?



This is just 100 tons. (or 0.1 kilotons)

You know what was missing at the WTC? A blast wave shattering windows blocks around the WTC and severely damaging ALL the buildings around the WTC site with blast damage.

And this is what 100 tons of high explosives sounds like when going off:

reply to post by izopen



SHOW THE QUOTE WHERE SHE NOTES THAT 55 TIMES NORMAL IS NOT TRACES or anything along those lines or even that nukes are the only PROVEN thing that can produce all of the evidence. Instead some BS about she mentions tritium. Jones mentions tritium too - IN A BLATANT LIE - SHOW THE QUOTE AND I'LL GLADLY REMOVE JUDY WOOD FROM MY LIST OF ACCESSORIES TO MURDER after the fact AND COVERING UP MASSIVE TRITIUM LEVELS PASSED OFF AS TRACES. Not only that, I'll admit I was wrong and apologize profusely. JUST SHOW ANY QUOTE ALONG THOSE LINES FROM SCAMMER WOODHEAD. Isn't it amazing how the byu crew self destructed over BS just when it was about to be a real movement. What a coincidence.

DrEd

[edit on 14-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

reply to post by GenRadek


Nukes are not TNT. TNT is only used as a TOTAL energy comparison. TNT gives all of it's energy to its explosive effects. Nukes on the other hand, can give off most of their energy as neutrons, heat, gamma rays, light, whatever they want to be produced. So while the energy produced is equivalent the type energy produced is remarkable different. A lasers energy can be compared to TNT too. It makes no noise and produces no explosion. Comparing a nuke to tnt simply because it's energy is compared to tnt is BS. Nukes don't make near the noise on a lb per lb TNT comparison.

MORE BS - NO FACT.

DrEd

DrEd

reply to post by EdWardMD


In your theory of micronukes at the WTC, what percentages were blast, heat, and radiation?

One does not need to know the exact size to know what was done FROM VERIFIED REFERENCED EVIDENCE. Like saying someone that has been murdered by a bullet hasn't been murdered by a bullet unless you can tell the exact force/size of the bullet without having the bullet in hand. A straight through and through circular hole is a projectile/bullet until proven otherwise. Just like massive craters, massive heat in 6 acres of earth, 2 billion pounds of instant dust, vaporized people, impossible chlorine fueled anearobic fires, wilting spires, hiroshima cancer effects, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS and even more evidence is a NUKE until proven otherwise.

DrEd

reply to post by EdWardMD

Were the craters from blast or heat? There wasn't any blast and the heat required to melt the earth would have melted a lot more.
There were no other radionuclides detected so what sort of device would you postulate? Straight fusion without a fission trigger would still leave secondary radiation from neutron flux along with many more dead in the surrounding area.
I only see evidence for a tritium spill that can't be tied to a bomb.