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

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Okay can somebody recap how this weapon orbiting earth works, or at least post the links that explain it? And do such devices exist, well, anywhere? We are talking about something that is nowhere to be found except in the investigations of Judy Woods. What is thought to have brought down the WTC by some scholars at A&E for 911 truth, there is a patent on it and people involved with that company, were involved with the administration of that time AND the wtc.




posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Well after watching more presentations and interviews over the last four years from Judy Wood.
I find her to be spot on with everything she has brought to the table.

Why she gets called crazy and disinfo puzzles me.
She`s not pointing the finger at anyone.
She simply shows us evidence of how those towers disappeared.

I believed the thermite theory for a few years until I heard and read what she had to say.
I believe some type of energy weapon that broke down the molecules was used.
I also believe a similar type of weapon was used in the Oklahoma bombing.

I think its mentioned in this video




posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

lambros56
Well after watching more presentations and interviews over the last four years from Judy Wood.
I find her to be spot on with everything she has brought to the table.

This thread was dead and buried for a reason: nobody is buying this bunk garbage. And she hasn't brought anything new to the table. It's been the same ol' regurgitated, debunked nonsense for the past decade from her.

And since you've watched interviews, have you watched this one where she gets destroyed by a real physicist, and can't even remember or cite any of her own calculations or figures?


Not one single person with the most basic education in the sciences can watch that video can claim that she:
  • knows what she's talking about
  • has a plausible theory based on her figures and calculations that she can't even cite or remember





lambros56
She simply shows us evidence of how those towers disappeared.

No, she doesn't. She has no evidence what-so-ever. All she has is her opinions. Either way, there are resources sufficiently debunking her opinions, which can be found here:




posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   

PookztA
Dear ATS,


Here are some important questions regarding AE911Truth, Wikipedia, & 9/11:

• 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?


To see the full version of my outline, please see the link in my signature.

To see a brief summary of the evidence which must be successfully explained and has only been successfully explained by Dr. Judy Wood, please see here: drjudywood.com...

Thanks for your time,

-Abe

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

P.S. - An avid 'thermite-only' supporter in this forum has recently accused me of being a 'disinfo' agent, which is absolutely false. Why does he waste time pointing fingers at me just because I support Dr. Judy Wood, the only researcher who has explained all the evidence? I am who I say I am, a 24 year old medical student living in Peoria, IL, who hopes to become a neurosurgeon. My birthday is 03/28/1986. If anyone would like to contact me with any questions or concerns, here is my email: pookzta@gmail.com


Several years ago I went through Dr Judy Woods work and she has definately got something the public should know about.

I have previously read that Richard Cage is sus but its sad to think S&E is trying to keep Dr Judy Woods out of the 911 debate. I have no idea why they would do that>

Thank you for your work, and for going into bat for Dr Judy Woods



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Idk, maybe because there is no basis in her claims at all? Its like those overunity devices, how come nobody is powering his house or his car with an over unity device.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: lambros56
Well after watching more presentations and interviews over the last four years from Judy Wood.
I find her to be spot on with everything she has brought to the table.

Why she gets called crazy and disinfo puzzles me.
She`s not pointing the finger at anyone.
She simply shows us the evidence of how those building disappeared.

I believed the thermite theory for a few years until I heard and read what she had to say.
I believe some type of energy weapon that broke down the molecules was used.
I also believe a similar type of weapon was used in the Oklahoma bombing.

I think its mentioned in this video






Lambros, the buildings didn't "disappear". This is clear on every video. It suffered a progressive collapse due to the falling upper mass. You can clearly see the lower portions of the building standing as this occurs. People survived in the stairwell of WTC 1. Both cores of approximately 20 stories stood for 30 seconds after the collapses finished. What you are suggesting didn't occur.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968




It suffered a progressive collapse due to the falling upper mass.


PROVE IT!

why has not one duhbunker done that???

WHERE is the engineering report of this supposed gravitational collapse that contains the mass distribution information to show how it got around the conservation of momentum to come down so fast?




