Why are AE911Truth & Wikipedia Censoring Information about Dr. Judy Wood?

a reply to: PookztA

all i have add is hmmm until i have time tom digest more

Greetings Everyone on this forum - this is my first post here (and possibly my last)... normally when discussing such topics in public like this I do not use my real name, but this issue is simply too important for that.

I have to say that I am truly concerned, shocked, and saddened by this whole issue, and what I see happening around me with regard to 911 and Dr. Judy Wood. I don't consider myself to be THAT much above average in terms of intelligence - I know Dr. Wood's work does take some "smarts" to grasp, but OMG, how can it be that so many obviously intelligent people are not GETTING this - and also, from those who do, very few seem particularly passionate about Dr. Wood's discovery?

I only read the first 4 pages of this thread, but in all of that, even from the comments by the OP, I read not even ONE WORD about FREE ENERGY (I apologize if this came later in the thread). FREE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY is right in the title of Dr. Wood's book!! Honestly, what the heck is happening with people - with humanity... I sincerely apologize for this arrogant sounding comment (observation), but have we become somewhat "brain-dead".

So, about Judy Wood's EVIDENCE - it is extremely easy to show that neither thermite nor jet fuel could have made the towers disappear, WHY, because in either of these cases, no matter how you slice it, the entire weight of the buildings would have crashed down to the ground in 9 seconds - and if that happened, then: 1) there would have been a corresponding seismic signal (DIDN'T HAPPEN), 2) there would have been a HUGE rubble pile (DIDN'T HAPPEN), 3) the "BATHTUB" (holding out the Hudson Rv.) would have been damaged and NYC would have flooded. [BTW, this same observation about the BATHTUB (basements), not being damaged also completely negates any possibility of 'mini-nukes' in the basement also]. So PLEASE people, it is not so tough to grasp these 3 things, and when grasped we can FINALLY see that planes, nukes, bombs, or thermite COULD NO WAY POSSIBLY BE THE CAUSE!!!!

HURRICANE ERIN!!!!!!! ...can you guys for a minute GRASP the implications and magnitude of this event?

HUTCHISON EFFECT!!!!!! ...some of you think this guy is FAKING IT? WHAT? ? ? The Pentagon certainly doesn't think so! All of the weird DIRECTED ENERGY EFFECTS Dr. Wood documents on 911 can be reproduced in a lab by John Hutchison... sure maybe just maybe there might be some other cause, but without any doubt Dr. Judy Wood's explanation is the ONLY ONE that understandably and gracefully answers ALL of the questions regarding what happened of the materials on 911.

Why is all of this so bloody important? Do you remember the days when you had to pay for music, buy records etc etc - well, now we have FREE MUSIC, just click on youtube and listen... One day in the future people will be saying: "do you remember the days when we used to have to PAY for ENERGY?!" Why is the concept of FREE ENERGY so baffling to 99.9% of humanity? WHY? Because the controllers know that when humanity gets FREE ENERGY, the controllers are in deep s#it. We have collectively been brainwashed into thinking free energy is impossible or way way way way off in the future. My GOD, study TESLA!!! He was cookin' up free energy 100 years ago!

THIS IS IMPORTANT FOLKS, and we are all on the same side! Humanity can't go on waiting and waiting for this. Dr. Judy Wood's message has nothing to do with 911. 911 was just an event to showcase and prove to the world that FREE ENERGY EXISTS NOW.

IT IS TIME FOR A GLOBAL ACROSS THE BOARD PARADIGM SHIFT...

please people, it is up to us - to stand united against the controllers... take some time, open your minds, and study Dr. Judy Wood's work - and spread the word. ME MUST DEMAND FREE ENERGY!

originally posted by: epowell
My GOD, study TESLA!!! He was cookin' up free energy 100 years ago!

Care to provide a valid source for that claim?

911 was just an event to showcase and prove to the world that FREE ENERGY EXISTS NOW.

Your evidence for that is what?

