Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

VIDEO: What Turned the Twin Towers to DUST on 9/11?

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Dear Fellow Truth Supporter,

My name is Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, and I am a medical student. Throughout my rigorous undergraduate science and medical science coursework, I have had the privilege of receiving extensive training in the process of scientific analysis and evidence-based thinking.

I am writing to you today not only as a medical student, but also as a concerned American citizen, to ask for your help with something very important.



Have you heard of Dr. Judy Wood? Did you know she has been researching 9/11 since 2001 and has already filed several law suits against NIST’s contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST’s fraudulent data gets reexamined? Dr. Judy Wood has received more than one threat due to the research she has done and the evidence she has gathered, and one of her students was also murdered in 2006. Surprisingly, Dr. Judy Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth.

You can see legal documents from her court case here: www.drjudywood.com...

You can see the RFC she filed with NIST (months before AE911Truth filed theirs) here: www.drjudywood.com...

PLEASE NOTE:

Dr. Wood filed her RFC with NIST on March 16, 2007.
www.ocio.os.doc.gov...


The ae911truth site went up on April 6, 2007. (copy & paste entire link between the quotations)
"http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.ae911truth.org"



ae911truth filed a thermite-free RFC with NIST April 12, 2007
www.ocio.os.doc.gov...


Dr. Wood filed her federal qui tam case April 25, 2007
www.drjudywood.com...

No similar action has been taken by ae911truth.org or any other 911 "truth" group.

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. See here: www.registrar.clemson.edu...

Dr. Judy Wood has collected an overwhelming amount of evidence which suggests that a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind was used to powderize (‘dustify’) the primary steel and concrete portions of the WTC buildings, while burning and bending aluminum, yet leaving paper and many other materials unharmed. These characteristics are matched by those of "The Hutchison Effect", and are the result of "field effects" and energy interference. John Hutchison has filed an affidavit in Dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between The Hutchison Effect and the 9/11 attacks.

There are literally thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents found at Dr. Wood's website which shows these buildings turning to dust, so I do not know why some people continue spreading inaccurate and false information by claming the buildings did not turn to fine dust particles. It is extremely important that we examine the thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents found at drjudywood.com... in order to figure out exactly what happened on that day, so that if/when we do charge the true terrorists with 9/11, they will be found guilty.

Claiming that 'explosives' could account for the overwhelming amount of evidence is scientifically inaccurate. It is comparable to charging a murder suspect for 'stabbing the victim with a knife', despite the fact that numerous bullet casings had been found at the crime scene and the murder victim actually had several gun shot wounds. There is a thing called Double Jeopardy in our legal system, so we only get one shot at charging the true suspects, and thus, we better figure out exactly how they did it before we charge them.

We can accomplish this by looking at all the evidence from the attacks, and drawing one, cohesive, scientific conclusion from that evidence. This is what Dr. Wood has done, and that is why she filed this conclusive evidence in a court of law in the form of a Qui-Tam whistle-blower case. Her case was so strong that it made it to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009, when it was suddenly dismissed by a judge who labeled the case as a 'conspiracy theory' and dismissed the case before it went to trial. He was able to dismiss the case because very few people were aware of it.

In contrast, Dr. Steven Jones has not filed his 'conclusive' thermite-paper with a court of law, most likely because he would be penalized by the justice system for filing a frivolous law suit which barely accounts for any of the evidence. I am not afraid to admit that thermite could have played a very small role in the attacks, but because thermite-alone barely explains any of the evidence, it is important that we look for the true cause of the destruction of these buildings. In my honest and scientific opinion, anyone who claims 'thermite-alone' can explain all the evidence of 9/11 which Dr. Wood has gathered, is either severely mistaken, very unintelligent, or protecting the interests of the true suspects.

I also wanted to quickly address a common concern regarding the reality of Directed Enery Weapons:

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 discussing the reality of DEWs:

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 1 of 3):


Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 2 of 3):


Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 3 of 3):


Lastly, here is a very important article which discusses how the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is being controlled and purposefully led down the wrong path by groups like AE911Truth and others, to protect the true suspects: axisoflogic.com...

Thanks again for taking the time to look more into this, for those of you that do.

