It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evidence To Explain

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Dear Fellow Truth Supporter,

Here are some important questions to ask ourselves when analyzing the attacks of 9/11:

• How come most of the Twin Towers’ steel and concrete was transformed into a fine dust, while large quantities of aluminum exhibited strange electrical burns, yet paper was unharmed? Extreme heat from jet fuel (or explosives) does not selectively damage certain materials, so how come some materials turned to dust, while other materials were bent or burnt, and yet other materials were completely unharmed?
• Why was Hurricane Erin at its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, yet it was not reported on by the major corporate media stations?
• How come there were statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 Alaskan magnetomer stations detecting normal readings until the 9/11 attacks commenced, when there was suddenly a huge surge in electromagnetic activity?
• How come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero just as the attacks commenced?
• How were the Twin Towers turned to dust so fine, that the dust floated high up into our atmosphere. The satellite photos show a clear distinction between the black smoke and the whitish-grey dust, so what turned such a large portion of these buildings to dust so fine that it floated high into our atmosphere?
• How come 1,400+ vehicles located several blocks away (some up to ¼ a mile away) from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? If you think the building debris caused these things, then how come that same debris did not burn the clothing or skin of the nearby pedestrians it covered?
• How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side, next to trees which still had all of their leaves on them?
• How come several steel beams were observed to be bent and/or shriveled up in very unusual ways, ways which have only been observed during The Hutchison Effect experiments?
• How come spontaneous rusting of materials occurred all around ground zero? In some instances, entire front-halves of cars were rusted, while the back-halves appeared to be virtually untouched?
• How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?
• How come circular holes were observed in the windows of virtually all the buildings near ground zero, when holes like these are known only to be caused by longitudinal waves of energy? If building debris smashed the windows, they would have shattered in a predictable way, so how come these countless windows did not shatter, but instead, developed circular holes characteristic of the effect of longitudinal waves of energy on glass?
• How was the ‘bathtub’, the area directly beneath the Twin Towers, left virtually unharmed? How could thousands of tons of falling building debris not damage the ‘bathtub’ beneath the WTC buildings?
• How was the ‘Looney Toons’ gift shop in the basement of the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed, so dramatically that the ‘Bugs Bunny’ statue and other statues were not even scratched or dented? How could these figurines survive thousands of tons of falling building debris?
• How was the unharmed PATH Train beneath the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t falling building debris have crushed that train, or at the very least, knocked it off the tracks?
• How could thousands of tons of rapidly falling steel and concrete building debris leave the ‘Bath Tub’, the basement gift shops, and the PATH train, virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete cause significant damage to at least one of these?
• How come Dr. Wood has already filed evidence-based legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies based on their conflict-of-interest relationship with N.I.S.T., yet other 9/11 “truth” researchers have not? How come Dr. Steven Jones has not officially filed his scientific ‘peer-reviewed’ nano-thermite evidence with Congress or the U.S. Courts?
• Why are groups like AE911Truth and PilotsFor911Truth just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which was successfully appealed to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009?
• Why did Dr. Jones ban Dr. Wood from his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group long ago, just because they had different conclusions about what destroyed the towers? Shouldn’t Dr. Jones and his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group be supporting the 9/11 investigation that Dr. Judy Wood has already demanded with her legal cases, even if he does not agree with her conclusions?
• Why was I silently removed from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) petition simply for asking Richard Gage if he would examine the research of Dr. Judy Wood? Why didn’t AE911Truth just reply to my well-intended email question, but instead, silently removed me from their petition? I have donated over $100 to AE911Truth, so why was I silently removed from the petition simply for asking Richard Gage a question? Why was I later contacted by Mark Graham of AE911Truth once they discovered I was telling people about what had happened? They could contact me and offer me a refund to try and stop me from telling people about how I was silently removed from their petition, but they couldn’t respond to my email which simply asked Richard Gage if he had looked into Dr. Judy Wood’s research?
• Why was I severely censored when I tried to add Dr. Judy Wood’s name and website to the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ Wikipedia page? How come David Ray Griffin and other less-qualified researchers are mentioned multiple times on the page, yet I was not even allowed to add one sentence about Dr. Judy Wood? When I tried to appeal the decision, a small group of moderators controlled the discussion and told me that if I appealed it again my account would be locked. According to Wikipedia policy, deletion-appeal discussions are to remain open for public comment and review for 5-7 days before a final decision is made, but my appeal was given a final decision by a small group of rude admins within 12 hours of the onset of my appeal, and the discussion was prematurely closed. After some research, I realized this was a violation of Wikipedia's policy, so I appealed it again, and my account was locked as a result.
• Why did United States Army Major Doug Rokke (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that explosives were the only things used on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any proof to back up his negative accusations against her?
• Why did Soviet Nuclear Intelligent Officer Dimitri Khalezov (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that underground nuclear explosives were what turned the buildings to fine particles of dust on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any significant proof to back up his negative accusations against her?
• Why did these high-ranking retired military officials randomly contact me, an insignificant medical student, when they should be contacting members of the U.S. Congress, and other high-ranking members of our government, with their concerns and the “evidence” they claim to have?


