It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Quite interesting interview with Dr, Judy Wood on Coast to Coast on 911 and the death of Osama Bin L

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I cannot listen Judy Wood, her terminology is lousy and explanations are unfounded. One thing that I believe breaks her theory is building 7...that certainly did not go "poof", it went down a lot like a controlled demolition. Even people who believe the official story will admit that building 7 looks like a controlled demo (but will proceed to give explanations why it could never be). I like all ideas to be brought up, but man, she just can not explain things well.
edit on 5-5-2011 by SmokeandShadow because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by XRaDiiX
I personally believe is was the Thermite charges that took the tower down. Like many of my fellow 911 truthers do.

Just for clarity, thermite/mate did not solely bring the towers and WTC 7 down. Thermite/mate may have been used somewhere in some fashion, but conventional demolition explosives are what brought all three buildings down according to audio, video and witness testimony.

People keep forgetting that Dr. Jones' findings are only preliminary and thus not conclusive. And whether they ever turn out to be conclusive is irrelevant because all of the evidence still suggests that conventional explosives were used to bring those buildings down.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
I cannot listen Judy Wood, her terminology is lousy and explanations are unfounded.

Watch the video interview of her by Dr. Greg Jenkins that I posted on the last page. She couldn't even cite her own numbers, calculations or theories. Her own! This leads me to believe her "work" is not her own and it's just a script. And she can't cite any of it without it being in front of her.

Ever watched any of her presentations? Same thing. Just reads the scripts on the slides without any actual presentation or explanation. Nothing she does is hers or of her own accord.

This alone proves she is either a paid disinformation artist contracted to make the truth movement look bad, or some wires are crossed upstairs. I'd bet on the former, although it would seem like there's a little bit of both.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Thank you for Clarifying. Yes i should have mentioned Conventional explosions too. I remember seeing a video about huge explosions in the basement and people being killed in explosions in the basement before the towers collapses. Definitely smells of inside job.

Always Remember Building 7 Thank you Bonez.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 


Yes thats funny for someone who purportedly has a PHD. I realised she was a paid dis-info Agent about 10-20 mins in when she started veering off course into the fringe crazy looney theory about John Hutchison and Anti-Gravity.

I was attacked by believers in the Official Story and People who actually thought she had some validity to her arguments.

I agree with you she couldn't keep on topic and just kept spouting obfuscated statements. The host of Coast to Coast at some points was so silent he didn't know how to respond to her Lunacy.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by spacevisitor
What is your explanation for that extraordinary collapse speed?

There was nothing even extraordinary about the collapse speeds themselves, unless you take the official theory into account.

The only thing that makes the collapse speeds "extraordinary" is if the official theory were true; that all three buildings collapsed from fires without any assistance from explosives. That's because steel-structured highrises cannot collapse in the manner that the three WTC buildings did on 9/11 from fire alone.

If explosives were used, like all available evidence shows, then the collapse speed was not "extraordinary". Not even close. A collapse speed of free-fall or a little less than free fall would be considered normal for a structure being brought down with explosives. .


Oke, I see your point, am I right by saying then that you do therefore not believe the official theory and that the real cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7 was due assistance of explosives [controlled demolition] and that the way the debris remained fits also in such an act, so nothing out of the "extraordinary"?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by spacevisitor
 



Because could that energy weapon have been responsible for all those strangely toasted cars?

Figure 7(a). burned NYPD car Police car I've not seen before.
Why the back end and not the front?


So what is your expertise in evaluating vehicle fires?

Just how many car fires have you been to?



None, but I assume then that you have, am I right?

But listen to what this firefighter says in the video.


Diane Sawyer: And I've got Don Dayo (?) in here with me, we're dividing up all the duties, here, and he's been down to the scene, and also J.D. Hopfer (?) who says he's just a volunteer who came in here from California and was around the area.

I just wanted to know how much fire is there. You said you were just at Ground Zero. How much fire is left?

J.D. Hopfer (?):
Well at Building Seven there was no fire there whatsoever, but there was one truck putting water on the building. But, it's collapsed completely. And then, the other building, that there were some flames still coming up was in World Trade Center One, not a lot.

Diane Sawyer: You said you saw melted tour busses? Melted cars?

J.D. Hopfer (?): The cars that were right down there, ...it was just unbelievable. They were twisted and melted into nothing. The build... the debris is just unbelievable. And then you can see fire trucks and police vehicles that were down there early, that um, all their windows, their windshields, are completely blown out -- from, ...it must have been from when debris dropped.




Did you notice that he say "it must have been from when debris dropped."
How do explain that with the cars which were far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River)???

Here you can see why he did find it all unbelievable.

drjudywood.com...

So what is your impression of that?
edit on 6/5/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Which reports did you read? All reports I read only mentioned "Steele Glowing red hot" not fires. Water would have done something about the fires. The Video and picture material shows the same thing, hot metal, but no fires. Much of the protective layer around ground zero had been destroyed for obvious reasons, so quite a lot of water slipped in the foundation as well.

Also an Oxygen starved fire should have produced black smoke, as it can be observed with burning coal mines, of which some burn for months. Its called a smoldering underground fire. The fumes at ground zero where white. Also whatever "burned" defied the water poured on top of it and the water that made its way into the foundation, so we can rule out the granulate, that was concrete and office appliances.

As you can see Dave, your conspiracy theory falls apart about as easily as that of Judy Woods XD . But please, produce a picture or video of those "fires" at ground zero. What is that? You are afraid those will offend the muslim community. Alright then

edit on 6-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
am I right by saying then that you do therefore not believe the official theory and that the real cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7 was due assistance of explosives [controlled demolition] and that the way the debris remained fits also in such an act, so nothing out of the "extraordinary"?