In Peace,

-Abe

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


edit on 17-9-2010 by PookztA because: Long Live TRUTH, JUSTICE, PEACE, LOVE, UNITY, & RESPECT




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
What real evidence has Dr Wood presented on her website to indicate DEW was used to destroy WTC1 & WTC2? Having studied it thoroughly, I concluded that she presents lots of dots (photographs) and joins them together (explained them) in an ad hoc way. She does not seem to understand the difference between "evidence" (data that are consistent only with one hypothesis) and "interpretation" (an arbitrary way of explaining this data that is merely one of several available, more conventional ones). She presents lots of photos as though they pose a real, scientific mystery, when in reality she refuses to accept prosaic explanations for her imagined anomalies because she is wedded to the DEW hypothesis and cherry picks the evidence that she thinks supports it. Some of her arguments for rejecting other explanations of what she deems anomalous are quite ludicrous and have been debunked on many 9/11 forums. But I see no evidence on her website that she has, accordingly, altered her opinions on anything. She has no evidence that all that dust on the ground in Manhattan after the towers collapsed was composed of nanoparticles. Instead of "dustification" by exotic physics, the dust was the product of pulverisation of concrete by tons and tons of high-explosives. Burning cars? Set alight by hot embers and debris crashing down on them. All that quick rusting of steel girders? Any chemist will tell you that steel rusts more rapidly than normal after it has been heated up. Where did the steel go? Show me the photographic evidence that proves conclusively that there was not enough steel in the debris field at WTC and I will admit there is a problem. Wood has not done that. Sticking a photo on her website and casting the opinion that the debris pile was too small does not cut it. Hurricane Erin not mentioned by the media? Big deal! It was heading away from the USA on 9/11 and had been downgraded to a Category 1 tropical storm, so why should the media have bothered to talk about it? Hardly evidence of a media conspiracy that was covering up her claim that the energy of the storm was being tapped with super-secret technology in order to destroy the towers!
As for those magnetic field fluctuations on the morning of 9/11 measured at various sites by the University of Alaska magnetometers? Look at the archives and you see similar-sized fluctuations on many days going back months. Once again, Wood cherry-picks her evidence to make people think something odd happened to the terrestrial magnetic field on 9/11, whereas in reality the magnetometers recorded nothing more than a disturbance typical of many past ones, probably the result of spasmodic solar flares. She makes much of the background fields increasing just before Flight 17 hit the North Tower. What was she trying to claim? That the magnetic field fluctuation caused the plane to crash?
She might have had a point if they had fallen just as the magnetic field started to change, But the towers did not destruct until several hours later. All it was was a normal, purely random fluctuation that happened to occur on this particular day. Nothing more. Wood's attempt to read something into this coincidence is mere cherry-picking. Her claimed dustification of a core column immediately after the collapse of a tower was simply the effect of the column shaking off dust and debris as it dropped down. Yet another misinterpretation. Her Hutchinson Effect? Whether or not this amounts to new physics is beside the point. Her tortured attempt to link the uncorroborated work of someone without scientific degrees to some new, exotic physics that caused the destruction of the towers has proved disastrous to her credibility.

Wood and her sycophants protest that her work is ignored by most of those in the 9/11 truth movement because some of them don't want the awful truth coming out that DEW was used to destroy the towers. I guess it has never occurred to them that the true reason for dismissing her ideas is that most people regard her work as bad science and therefore don't take it seriously.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
there are mny types of concrete that can be used as a flooring slab...
some types of lightweight concrete mixtures do no even require re-bar, poured over a T&G plywood base,

i suspect that stuff like 4000 concrete was not used in every floor...
the corregated floor pans could hold 'gyp-crete' in the intermediate floors

i would speculate that of every 4 floors ... 3 would be lightweight concrete and the 4th level would by necessity be 4000psi or stronger 'hot' concrete... that method of keeping live loads minimal and cost savings, while not compromising the buildings unitized strength & integrity... was the likely plan for the massive projects.

80% of the floors did not need to be dense concrete, the powery stuff was the disintegration of the many floors of lightweight crete.
just deducing from experience, of course the engineers will show plans detailing the 20% of the floors with high strength concrete & adequate sized rebar in a steel webbing pattern, floating & seperate from the structural columns... (the building had to remain flexable)


there's so much that was theoretically right & correct in the construction methods, but which never anticipated huge jetcrafts changing the structual integrity of the twin towers



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
It never ceases to amaze me how I always get the same type of replies when I post evidence. Replies which ignore the evidence I have posted, only to give subjective, biased opinions and un-backed claims about why some people think Dr. Wood is not a real "truth"-seeker, or opinions which attempt to confuse and distort the readers perception by unscientifically ignoring the evidence, while simultaneously attacking Dr. Wood.