Thank you for your time, consideration, and help.

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

facebook.com...
youtube.com...




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
thats a lot of questions, and surprisingly, I only heard a few of them before. Though I did just read a story about a subway train that was trapped underneath, and no one found if for weeks, and the people had starved or something.. sad..
I'll look into some questions.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
I'll look into some questions.


Thanks for looking into it Myendica.

I know 'Directed Enery Weapons' sound far out there, but in reality they are not. This is why we must not let skepticism prevent us from viewing all the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered, because the evidence will show us exactly what happened on that day.

Here is a short documentary you may find interesting:

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 1 of 3): www.youtube.com...

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 2 of 3): www.youtube.com...

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 3 of 3): www.youtube.com...


In Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology


edit on 9-9-2010 by PookztA because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA
I know 'Directed Enery Weapons' sound far out there, but in reality they are not. This is why we must not let skepticism prevent us from viewing all the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered, because the evidence will show us exactly what happened on that day.

And as you continually post the fake "Dr"'s disinformation, I'll continue to post the debunks here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Dear BoneZ,

I guess it would have been asking too much of you to explain the evidence I have posted, right? Just like old times I see. I post factual information which needs an explanation...

...and you just post your hit piece article which spreads rumors, falsehoods, and inaccuracies, in an attempt to divert people away from Dr. Wood's website.

Why not let people think for themselves for a change?

If Dr. Wood is so wrong, you should have no problem with concerned folks checking out the evidence I have posted above and the enormous amount of evidence at her website.

Furthermore...

Finger pointing without evidence is unscientific. So why do it?

Claiming Dr. Wood did not earn a Ph.D in Materials Science Engineering, without providing proof, is not only wrong, but completely unscientific. So why do it? (you said "the fake Dr." as if she is lying about her credentials, lol)

Spreading dishonest information is counter to the truth. So why do it -- unless your job is to divert people away from the evidence?

To this very day, the only person that has put forth one cohesive, scientific conclusion, to explain ALL this related evidence, is Dr. Judy Wood. This is why her evidence-based court case against the corporations who hired NIST to do the 9/11 investigations (huge conflict-of-interest) made it all the way to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 2009, before abruptly being shot down by a judge due to his subjective labeling of the case as a conspiracy theory (despite the fact that Dr. Wood does not claim that our government organized 9/11).

It is illegal to repeatedly appeal a court case that is not evidence-backed, and cases which are not strongly based on evidence do not make it to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court. Her Qui-Tam case was so strong that it made it all the way up to the top, before finally being unfairly shot down by that judge before being heard.