You can clearly see the lower portions


uhm......using the collapse to EXPLAIN the 'collapse'?

yes we ALL see that, now PROVE it's the building itself doing it.

....yea, that 'engineering' report......




Both cores of approximately 20 stories stood for 30 seconds after the collapses finished


[sound of screeching brakes]......WHOA there........uhm, doesn't the OFFICIAL STORY pushed by the masses, [by Bazzant], claim that a 'top block' is pushing the towers to the ground....

so HOW does that magical top block, not only stay PERFECTLY centered, but them magically MISS the middle of the building???????.......x2?


....AGAIN......where's that engineering report to SHOW this is possible??


"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I stopped reading at page 2 really...
Ppl with apparently no analytic expertise throwing out accusations instead of diskussing the actual topic, or bringing up "explanations" clearly nonsense to anyone who managed to not fall asleep during freshman physics...
Am i the only one whos reminded of egytologists telling one rubbish about ropes and chisels? -.-
(At least i have a new category of stuff i will spent major time on now, namely whatever the trolls of this thread claim to be false.)

I went to a school for applied technics for 3 long years, had countless hours of material science and physics, and im telling you: Hydrocarbons dont vaporize steel. Period.
(Oh by the way, flying rubble, soaked with Jet Fuel or not, doesent melt motorblocks neither... *cough*)
You think generations of men miserably failed building an oven capable of melting iron because they didnt get the simple Idea of "Make fire bigger!" ?
It doesent really matter how much stuff (ie. Buero Materials and/or Jet Fuel) you throw on a pile, this kind of reaction simply doesent release a sufficient ammount of energy without a VAST volume of air beeing blown through it(Wind was what? 7mph that day in NY?).
Modern day blast furnaces need a constant stream of pure oxygene pumped into the reaction chamber, in order to maintain the temperature required to liquify iron/steel.

Leave alone vaporizing it, heck not even Thermite could do that to more than "maybe" a very tiny portion of the overall material, granted its some sort of high-tech-military stuff(Ordinary Thermite wont even be able to turn that tiny little bit into vapor.).
But then, wheres all the reaction material?
Im not talking about some alibi samples with "traces of aluminiumoxide" or whatever, but a 20-30m PILE of metal/oxide remains(just imagine the labor required to actually place all this stuff without public notice).

Wich directly leads us to the MAIN point.
WHERE is all the building material?
Where are the 2 100+m piles of rubble that should have been on the site?
Leave alone ALL the other evidence and answer THIS alone to someone with the slightest bit of scientific education!
One cant stress this enough: WHERE is all the stuff gone?

Even if you squeeze every bit of material into the lower levels, we still should have an immense pile of debris(mind that the steel bars wouldnt have been squeezed into 1 compact cube, but take up alot of space due to their, very sturdy, hollow structure).

As disturbing as both may sound, only Dimirtis underground nuke theory(Wich can be pretty much ruled out, since he addmitted the FBI supporting his theory. So nope, that wasnt it.) and Ms. Woods DEW Theory are atm explaining this mysterious vanishment of about 1mil TONS of "stuff"!
None of the other theories actually explains somewhat reasonable how this could possibly be the case, and theyr all blindly IGNORING that fact.
Dont just hold onto stuff youve believed for years(google up the temperatures needed for vaporizing iron alloys, this whole jet fuel/thermite stuff wasnt really working from day1) , for the same reasons mainstream science acts like it does!
That wont get you anywhere near what really happened...

Spontaneous combustion of metal structures like cars, or explosion of gas cannisters is allso a weired fact that HAS to be taken into account...
Theres eyewitness reports from firefighters that are imo reliable, and we musnt ignore their claims!
An underground nukes emp surely wouldnt cause a Faraday cage(wich a car essentially is) to catch fire, would it?
(Again, rubble on fire, flying or not, does NOT melt motorblocks.)