Those pushing free energy are just scammers.

a reply to: epowell

the "BATHTUB" (holding out the Hudson Rv.) would have been damaged and NYC would have flooded. [BTW, this same observation about the BATHTUB (basements), not being damaged also completely negates any possibility of 'mini-nukes' in the basement also]

Oops.

The damage in the bathtub wall occurred on Sept. 11, when the upper floors of the south tower toppled toward the southeast and tore the huge gash. But until recently, this damaged area had been buried beneath debris. Only now that crews are excavating the southeast corner of the site -- one of the last spots at ground zero to be cleared -- did they discover just how seriously the wall had been compromised, and how close it had come to allowing a major flood.

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: epowell

IT IS TIME FOR A GLOBAL ACROSS THE BOARD PARADIGM SHIFT...

It's been 15 years and no real change in energy.
Also no real change in the way building are brought down.

You are wanting to believe there is something behind the curtain.
But the real world doesn't see a curtain.

You should wake up and stop reading these science fiction articles on 911.
The truth has always been out there.
But some want to create a different version of truth for profit.
That puts it the realm of faith based religion.

I agree with judy wood. she is a smart cookie. when the event was taking place live, i was thinking exactly like judy wood did later when she formed her theories, where did the towers go. so actually i beat judy wood there. being a pilot and an engineer did help my thoughts which where instant when the event was taking place

a reply to: epowell

Yes! You are correct. Dr. Woods theories have never been "debunked" because they simply cannot be.

That's not gonna stop the usual suspects on this site from trying to discredit her though. The members who've posted on this very thread ( not mentioning any names ) respond like Pavlov's dogs to any thread here with their tired rhetoric. Ignore it. Trust your intuition.

For example, "the spire". The proof is clear as day that the steel that broke of to the side dissipated into dust, as Dr. Wood clearly shows.

Steel turning to dust. Literally.

And grown adults with educations will still sit there and claim thermite or jet fuel can do that. One can only hope they're paid shills.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Yes! You are correct. Dr. Woods theories have never been "debunked" because they simply cannot be.

You are wrong.
It's quite easy to debunk her.
The term 'dustify' co notates vaporization.
Yes you can vaporize steel but you need outrageous amount of energy to do so.

Compare ice to steel as they go through the same phase changes as you add energy.
From solid ice to liquid water to a vapor.
From solid steel to liquid steel to a vapor.
Each requires 'x' amount of energy to change phase.
You can look each up online.
TPTB cannot hide this science.

Jump to wiki and search 'Enthalpy of vaporization'.
Iron requires 2.7 times the energy of water to vaporize.
That's 1691 watts of electricity to vaporize 1 gram of iron. Starting from a liquid state.
That's 1.5 billion watts per ton of steel.
There were 100,000 tons of steel in 1 tower.
Grand Coulee Dam can produce 7 billion watts max.
You do the math and deduce the number of power plants needed to produce that much electricity at 100% efficiency.

Judy woods has made fools of many people.
Don't let her do that to you.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Yes! You are correct. Dr. Woods theories have never been "debunked" because they simply cannot be.

You are wrong.
It's quite easy to debunk her.
The term 'dustify' co notates vaporization.
Yes you can vaporize steel but you need outrageous amount of energy to do so.

Compare ice to steel as they go through the same phase changes as you add energy.
From solid ice to liquid water to a vapor.
From solid steel to liquid steel to a vapor.
Each requires 'x' amount of energy to change phase.
You can look each up online.
TPTB cannot hide this science.

Jump to wiki and search 'Enthalpy of vaporization'.
Iron requires 2.7 times the energy of water to vaporize.
That's 1691 watts of electricity to vaporize 1 gram of iron. Starting from a liquid state.
That's 1.5 billion watts per ton of steel.
There were 100,000 tons of steel in 1 tower.
Grand Coulee Dam can produce 7 billion watts max.
You do the math and deduce the number of power plants needed to produce that much electricity at 100% efficiency.

Judy woods has made fools of many people.
Don't let her do that to you.

Misdirection here. Intentionally or unintentionally only you, Samkent, knows your intentions.