Why not just explain all those thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, better than Dr. Wood can, if she is so wrong? Why waste time typing up an enormous paragraph which reads like a newspaper opinion editorial, when you could just show us where she is wrong in the conclusion she has drawn from the overwhelming amount of evidence which must be explained?

Why would I post a few images here when people can view all of them simply by going to Dr. Wood's website? I am trying to encourage people to think for themselves and look into this for themselves, rather than spoon-feed them information. Instead of having me cherry picking select images for you to view, I will just post a small list of questions which demonstrate just a few pieces of the evidence which must be explained. All of these questions are based on the evidence seen at Dr. Wood's site, so if you are curious, just go check it out for yourself. Also, Dr. Wood does not have "theories", she simply has gathered an overwhelming amount of evidence which must be explained, and has been explained. I can't baby you through your own research, for I have very little free time due to school, plus each person must find what is true for their own self. So, here is just a very small, partial list of questions based on some of the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered, just in case it might help get you started:


• 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?


Also, here are two sections of her website which help to summarize some of the basic points of evidence. These lists are not complete, but are more of 'summary' or 'cliff-notes' style views of some of the major pieces of evidence which must be explained. Here:

1. drjudywood.com...
2. drjudywood.com...

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

-Abe

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


edit on 17-9-2010 by PookztA because: typo



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Has anyone ever bothered to measure the amount of steel used in the construction of the twin towers with the amount that was recovered and shipped to China? That might well tell the tale and either confirm or dismiss certain hypotheses such as DEW or nuclear devices.
As for the amount of debris and height of the rubble pile, comparing the Kingdome with the WTC is a bad comparison. The sheer volume and height of the twin towers would have compressed some of the debris leaving a smaller rubble pile. In addition, there were several layers of basement into which the debris was deposited.
All that said, too much of the twin towers turned to dust for the OS to be correct.
I too, believe that much of the 9/11 truth movement is part of a controlled opposition and cannot be trusted. It is within the realm of possibility that both conventional explosives and thermite were used on 9/11. Finding evidence of these would confuse researchers if indeed it was some type of directed energy weapon that was used.
No doubt whoever planned the events of 9/11 also gave thought to the investigation that would follow and how public opinion could be controlled in the aftermath.
I applaud you Abe for your search for truth in the matter of 9/11. You are not alone and some of us will not rest until a satisfactory investigation has been done into what happened.
The 9/11 Commission report is a fairy tale that needs to be laid to rest.
I feel that further investigation into DEW will give the best results.
Best of luck to you, may we find the truth before it's too late to turn this country around from it's present disastrous course.
Respects, ATA

I think this link is well worth repeating -
axisoflogic.com...

edit on 17-9-2010 by Asktheanimals because: to add link



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Hi,

Better to delete your name from the post!

Greetings



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Asktheanimals,

The King Dome is a great comparison because the kingdome was virtually empty, as it was a DOME. How could a virtually empty DOME, taken down via controlled demolition, result in a SMALLER relative rubble pile than the World Trade Center towers? Amazing...

Furthermore, you ignored virtually all the other evidence which I mentioned, not to mention all the evidence at Dr. Wood's website, but thanks for contributing your opinion anyway.

I appreciate the kind words, but Dr. Wood is far more deserving of your thanks than I am. She has lost everything just for gathering evidence and attempting to explain it.

...this is why so many 9/11 "Truth" groups and Wikipedia censor discussion about Dr. Wood, the same reason why there is an organized campaign to discredit Dr. Wood and divert people away from the evidence she has gathered, and the same reason Dr. Wood's graduate student, Michael Zebuhr, was murdered in 2006. See here: www.iamthewitness.com...

We owe Dr. Wood an enormous amount of gratitude for the amazing amount of effort she has put forth. She is fighting for us all, whether you realize it or not.

Cheers,

-Abe

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


edit on 17-9-2010 by PookztA because: typo



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by PookztA
 


Your "evidence" is not evidence, it is fantasy. Consider mechanisms that convert metals to dust with energy beams. There aren't any that don't involve heating the metal above it's boiling point and having the vapor condense. In open air, this woud be a spectacle that would not be able to be hidden.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by PookztA
 


Your "evidence" is not evidence, it is fantasy. Consider mechanisms that convert metals to dust with energy beams. There aren't any that don't involve heating the metal above it's boiling point and having the vapor condense. In open air, this woud be a spectacle that would not be able to be hidden.