I for my part will stick with: If everything else has been ruled out, whats left must be the truth, as impossible as it may seem.
Ms. Woods made a huge mistake to bring up the term hutchinson effect, other than that i really cant see any flaw in her logic.

I have learned something from this thread: If Wikipedia does fancy censorship, if someones being personally attacked, their believe system rediculed when his/her beliefes arent anyhow part of the diskussion, when "experts" come up with laughable rubbish to "falsify" something, then THATS where you should have a VERY close look at.
I suggest you go fire up Ms. Woods website and check for yourself how "crazy" this person appears to you...

/edit:

why has not one duhbunker done that???

bc its rubbish, and the attempt to mathematically proove it will fail.
There has to be SOME resistance, no matter what scenario you assume, wich totally contradicts freefall velocity.
In order to make this work youd have to propose an unlimited propagation velocity of the shockwave(s), caused whenever a story impacts onto the one below, to begin with(and violate a couple of physical laws), since you need it to be instantly shattered or youd have a small delay for each floor.
Taken the number of stories into account this is just absurd, nothing short of quantum leaps/entanglement happens instantly...
edit on 20-6-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Dolour




I suggest you go fire up Ms. Woods website and check for yourself how "crazy" this person appears to you...


just as crazy as I thought she was 5 years ago.....




I for my part will stick with:


....making them, [official story pushers], prove the official claim fire plus "NEW SCIENCE" did all this work...


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."



personally, I would love to know HOW this new physics works that globally removed the 105 vertical feet of continuous support columns; 8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams; lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout; tens of thousands of bolts and welds; interior partitions; utilities; 8 floors of office contents....all before 1.74 seconds to allow the unified FFA to occur @ 1.75s to 4.0s.

...but they refuse to show this new science through science.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Thermal expansion would have only affect the concrete parts of the building, and doesent account for 200k tons of steel "vaporizing".
Steel of only a couple inches thickness doesent burst due to heat exposure, so how did it all crumble to dust?.

Thats still the thing i want an answer to btw: WHERE did the building material go?

Thermite cant explain that due to too low temperatures(Thermite reacts with about ~2400°C, while the boiling point of iron is around ~3000°C, not even talking about change of state and excess energy needed. Remember Thermodynamics 1?), and the lack of a giant, allmost blinding sparkler thats going on for at least munites, if you were to do anything at all to that ammount of steel.
Allso, you think we wouldve found any papers left, after each story was melted at well above 2000°C?

Evaporation caused by nuclear devices allso seems implausible, since parts of the city wouldve been covered with a thin metal layer, caused by the vapor cloud that wouldve been squirted out of the cavity, in the scenario described by Khalezov.
Leave alone the combustion effects that 200k tons of super heated metal-vapor would have caused to the surroundings...

There seem to be a lack of alot of typical indications one would expect from a thermal event.
But we DO have some effects that can not be described with ordinary means, like melted motorblocks from vehicles quite a distance away, exploding gas cannisters and whatnot!
If you spend some time looking up eyewitness reports, from medical personell in iraq, "beam weapons"(with horrific to bizzare effects) are anything but sci-fi...
Actually pointing out its something "unknown" is alot more logical, than claiming it would be something that can fairly easy be ruled out, only bc there EXISTS NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY. *duh*

I for my part am not willing to blatantly ignore fundamental physical principles only because im, yet, not able to identify the cause.

Thats one thing you could learn from the "crazyass women"(wich still doesent really appear crazy to me, if you look at the person instead of her claims, wich indeed at first seem darn off the hook) tho:
Look at the evidence, rule out everything you possibly can, and draw a conclusion afterwards, instead of coming up with a hypothesis and then looking for stuff that matches the cause.
Its like going to a cathedral looking for triangles to proove some symbology thesis.
Youll find plenty of em, meaningful or not...
edit on 21-6-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
and doesent account for 200k tons of steel "vaporizing".


Well, as 200k tons of steel did not "vaporise" - where is your evidence it "vaporised"?