Let's start with this : The term "dustify" does NOT imply vaporization. Molecular disassociation and vaporization are in fact two different phenomena.

I'm not sure why you're comparing ice to steel, in that ice is organic while steel is not. This plays a major role if electromagnetism was present. For example, organic material such as paper was seen flying everywhere during and after the collapse while no ( and I mean ZERO ) file cabinets, or fragments of, were found above the first 6 floors of either tower.

Again, the spire. Solid steel turning to dust within seconds. Right there for anyone to see.

Now if you want to use the fact that a tremendous amount of energy would be needed to change phases, you're only supporting Dr. Wood's evidence.
Because yes, a massive amount of energy would be needed for molecular dissociation. Not nearly enough energy from jet fuel fires or thermite, but perhaps a directed energy weapon would have the capability to do so.

She never tries to speculate on the specifics of what exactly was used. Because if the technology is secret, we wouldn't know the specifics!

Question for you Sam, are you an OS believer? Or a thermite believer?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Both of which require longer time frames than an hour.

No it doesn't.
Think a cup of water with a candle under it vs a white hot steel rod dropped inside.
One boils instantly the other takes minutes.

Furthermore, both processes of vaporization require the subject being liquid before vaporizing.

True which means even more energy needed.
Where did this energy come from ?
At one point she suggested a hurricane in the Atlantic.
That's a second technology that doesn't exist.
She's making things up.

Now if you want to use the fact that a tremendous amount of energy would be needed to change phases, you're only supporting Dr. Wood's evidence.

She has no evidence only speculation about a weapon that doesn't exist.

She never tries to speculate on the specifics of what exactly was used.

Because she can't answer the simplest questions about this mythical weapon.
Even if it only took one power plant where were the wires to the weapon ?
You can't use extension cords for 7000 megawatts.

I could tell you all the details about the life cycle of a unicorn.
But that doesn't make them real.

originally posted by: [post=21105129]samkent
Because she can't answer the simplest questions about this mythical weapon.
Even if it only took one power plant where were the wires to the weapon ?
You can't use extension cords for 7000 megawatts.

I could tell you all the details about the life cycle of a unicorn.
But that doesn't make them real.

Mythical weapon? Not so much.
I can build one www.scribd.com...

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: epowell

Yes! You are correct. Dr. Woods theories have never been "debunked" because they simply cannot be.
... One can only hope they're paid shills.

Well, thanks for all the replies, but as Agartha just pointed out, "let's hope they're only paid shills" just doing their 9 to 5.

For those who still mock and doubt, I am not going to spend all day accommodating and validating your attempts to distract - if you honestly want answers, just look them up from Dr. Judy Wood herself --- Google, YouTube, or just get her book.

But I will just say one thing about these distractions because I have notice something common to all of them: The criticism of Wood NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER has anything to do with refuting the fundamental core of her findings, and most offen revert to adolescent name calling.

If any of you 'debunkers' are able to get beyond pointless distractions and name-calling, then I will be happy to engage you.

OK, I have a little time, changed my mind, I will give a blanket reply to those still in question of Dr. Woods research.

Again... what I notice from Judy Wood 'doubters' is that they are never able to refute the core fundamental evidence that Judy presents. So let's take 3 core pieces of evidence and see if some doubters can refute:

POINT 1) If the towers ( WTC 1 and 2) were "brought down" by bombs or planes then the entire weight of the buildings 500,000TONS EACH would have come crashing down in less than 12 seconds.

TRUE or FALSE?

2) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then there should have been a corresponding seismic signal.

TRUE or FALSE?

3) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then there should have been a rubble pile higher than 1 or 2 floors tall.

TRUE or FALSE?

4) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then the "Bathtub" (retaining wall holding back the Hudson River) would have surely been damaged and NYC would have been flooded.

TRUE or FALSE?

a reply to: epowell

I see you're ignoring the post I made above talking about the bathtub damage. It suffered significant damage in the collapse, and almost did flood the area. It was leaking when they finally dug down to where the damage was.

a reply to: Nochzwei

Mythical weapon? Not so much. I can build one www.scribd.com...