THIS!!! Any imagined energy beam that can vaporise metal as Woods claims would definitely vaporize human flesh and blood as well, meaning that William Rodriguez wouldn't be around to be posing for any photos of him holding his custodian key. This is the one glaring ommission that Judy Woods not only refuses to address, but recoils away from in horror, becuase she knows it's the fatal flaw in the extravagant world of orbiting secret laser weapons she's built up for herself.

Hers is the classic case of people believing in something so strongly and emotionally that they start hoping that it's true.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Photos, graphs, videos, and documents, are indeed evidence. Just because you are not familiar with the fact that energy can turn steel to dust, does not mean that the thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and docuements at drjudywood.com... are not "evidence". To make such a claim is extremely illogical and unscientific.

The evidence Dr. Wood has gathered is so strong that her legal qui-tam case made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009. Cases which are not strongly based on the evidence do not make very far, let alone to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, filing a legal case that is not strongly based on evidence, is considered a frivolous law suit, and can result in legal penalties. Dr. Wood's evidence-based legal case speaks for itself.

The events observed on 9/11 are matched by those of "The Hutchison Effect", and are the result of "field effects" and energy interference. John Hutchison has filed an affidavit in Dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between The Hutchison Effect and the 9/11 attacks.

The Hutchison Effect has generated dust from metals, it has caused metals to jellify and resolidy, it has levatated objects, and more.

Here are some videos documenting The Hutchison Effect:









and here are some informative videos regarding the validity of The Hutchison Effect:





to see some official documents regarding The Hutchison Effect, including letters from the Canadian Government, letters from NASA, and letters from Physicists, please see my article on The Hutchison Effect here: www.facebook.com...

here are some videos comparing a few of the effects of The Hutchison Effect to a small portion of the evidence observed at ground zero:





lastly, see the steel turning to dust with your own eyes:

1. 'Dustification' process in action: drjudywood.com...
2. 'Dustification' process in action: drjudywood.com...
3. 'the 'Bubbler': drjudywood.com...
4.


Please do your own homework people. I cannot keep posting information over and over and over just because you are too lazy to look into this for yourself. A good compilation of information can be found in the outline I have compiled, entitlted 9/11 & Free Energy, and a link to it can be found in my signature.

Thanks for your time,

-Abe

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


edit on 17-9-2010 by PookztA because: typos



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I haven't seen any evidence. All I have seen is video used to try to lend credability to a theory and a lot of conjecture.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I haven't seen any evidence. All I have seen is video used to try to lend credability to a theory and a lot of conjecture.


you must have your eyes closed, haha


thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained, and have been successfully explained by the scientific conclusion of Dr. Judy Wood.

and don't forget the U.S. Supreme Court case of October 2009, because that's evidence too


see a summary of the evidence here: drjudywood.com...

Cheers,

-Abe

edit on 17-9-2010 by PookztA because: typo



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by PookztA
 


What scientific evidence?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
To answer your question, its very simple:
2 jet liners, hijacked by Muslim extremists plowed into the buildings, the extreme heat from spewed jet fuel weakened the buildings, causing them to collapse, reducing them to dust

question answered, take off your tin foil hats and take your happy pills
no conspiracy here, move along

edit on 17/9/10 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I haven't seen any evidence. All I have seen is video used to try to lend credability to a theory and a lot of conjecture.


you must have your eyes closed, haha


thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained, and have been successfully explained by the scientific conclusion of Dr. Judy Wood.

and don't forget the U.S. Supreme Court case of October 2009, because that's evidence too




Okay, I'm sorry, I can't let this slide anymore. Dr. Judy Wood's lawsuit was not only thrown out of court, it was dismissed with prejudice, meaning that if she tried to file it again she'd be whacked with civil penalties. Her lawsuit was THAT idiotic. What you call "made it all the way to the Supreme Court" was her attempt to buck it up to the SC to have the dismissal appealed, but the Supreme Court didn't want to hear it.