Steel of only a couple inches thickness doesent burst due to heat exposure, so how did it all crumble to dust?.


what makes you think it crumbled to dust?


Also, you think we wouldve found any papers left, after each story was melted at well above 2000°C?


What makes you think each story was melted?


(Oh by the way, flying rubble, soaked with Jet Fuel or not, doesent melt motorblocks neither... *cough*)


What crazy person claims engine blocks were melted? Where is the evidence engine blocks were melted?
edit on 21-6-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   


Well, as 200k tons of steel did not "vaporise" - where is your evidence it "vaporised"?

I put it into quotes bc i agree with it beeing "dustified".
Evidence is the lack of the 2x 100-120m piles of rubble...



what makes you think it crumbled to dust?

No vapor deposits or burnt environment, tells us it werent evaporated.
+see above


What makes you think each story was melted?

Freefall velocity wouldve required that...
Allso, i allready stated that i doubt the thermite theory, and described that earlier.

If you had watched Ms. Woods presentation you werent asking that stuff(while still carefully avoiding the missing material topic).
So why not start with that?


What crazy person claims engine blocks were melted? Where is the evidence engine blocks were melted?

www.drjudywood.com...
www.youtube.com...

before you argue against something you should have a look at it first...
edit on 21-6-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour

I put it into quotes bc i agree with it beeing "dustified".


Where is your evidence it was "dustified" - please explain the process to "dustify" steel - also explain where the 200k tons of dust went!


Evidence is the lack of the 2x 100-120m piles of rubble...


??? what makes you think there should be 2 x 100-120m piles of rubble?


No vapor deposits or burnt environment, tells us it werent evaporated.


no proof it turned to dust either...


Freefall velocity wouldve required that...


Well, WTC 1 & 2 did not fall at free fall velocity - simply watching video's of them falling clearly shows that!


So why not start with that?


I have watched her nonsense, why don't you watch


Which totally destroys Wood'd claims...


before you argue against something you should have a look at it first...


I have, and there is zero evidence of engine blocks melting.... where is the pool of melted engine block for starters!
edit on 21-6-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




WTC 1 & 2 did not fall at free fall velocity - simply watching video's of them falling clearly shows that!


lmao....what do ALL the video's show......symmetrical total collapse within asymmetrically damage buildings.....x3....never before seen occurrence......there has NEVER been a TOTAL GLOBAL unified collapse of a steel framed building for ANY REASON, before or after 9-11.
[watch, brucee's gonna reply back on that comment, leaving out words when he does]

Natural collapses are Chaotic events. You cannot have symmetry from chaotic natural collapse....how can you?

for symmetry to be possible as a natural occurrence, all columns MUST fail at the same time, for any amount of resistance within the collapse, [the SLIGHTEST], will cause an 'asymmetric chain-reaction' as the building falls to the path of least resistance.

but as you said.....we do not see this.....do we.

symmetry denotes control.

when it comes to a building collapse the resistance MUST be massive, so a few SECONDS short of true free fall does NOT equate to the redundancy that is built into the system.

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
or
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

so, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

towers fell in 10 and 12 seconds......steered straight down through the path of most resistance....show me that there can be symmetry through a complete building collapse when there is resistance within the system....show me another case where a steel framed building collapsed into itself symmetrically and globally, without being controlled......until you can do that, you have no argument.



there is zero evidence of engine blocks melting


there is ZERO supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT allowed the collapse of all three buildings on 9-11 as officially claimed occurred.

but you don't care about that fact, so you focus on being obstinate and lie.

and WTC7 DID accelerate GLOBALLY and UNIFIED equal to g. for 105 vertical feet within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.....as found by the 2005 NIST scientific investigation...


NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.



to which a claim a "brand new never before seen science" did this they refuse to prove through science.