Here's a video from the guy claiming he's reduced gravity.

Notice the burning candle on the top.
I wonder why the weight is reduced (by grams) over the course of an hour ???

People will believe anything on YT.

a reply to: epowell

2) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then there should have been a corresponding seismic signal.

No the destruction was taking place hundreds of feet in the air.

3) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then there should have been a rubble pile higher than 1 or 2 floors tall.

You are assuming the picture you see online were taken at street level.
Also the basements collapsed and debris fell away from the foot print, widening the pile.

4) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then the "Bathtub" (retaining wall holding back the Hudson River) would have surely been damaged and NYC would have been flooded.

It was damaged.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: epowell

2) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then there should have been a corresponding seismic signal.

No the destruction was taking place hundreds of feet in the air.

So I take it you assume POINT 1 is true. In which case, how would this destruction take place hundreds of feet in the air?

That only suggests that either plane impact, explosion or thermite wouldn't have caused the building to collapse, but rather caused all the building materials to disintegrate or dustify.
Which brings us back to what Dr. Wood is suggesting.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

edit on 8-8-2016 by AgarthaSeed because: Typo

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

So I take it you assume POINT 1 is true. In which case, how would this destruction take place hundreds of feet in the air?

That only suggests that either plane impact, explosion or thermite wouldn't have caused the building to collapse, but rather caused all the building materials to disintegrate or dustify.
Which brings us back to what Dr. Wood is suggesting.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

a reply to: Zaphod58

There is no realistic discussion possible on this point... it is beyond obvious that the Bathtub was not built to withstand 500,000 TONS of material pounding down on it in less than 12 seconds... the simply, obvious, and clearly known fact that NYC was not flooded that day is unquestionably sufficient proof that in fact 500,000 TONS of material did not crash down on it. [therefore obviously 'something else' must have happened to the majority of building's material]

You talk about damage to the Bathtub, some damage was there because the amount of debris that actually did fall was more like that of an 18 story building (not a 110 story building) - since we know that the seismic signal corresponded mathematically to what we can estimate to be an 18 story building - so yes, some damage to the Bathtub occurred... but is a full 110 story building's weight did crash down, and logic will certainly tell us that this would have caused major cracks to the Bathtub if not utterly obliterating it.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: epowell

2) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then there should have been a corresponding seismic signal.

No the destruction was taking place hundreds of feet in the air.

3) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then there should have been a rubble pile higher than 1 or 2 floors tall.

You are assuming the picture you see online were taken at street level.
Also the basements collapsed and debris fell away from the foot print, widening the pile.

4) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then the "Bathtub" (retaining wall holding back the Hudson River) would have surely been damaged and NYC would have been flooded.

It was damaged.

POINT BY POINT:
"No the destruction was taking place hundreds of feet in the air." Yes you are correct about this. But this destruction was not done by bombs or jet fuel, because if that were the case, how many TONS of the 500,000 TONS (mostly steel) would have burned away into smoke before the "so called" "Collapse"? Fires, bombs, thermite will cause much if any weight loss to steel. Now, I hope you are not imagining that thermite melted most of the steel in the building and it all somehow flowed down into the basement > these assumptions have been unquestionably proven false. There was NO molten metal in basements.

"You are assuming the picture you see online were taken at street level.
Also the basements collapsed and debris fell away from the foot print, widening the pile."

The height of the rubble pile is fully and unquestionably documented as less than 2 stories high. All verifiable sources.
Regarding the basements... most of them stayed INTACT (again, all verifiably documented).

For all intents and purposes the buildings "collapsed" (wrong word actually) into their own foot-print... again - ALL VERIFIABLY DOCUMENTED.

About the Bathtub you say:
"It was damaged."
Sure it was, but not enough to cause even a significant crack - which OBVIOUSLY would have happened if 500,000 TONS of debris pounded on top of it in less than 12 seconds.