What killed her is that the whole lawsuit was goofy to begin with. She sued that NIST defrauded the gov't on the grounds they submitted falsified data, with the "correct" data being of course her on "lasers from outer space" claims. They ruled that not only was her own scenario unproven and unprovable, and therefore isn't an acceptable reason to make other scenarios illegitimate, they ruled NIST did in fact legitimatly research the WTC collapse regardless of whether Woods agrees with their findings or not. Not one single court in the land disagrees with that court's ruling.

Judy Woods never told you any of this on her web site, did she?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What killed her is that the whole lawsuit was goofy to begin with. She sued that NIST defrauded the gov't on the grounds they submitted falsified data, with the "correct" data being of course her on "lasers from outer space" claims.


Wow, I didn't know "goofy" legal cases can be successfully appealed all the way to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court... interesting analysis you put forth, very scientific.

Despite many attempts by the defendants to have Dr. Wood's case dismissed, it was successfully appealed to higher and higher levels of the courts. It was not until the level of the U.S. Supreme Court that a judge finally dismissed the case without a hearing, based on his labeling of the case as a 'conspiracy theory'.

Also, why do you refer to her as 'Judy Woods'? Her name is Judy Wood, and she earned a Ph.D so deserves to be called Dr. Judy Wood. Your lack of respect for such a brave scientist who has lost everything fighting for us is very concerning to me. It is one thing to disagree with her conclusion, it is another thing to disrespect her. Very telling...

Furthermore, Dr. Wood does not conclude that "laser beams from outer space" are what turned the towers to dust, so why do you? Why spread rumors and inaccuracies about Dr. Wood's true conclusions? To correct your severe inaccuracy:

Dr. Judy Wood has collected an overwhelming amount of evidence which suggests that a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind was used to powderize (‘dustify’) the primary steel and concrete portions of the WTC buildings, while burning and bending aluminum, yet leaving paper and many other materials unharmed. These characteristics are matched by those of "The Hutchison Effect", and are the result of "field effects" and energy interference. John Hutchison has filed an affidavit in Dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between The Hutchison Effect and the 9/11 attacks.

Furthermore, those who erroneously refer to the work of Dr. Wood with terms like "space beams," "ray beams from space," "laser beams from space," are either displaying their enormous ignorance of her true conclusions, or they are in essence admitting that they cannot find any fault with what Dr. Wood presents, so they resort to dishonesty. If they could find fault with what she presents, they would have shown that by now. No one has found fault with anything that Dr. Wood has presented, which is why people like you choose to refer to her conclusions as "laser beams from outer space", in order to manipulate public perception of her true conclusion.

What is going on is no different than claiming to have debunked someone who says 1 + 2 = 3, saying that the "2" really looks like a "9" so that the answer should be 10. That is, they cannot debunk 1+2=3, so they pretend it is 1+9 so they can say the answer of "3" has been "debunked." A person who uses the term "space beams" (or "laser beams from space," etc.) to describe Dr. Wood's work is admitting that she is right and they are wrong. It is a confession. They cannot debunk what she presents and it is their mission to APPEAR to debunk her. The point here is the reason why so much energy would be spent on "appearing" to debunk Dr. Wood. If what Dr. Wood is saying were bogus, why would so much energy be spent on trying to cover it up?

• 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 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. You can read all the details and see actual screen shots of my Wikipedia incident here: www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

• 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? You can read more about my encounter with Mr. Rokke here: www.facebook.com...

• 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? You can learn more about my encounter with Mr. Khalezov here: www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

• 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?


Also, please note the sequence of events below. Very interesting if you ask me:

PLEASE NOTE:

Dr. Wood filed her RFC with NIST on March 16, 2007.
www.ocio.os.doc.gov...


The ae911truth site went up on April 6, 2007. (copy & paste entire link between the quotations)
"http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.ae911truth.org"



ae911truth filed a thermite-free RFC with NIST April 12, 2007
www.ocio.os.doc.gov...


Dr. Wood filed her federal qui tam case April 25, 2007
www.drjudywood.com...

No similar action has been taken by ae911truth.org or any other 911 "truth" group.


Lastly, this article does a great job describing the orchestarted effort of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement to manage peoples' perceptions and keep it heading down the wrong path. Here is the article, with an excerpt below:

Truth and the Twin Towers - Both Bite the Dust: axisoflogic.com...


Fascinating research has also been brought to us courtesy of Dr. Wood involving Hurricane Erin. Traveling up the Atlantic coast since September 1, 2001 and becoming closest to New York City's twin towers on September 11, 2001, Erin was tracked in an experiment conducted by NOAA (National Oceanic and Administrative Administration) and a NASA satellite "spacecraft"- outside the awareness of the American public.