I really hate repeating myself....but when I see LIES told repeatedly, I have to intervene.

ignoring FACTS do not make them go away......neither do I.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
towers fell in 10 and 12 seconds


garbage - exctly where did you get that figure from?

have a kiik at this, it shows again you are wrong, and not interested in the facts!
www.debunking911.com...
edit on 22-6-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

lmao.....duhbunking911 ?!?!?!?!?!

how bout from the 10,000+ page official NIST report.....why can NONE of you duhbunkers quote that???
why can you ONLY point to duhbunking sites that...[uhm]...TELL us all what the reports really mean??

.....specially since they are the only entity within this Country to scientifically investigate 9-11.....

YOU point to a duhbunking site explaining free fall.....how bout an ACTUAL science text???????

significance of FREEFALL is NONE of the gravitational energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

....any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. ZERO resistance.

free fall acceleration has ONE prerequisite....a 'clear' path below.

tell me how fire at one end of a building allows that to occur globally and unified for 105 vertical feet within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse?

as the 2005 NIST found it did.......and the 2008 hypothesis crew tries to hide with new never before seen physics.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: PookztA

THANKS FOR YOUR RISKS FOR TRUTH.

However . . . wisdom might dictate that you lay low until after your surgical residency, licensure etc.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob

towers fell in 10 and 12 seconds.


You really should stick to "not making any claims", every time you do you're wrong.

This is what NIST really said:


NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.


Truthers aren't intelligent enough to figure out what NIST is actually saying here, As in: the parts of the building that were in free fall... fell at free fall acceleration. The used the first impact of the debris to align the video with the seismic record. According to the seismograph the collapse took about 15 seconds. Add the 9 and 11 free fall time to that number and you get a total collapse time of 24 and 26 seconds.

NIST


The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.




posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne




You really should stick to "not making any claims", every time you do you're wrong.

This is what NIST really said:


NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.


lmao...and YOU think that helps you, that just makes it MORE unbelievable!!!!!!





Truthers aren't intelligent enough to figure out what NIST is actually saying here


yet it seems I am the only one quoting the 10,000+ page report.....

I noticed you have the word NIST attached to your quote, yet you leave off the ADDRESS where it comes from within the report....I include ALL nomenclatures so all you duhbunkers can go look.....WHERE is your address?


oh....and duhbunker, WHO mentions, "spikes"?...YOU do?....I never did, so why do you???

but hey, tell ya what......



Seismic Records in FEMA report p. 1-11 fig.1-8
400 surrounding buildings had to be investigated for impact and vibration damage from the towers.... the strongest readings were measured at the beginning of the collapses from the towers...2.1, 2.2.....not when the debris is crashing down.

fema. gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1. pdf






24 and 26 seconds.


uhm.....REALLY!!!!

why don't you go look again at your so-called 'natural' collapses....on some videos, we see the collapse wave at one corner of the tower about 10 to 15 floors ahead of the other corner....yet that hypothesized 'top block' shill remains perfectly centered, per Bazzant hypothesis, to crush all below...WE SEE that collapse wave keeping up with the falling tower debris....

...and YOU think that is natural?!?!?!?!?





no evidence that would indicate explosions



...NO evidence that would indicate FIRES present allowed this to occur, the only reason for being here....the NIST 2005 scientific investigation found NO evidence this occurred anywhere on 9-11...as my previous quotes show....where are yours to REPRESENT the so-called high temp WTC steel that DID fail????

ENTER duhbunker sites.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: exponent
Odd thing to say...since she is a highly regarded PHYSICIST....all she studys is physics...she has a phd in physics....she is a physics profressor....but yet you seem to know so much more...and yet the poster in of this thread...studying to go into neuro science...who gives their details...is to be mocked by petty statments of complete ignorance should take your flippant statement as fact....I think I know who I would rather at least lend an ear to.
The poster has valid concerns as to why dr judy woods work is being blanked by the mainstream...she is probably closer to the truth than most...simple as that.
I have put my name to many articles on 911...it is in my signature...the neocons wanted instability to justify controlling the masses and create fear...success.
To the OP keep digging...but just remember...it is no longe4 about 911....and the truth is to late to stop the carnage that has followed...just another successful false flag to control the masses.





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join