Surprinsingly, Dr. Wood is the only truth-seeking researcher who has filed her evidence in a court of law. Not even Dr. Steven Jones has filed his 'peer-reviewed' nano-thermite paper with a court of law, most likely because thermite alone barely explains ANY of the evidence in comparison to the explanation put forth by Dr. Judy Wood. Dr. Jones and Mr. Gage sure do get lots of TV time, so why not use some of that TV time to publicly file a court case against the suspected corporations which hired NIST to do the phony investigations, as Dr. Wood did long ago?

You can view the legal documents from her case here: www.drjudywood.com...


Dr. Wood has determined what happened on 9/11 beyond any reasonable doubt, and that is why I support her. Those who attack her with ad hominems rather than discussing the evidence are identifying themselves as knowingly part of the coverup, or they are just displaying their ignorance by needlessly insulting her.


Please explain the evidence in my first post, and the overwhelming amount of evidence found at these two sites:

drjudywood.com...
checktheevidence.com...

Thank you for your time,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

facebook.com...
youtube.com...




edit on 9-9-2010 by PookztA because: fixed grammatical error



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
no reason hating each other since you both have things in common. We shall all continue to search our own avenues and hope that the investigation begins sometime soon. For now, I suppose I encourage all aspects to be looked at.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Myendica,

I am not hating anyone, for hate is a waste of energy and time.

I just want BoneZ to address the evidence. He refuses to address the questions and information I have posted, but he sure does love making false claims about Dr. Wood.

Notice how he called her a "fake Dr.", which means he is attempting to convince people that she did not really earn a Ph.D, when in fact, she did? Notice how he made that accusation without providing any evidence to back up his claim? That is not what someone pursuing the truth really does. That is what someone does who wants to divert people away from the evidence. Why is BoneZ spreading rumors?

Just to clear up this rumor BoneZ is attempting to spread:

Dr. Judy Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bi-material joints. She has taught courses including: Experimental Stress Analysis, Engineering Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials), Strength of Materials Testing.


Hope this helps clear things up!

Peace everyone, time to get back to studying.

-Abe



edit on 9-9-2010 by PookztA because: fixed grammatical error



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by PookztA
 


Wow - What a steaming pile of stupid......

Try to answer a few

Hurricane Erin - closest point it approached land was 105 miles east of Bermuda, nowhere near land, it was hundreds of miles from NYC. No need to report anything about it

Power disruptions - aircraft impacts caused massive power disruptions as shock would trip circuit breakers

Cars rusted - easy the paint was burned off by fires leaving bare steel which rusts

Cars warped - again vehicle fires, hundreds of cars were burned or crushed. Also the wrecks were TOWED there in subsequent days during cleanup



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA
• How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?


i don't have the answers to most of those questions. but as i am certified in many aspects of fire sciences i was wondering if you might supply a link or video concerning the fires that were still burning in 2008 that began in 2001.

thanks,
et



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by PookztA
 


Wow - What a steaming pile of stupid......




Thanks for those "scientific" explanations, haha


Keep in mind that all of this evidence is related, and must be explained by one, cohesive, scientific conclusion. The only person who has done so, is Dr. Judy Wood, and that is why her evidence-based court case made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 2009.

Please explain all the evidence with one, scientific, more simple conclusion. It shouldn't be too hard for you if Dr. Wood, myself, and countless others, are as "stupid" as you claim.

In Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

facebook.com...
youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by PookztA
• How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?


i don't have the answers to most of those questions. but as i am certified in many aspects of fire sciences i was wondering if you might supply a link or video concerning the fires that were still burning in 2008 that began in 2001.

thanks,
et


I never claimed fires were still burning. I said "fuming" of debris and "hosing down" of debris continued into 2008, which fires of any origin obviously did not cause. This is just one small piece of evidence which shows that Directed Energy Weapons were used on 9/11.

I will gladly share the video with you. Thank you for asking. Here you go...

WTC 9/11 Ground Zero Jan. 17th 2008 | Fuming and Hosing Down STILL Happening: www.youtube.com...