Perhaps equally as fascinating? The Langley Research Center recorded Hurricane Erin taking a sharp turn away from the Big Apple, according to their experts at NASA's spy facility. Some may call this an amazing coincidence. Others may want to read about the various roles played by satellites. Hint: They can do more than track storms.

Someone please tell me this. Since when do the weather people ever fail to tell us when a hurricane is headed for the US coast? And when in the world have they ever failed to tell us when a hurricane is heading straight for the Big Apple, particularly since New York City is not exactly a place where hurricanes normally strike? And why is it that Dr. Judy Wood, an unpaid independent researcher, picked up on Erin - and the space experiment taking place that day in a satellite over the Atlantic off the NYC coast when no one on the morning TV news stations did?

One time, a 9/11 "Truth" group leader became more than a bit distressed when I kept trying to chat about other plausible (i.e., non-thermite) ideas at one of our meetings. I can still recall the pained expression on his face when he tried his best to be patient and diplomatically agree with one of my points: "Yes, all that talk about missiles at the World Trade Center is a really interesting theory, sure, and I tend to personally believe it might be true. But..." (and then he moved towards me, and whispered, as if about to share some top secret insider knowledge) "if we talk about these things, we will lose credibility and hurt The Movement. So let's just try at first to stick to safe things - things people will understand."

I wish I had a dollar for every Truth agent who admonished us not to “hurt the Movement”. This slippery agent out of Miami brought condescension to a whole new level of low by implying that preserving “the Movement” is more important than discovering exactly what went down.


Hurricane Erin was as large or larger in comparison to Hurricane Katrina, and was heading straight for NYC from September 3rd - 11th, reaching its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, yet it was not reported on by any of the major media outlets. Then, suddenly, the hurricane drastically changed direction, heading back out to sea rather than continuing on towards land. See many photos and the path of Hurricane Erin here: drjudywood.com... See the University of Alaska magnometer data here: drjudywood.com... Since when does a Katrina-sized Hurricane, heading for NYC, not get reported on?

The lack of scientific, rational responses I have been receiving, and the attempts to confuse people and divert them away from Dr. Wood's website, does not come as a surprise to me. I have been witnessing this type of disinformation and 'manipulation' of public perception since I began supporting Dr. Wood after realizing that she has explained what happened on that day beyond any reasonable doubt. Again, this orchestrated movement to slander Dr. Wood and divert people away from the overwhelming amount of evidence she has gathered is all too common and very much expected, because the true terrorists who organized 9/11 were obviously not stupid, at least not stupid enough to forget that they would need to organize a well-orchestrated 9/11 "Truth" movement to catch, steer, and manipulate the outraged people who realized they had been lied to. Seeing so many "truth"-seekers avoiding evidence and spreading lies, while simultaneously attempting to convince others to not look at the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered, is all the more reason to actually ignore these people and check out the evidence for yourself, so that you can decide for yourself.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin


I encourage all of you to view ALL the evidence you can, especially the evidence at Dr. Wood's website, and make up your own mind. Do not let me convince you, nor anyone else in this forum. Take it upon yourself to view ALL the evidence and make up your OWN mind, because all of us are intelligent human beings who are capable of discerning fact from fiction. Dr. Wood has done all the work by compiling all the evidence for us to view, now you must put her to the test, by viewing her evidence, viewing other evidence, viewing ALL the evidence you can, as thoroughly as possible, and then making up your own mind.

Only you can find what is true for your own self, so please just look at all the evidence you can, especially the thousands of photos, graphs, documents, and videos, at drjudywood.com...

Thanks for your time everyone,

-Abe

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


edit on 17-9-2010 by PookztA because: lots of typos



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA
Asktheanimals,

The King Dome is a great comparison because the kingdome was virtually empty, as it was a DOME. How could a virtually empty DOME, taken down via controlled demolition, result in a SMALLER relative rubble pile than the World Trade Center towers? Amazing...

Furthermore, you ignored virtually all the other evidence which I mentioned, not to mention all the evidence at Dr. Wood's website, but thanks for contributing your opinion anyway.

I appreciate the kind words, but Dr. Wood is far more deserving of your thanks than I am. She has lost everything just for gathering evidence and attempting to explain it.

...this is why so many 9/11 "Truth" groups and Wikipedia censor discussion about Dr. Wood, the same reason why there is an organized campaign to discredit Dr. Wood and divert people away from the evidence she has gathered, and the same reason Dr. Wood's graduate student, Michael Zebuhr, was murdered in 2006. See here: www.iamthewitness.com...

We owe Dr. Wood an enormous amount of gratitude for the amazing amount of effort she has put forth. She is fighting for us all, whether you realize it or not.

Cheers,

-Abe

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


edit on 17-9-2010 by PookztA because: typo



correction to the above statement i made, i was in between classes and was rushed and said the king dome pile was relatively smaller. i meant to say larger.

The virtually empty King Dome, was taken down via controlled demolition, and produced a rubbile pile of roughly 12% of their original height. Therefore, buildings that are not as empty as a dome, should result in rubble piles of approximately 12% of their original height or more, since they are most likely not as empty.

In the case of the WTC towers, we see a rubble pile of much much less than 12% of their original height. this is because the building was turned to dust.

watch the video in the first post to understand what i mean.

sorry for the error,

-Abe



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA
interesting analysis you put forth, very scientific.

Speaking of science, has Judy obtained any WTC dust samples and had them tested in a lab to find steel dust so that it may lend credence to her "steel dustification" theory? Yeah, that would be a no. Oh well, so much for her "scientific" pursuit of her "theories". Further, where's the list of scientists and her peers that have viewed her "evidence" and support her "theories"?


Here's what real scholars and scientists in the 9/11 truth movement are saying about her "theories":

There are many problems with the DEW idea... it shouldn't actually be called a scientific hypothesis or theory. You have to be able to TEST a scientific hypothesis or theory, but you cannot test a system that you cannot even properly identify.


Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice:

STJ does not support theories of exotic weaponry or similar (DEW, nukes, TV Fakery, no planes at the WTC) and will remove from it's membership any who make public assertions about such theories. That is not a personal decision but a scientific, strategic and common sense one -- those theories have no scientific evidence to support them and serve to undermine what our own published researchers are moving forward with by making us appear nonsensical, and cannot be supported by STJ.



Following are some debunks and papers written about Judy's fake "theories":

Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center

A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds



And if you really want to see how Judy operates and how she can't even remember her own numbers or calculations, here she is in an interview with Dr. Greg Jenkins, Ph.D:


Google Video Link



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
BoneZ,

Molecular dissociation of steel and concrete into a fine dust does not require lab testing, for it is rather obvious that the buildings were turned to dust. Nonetheless, the USGS confirmed that there were loads of iron microspheres in the dust, which most likely came from the 'dustified' steel. See here: pubs.usgs.gov... (pictures there too, just ask if you need help finding them) Steel is made from Iron and Carbon, so as the steel underwent molecular dissociation into a fine dust, it most likely generated the iron microspheres which the USGS found. Dr. Jones claims high heat created these iron-rich microspheres, but he has never shown us how 'molten steel' becomes 'iron-rich microspheres'. Despite his lack of evidence, he continues to assert that high-heat caused these spheres to form.

If high heat created all this iron-rich microsphere dust, then how come this "extremely hot" dust did not burn the skins of the people it coated, yet it 'toasted' over 1,400+ cars within a 1/4 mile radius of ground zero? How could high-heat burn only the cars, but not the skins of the people? Weird eh? (see the photos at Dr. Wood's website folks) There are obvious photos and videos showing this 'dustification' process (not the same as vaporization, because high-heat was not involved), so I will share a few of them with you yet again, since you have continually ignored them:

1. 'Dustification' process in action: drjudywood.com...
2. 'Dustification' process in action: drjudywood.com...
3. 'the 'Bubbler': drjudywood.com...
4. many more photos showing the dustification and incredbily small rubble pile: drjudywood.com...
5.

6. Dustification in action:

7. seeing is believing:

CNN Spire Dustifies;


NBC Spire Dustifies ;


More Spire;


Slow motion;


There are many many more photos at Dr. Wood's website showing this 'dustification' of the steel and concrete, so I do not know why you are attempting to cast doubt on this obvious fact.