Also, this short documentary may be of interest to you:

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 1 of 3): www.youtube.com...

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 2 of 3): www.youtube.com...

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 3 of 3): www.youtube.com...


Thanks again for taking the time to look at the evidence and make up your own mind about it. Thousands more photos, videos, documents, and graphs, can be seen at www.drjudywood.com

Take care,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

facebook.com...




edit on 9-9-2010 by PookztA because: added links



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Without mentioning any names, I always found it quite suspicious that some self-proclaimed truth seekers are quick to shoot down alternative theories which do not fit into their limited and narrow minded viewpoints. I mean, a REAL truth seeker is someone with an open mind, not someone who shoots down anything and everything which is presented to them that does not fit their own explanation of events. A REAL truth seeker does not selfishly hold on to his beliefs at all costs by resorting to insults and knee jerk copy and paste reactions to reject alternative theories. To the contrary, a REAL truth seeker embraces and digests all theories, especially when one is dealing with newer little known technologies.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people want you to believe that we are still living in the Dark Ages. Sure, it is easy to ridicule technological theories which have yet to be exposed to the public and officially confirmed. This is the easy, safe and cowardly way out. Playing it safe may win you popularity contests, however, this comes at the cost of keeping one intellectually stagnant. In other words, people who have made real progress and have contributed to humanity are the ones who took risks and were ridiculed for their novel ideas, which at the time were considered outlandish by the majority.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. On second thought, maybe we still are living in the Dark Ages.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I saved Wood's page.

Lots to look through before I give my 0.02; on her site and elsewhere.


Never leave any questions unanswered.... thought provoking.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Three skyscrapers fell. The crime scene has been disturbed. The steel has been removed. All we have are videos, photos, dust and small samples of steel. We have conflicting witness testimony. Much of the documents in possession of the government have been either destroyed or are still classified. Some of the released documents may have been altered to mislead further research.

It is possible to conduct experiments and calculations and prove NIST and the OS wrong. But I believe that's it. I think it is hubris to take dust, photos, video footage and selected witness testimony and try to reconstruct the exact scenario how the WTC were destroyed.

Adherents of the Nano-thermite-hypothesis forget, that they themselves support an exotic technology. I am equally unqualified to evaluate the merit of the Nano-thermite-hypothesis and the directed energy weapons hypothesis. In my opinion the repetition of talking points is not the right way to find the truth.

I think it may be better to concentrate on exposing the lies and pointing to miraculous preknowledge. It is easier to expose the cover-up and show discrepancies in the OS, than to try to find an answer to the question: “How did those towers come down?”

Regardless if you are intrigued by the directed energy weapons hypothesis or not, I can recommend a very good Guns & Butter interview. Dr. Robert Bowman headed as Director the Advanced Space Programs Development in the Ford and Carter administrations. He became an activist an fought against Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) also known as Star Wars. Dr. Bowman is now a supporter of 9/11 truth. The reason he gave for his activism against a militarized space:


Technological feasibility of a defensive shield is entirely irrelevant, because Star Wars has nothing to do with defense. It is an attempt to deploy offensive weapons disguised as defense. In 1982, in his secret defense guidance document, Ronald Reagan ordered the Department of Defense to develop Star Wars weapons, and he assigned them two missions. One: Destroy opposing satellites and seize control of space. Two: Destroy targets on the surface of the earth from space without warning. There wasn't a word in there about shooting down ballistic missiles. That was a smokescreen for the American people, because they knew that the American people would never approve weapons in space for offensive purposes

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, the Star Wars Program has gone deep black. The work on it continues. The people who pushed for this technology in the first place, were the “crazies”. The crazies is a term coined for Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and others of that sociopathic cabal.

Dr. Bowman has AFAIK never endorsed Dr. Judy Wood and her hypothesis.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
interesting information thanks for sharing that. didn't know about Mr. Bowman. Very fascinating stuff.