Are you denying that the steel and concrete were turned to dust? Or are you just trying to cast doubt on this obvious fact? Please let me know, for I would love to address your inaccurate claim, whatever that might be. Furthermore, just because Dr. Wood has not tested the dust in a 'laboratory' does not explain the thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents found at her website, which explosives do not account for. Why not just tell us how explosives explain all the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered? Those links you posted sure don't explain the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered, so when will you stop trying to confuse readers and instead just explain to us how explosives account for all the evidence?

The more I observe your actions in this forum, the more it becomes clear to me that you are not seeking the truth. It is amazing how quickly you result to false accusations and attempts to divert people away from Dr. Wood's website. It is amazing how quickly you post your disinformation which spreads inaccuracies and falsehoods regarding Dr. Wood's conclusion, in an attempt to divert readers away from the evidence she has gathered.

Furthermore, Dr. Wood has evidence, not "theories", and the evidence is what needs explaining. Personal attacks on Dr. Wood do not explain the evidence, and your article which consists of inaccurate, false, and rumor-spreading material is very telling as to what type of truth seeker you are.

Instead of discussing the evidence, you post your inaccurate hit-piece article. Why? Why not just explain how explosive account for all the evidence seen in the thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, at Dr. Wood's website? Why not just explain all the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered better than she can, if she did not "earn her Ph.D in Materials Science Engineering" as you have indirectly claimed with your "fake Dr." accusations against her? What evidence is your accusation based on?

Instead of explaining the thousands of photos, graphs, documents, and videos, at drjudywood.com..., you choose to post your inaccurate article. Why? Why avoid discussing the evidence?

Watching you avoid the evidence and try to divert people away from her website is very telling, just as Wikipedia and AE911Truth's censorhip of Dr. Wood was also very telling. Why are you trying to steer people away from the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered, as they have? Why not let people view it and decide for themselves?

It is not surprising that you are once again avoiding the evidence only to post your own disinformation. Why do you post information which only spreads rumors and inaccuracies about Dr. Wood’s conclusions? Why not just explain where she is wrong in her interpretation of the evidence? Remember when you were recently caught spreading lies about Dr. Wood to ATS members? See here for the screen shots: www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

Also, why do you always post that same ambush interview that Dr. Jenkins did? How come he showed up at the end of a meeting that Dr. Wood was not even speaking at, at approximately 12am, with a full camera and lighting crew, and asked her to be interviewed? How come he only would discuss one small black and white photo, when there are literally thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, which need to be addressed? Why do you keep posting this old, unscientific interview which barely discusses any evidence, when you could be posting newer interviews which actually discuss more of the evidence?

Here is a more recent interview with Dr. Wood if you would prefer to hear about some of the evidence this way instead of going to her website:












Lastly, since you want to play the "attack the researcher" game instead of discussing the evidence, here is some information to consider about Dr. Steven Jones:

Please review the following evidence regarding Dr. Steven Jones, so that you can become familiar with all of the evidence that has led myself, and many others, to conclude that Dr. Steven Jones is purposely misleading the 9/11 Truth Movement. First he interfered with the Cold Fusion / Free Energy movement, and now it seems he is interfering with the 9/11 Truth Movement. Please review these links thoroughly, and with an open-mind, before drawing any conclusions:

1. ‘Hoax exposes incompetence or worse at a Bentham Open Access journal’: www.earlham.edu...
2. ‘Bentham Open editor-in-chief resigns after fake paper is accepted for publication’: www.earlham.edu...
3. ‘A Peer-review of Dr. Jones’s Research’: nomoregames.net...
4. ‘Steven Jones, Cold Fusion, & the Free Energy cover up’: drjudywood.com...
5. ‘Steven Jones helped cover up Cold Fusion, and now 9/11 Truth’: www.youtube.com...
6. ‘The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis’: drjudywood.com...
7. ‘Steven Jones' Contributions to Science, Humanity and the Planet’: www.drjudywood.com...
8. ‘WTC Molten Metal: Fact or Fiction?’ www.checktheevidence.co.uk...
9. ‘Thermite and Glowing Liquid Aluminum’ drjudywood.com...
10. ‘Steven Jones and the WTC “Spire” video’ (2min 35sec): www.youtube.com...
11. ‘No Thermite Used on 9/11’ by Andrew Johnson: 911thermitefree.blogspot.com...



Please discuss the evidence instead of attacking Dr. Wood.

Thanks for your time,

-Abe

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


edit on 17-9-2010 by PookztA because: Long Live TRUTH, JUSTICE, PEACE, LOVE, UNITY, & RESPECT





new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join