The reason I choose to discuss evidence over speculation, possible lies, and other things, is because evidence is what really matters. What does the evidence tell us? What explanation could account for all the evidence? Does the current push in a certain direction focus on the evidence, or does it focus on belief? Does the current push in a certain direction encourage people to review all evidence and think for themselves, or does it provide selected evidence and encourage people to adopt a certain view? Does the organization sell their promotional materials for retail prices, or do they sell it for cost to maximize the spreading of the information, instead of maximizing profits? Does the organization gather evidence objectively, and file it with the appropriate institutions to demand real action, or do they simply 'demand a new investigation' from the same institutions who brought us the first one? The 9/11 perpetrators had to know people would question the events, so what would the cover up look like? Would it only be involving the media, or would it involve organizations as well? Obviously it involved the media, so why do some 'truth' seekers get TV coverage but others do not?

These are some of the questions that concern me, and that drive me to look at all the evidence I can.

If and when we charge the real 9/11 suspects with a crime, our accusation better be strongly backed by evidence, otherwise those people will go free and we will never be able to charge them again (double jeopardy).

We only get one shot at this, and we have to make it count, so let's view ALL the evidence, and see who can explain it best.

I am open to new explanations of the evidence, but so far, after looking at ALL sides of the story (including the official story, thermite, nukes, and others), there is only one researcher who has put forth a scientific conclusion which explains all of the evidence, and that is Dr. Judy Wood.

I encourage you to view all the evidence from all sides of the story as well.

Cheers,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology


edit on 10-9-2010 by PookztA because: typo



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by PookztA
 




I never claimed fires were still burning. I said "fuming" of debris and "hosing down" of debris continued into 2008, which fires of any origin obviously did not cause. This is just one small piece of evidence which shows that Directed Energy Weapons were used on 9/11.
[/quote

Fuming of debris?

Considering that the WTC collapse debris was removed by early 2002 what debris are you referring to?

You do realize that the area is a CONSTRUCTION SITE as they start to rebuild ?

Construction sites are notorious for DUST raised by equipment. One way to keep the dust down is to wet it with water

No need for wild conspiract theories.....



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by PookztA

No need for wild conspiract theories.....


Sorry thedman,

but your statement does not explain what is observed in the video, nor does it explain the small list of evidence I posted here.

Thanks for contributing your opinion though,

-Abe



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by PookztA
 


Wow OP. You posed some good questions (although some seem way out in left field like....the hurricane) but how is anyone supposed to address all your questions in one post?

I personally don't have the patience to read a question, look up the report(s) then reply back to you.
Why don't you break down your questions, categorize them so they can be addressed in a proper and concise manner? Or are you just talking a mile-a-minute to get your point across?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA
We only get one shot at this, and we have to make it count, so let's view ALL the evidence, and see who can explain it best.

I am open to new explanations of the evidence, but so far, after looking at ALL sides of the story (including the official story, thermite, nukes, and others), there is only one researcher who has put forth a scientific conclusion which explains all of the evidence, and that is Dr. Judy Wood.

I encourage you to view all the evidence from all sides of the story as well.

Cheers,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology


edit on 10-9-2010 by PookztA because: typo



I do appreciate your passion but sometimes, too much is just too much.
It's like dissecting JKF murder and asking:
Why was Jackie wearing a pink dress?
Why was Bush senior there?
Why was Zapruder there at the exact moment?
Why was JFK sitting behind Connally and not the driver?
Why was it so hot that day in November?
Why did they choose late morning?
Why was that route chosen?
etc etc etc

I mean...............there can be a conspiracy within a conspiracy and at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The fact is, JFK was murdered and probably not by Oswald. Yeah, some facts can help back an argument but c'mon. Enough is enough.

Fast forward: 9-11 happened. The question is, was it planned by our government or a bunch of cave-dwelling Arabs?
Sometimes less (questions) is more.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

Here is the track of Hurricane Erin.

www.drjudywood.com...

Keep in mind the size of hurricanes, and how much real estate is "covered"...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join