Yep.

That is absolutely correct.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor


Did you notice that he say "it must have been from when debris dropped."
How do explain that with the cars which were far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River)???

Here you can see why he did find it all unbelievable.

drjudywood.com...

So what is your impression of that?
edit on 6/5/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding

Judy Wood made the error of assuming that the cars at FDR Drive were there before the towers collapsed. They could have been parked originally in the vicinity of the WTC, hit by debris and red hot embers and moved there in order to clear the side streets so that fire trucks, etc could get in and start looking for bodies and people who might be still alive.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Yes they might have been moved, especially the smashed up ones that must have taken hard debries.
edit on 6-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Which reports did you read? All reports I read only mentioned "Steele Glowing red hot" not fires. Water would have done something about the fires. The Video and picture material shows the same thing, hot metal, but no fires. Much of the protective layer around ground zero had been destroyed for obvious reasons, so quite a lot of water slipped in the foundation as well.


For the most all encompassing report I rely on Photographer Joel Meyerowitz' book, "Aftermath", which documents his experiences and shows many of his photos. It's the same book I frequently quote from that shows the condition of the WTC steel as it was found at ground zero, which showed NO signs of controlled demolitions/thermite/whatever. Yes, he mentioned that firefighters were spraying the steel to cool it down and even showed them, but how much water woudl it take to knock out a fire the size of ten square city blocks?

If you're referring to the underground concrete tub around ground zero, it was damaged so there was leakage, but it wasn't destroyed, certainly not critical enough to allow suffifient water in to put out the underground fires.


Also an Oxygen starved fire should have produced black smoke, as it can be observed with burning coal mines, of which some burn for months. Its called a smoldering underground fire. The fumes at ground zero where white. Also whatever "burned" defied the water poured on top of it and the water that made its way into the foundation, so we can rule out the granulate, that was concrete and office appliances.


Was that white smoke actually smoke from the fires or steam from the fires evaporating moisture? You do know the WTC was a stones's throw away from a major river, don't you?

Only a conspiracy monger would demand that we chemically analyze the smoke coming from a collapse building in order to look for hidden signs of some secret conspiracy. That's really fringe grasping at straws, even for you.


As you can see Dave, your conspiracy theory falls apart about as easily as that of Judy Woods XD . But please, produce a picture or video of those "fires" at ground zero. What is that? You are afraid those will offend the muslim community. Alright then :lol


I notice that despite all the thousands of photographs of what was found at ground zero that are freely available, and despite all the first hand eyewitness accounts of the clean up processess and what was discovered, you'll still ignore every single bit of it. The ONLY proof you'll accept is of photos of underground fires you know full well were impossible to take. What kind of photographer would be psycho enough to crawl through a dangerous and unstable pile of wreckage and stand in areas hot enough to melt steel to take pictures of underground fires jsut to satisfy you conspiracy theorists?

You're not out to learn the facts of 9/11. You're out to promote what you yourself want to believe happened on 9/11 regardless of what the facts are. I would appreciate it if you would at least be honest about your intentions.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
only in your fantasy world dave.
edit on 6-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by spacevisitor
am I right by saying then that you do therefore not believe the official theory and that the real cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7 was due assistance of explosives [controlled demolition] and that the way the debris remained fits also in such an act, so nothing out of the "extraordinary"?

Yep.

That is absolutely correct.


Oke, I agree with you that the Twin Towers and WTC7 did collapse due assistance of explosives [controlled demolition], I did believe that already for quite some time now.
But I still do personally not rule out the possibility that a second weapon [with secret directed energy technology] was used at the same time because of all those strangely burned cars and the minimum amount of left-over debris.
Perhaps for the reason to be absolutely shore that no important evidence would remain.

Thanks for your reply.

If you will allow me another question, I want to ask you the following.
What kind of planes do you think hit the Twin Towers, those claimed hijacked planes with those civilians on board or some specially adapted remotely controlled planes so to say, which I believe?

edit on 6/5/11 by spacevisitor because: made a correction



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Yes they might have been moved, especially the smashed up ones that must have taken hard debries.
edit on 6-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


So after eons of arguing that plane wreckage at the Pentagon was planted, secret controlled demolitions were squirreled away throughout the towers in plain site of everyone, and all that, you conspiracy people are arguing that a burned up car has to be legitimate. If evil gov't ninjas have such near-supernatural powers as you describe then why couldn't they have planted this car as well? Why is one accusation of planted evidence believable and another accusation of planted evidence unbelievable?

I can tell you right now what the difference is- you have an intellectually dishonest double standard that artificially favors one scenario over the other.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You're not out to learn the facts of 9/11. You're out to promote what you yourself want to believe happened on 9/11 regardless of what the facts are. I would appreciate it if you would at least be honest about your intentions.


So your reaction to me accusing you of being only interested in promoting your idea of the truth, rather than in the facts presented by firefighters architects pilots, officers etc. is to accuse me of being only interested in promoting my idea of the truth rather than the "facts" presented by you.

Smooth move patton, did you think of it all by yourself


Now back on topic.


Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by spacevisitor



Did you notice that he say "it must have been from when debris dropped."
How do explain that with the cars which were far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River)???

Here you can see why he did find it all unbelievable.

drjudywood.com...

So what is your impression of that?
edit on 6/5/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding

Judy Wood made the error of assuming that the cars at FDR Drive were there before the towers collapsed. They could have been parked originally in the vicinity of the WTC, hit by debris and red hot embers and moved there in order to clear the side streets so that fire trucks, etc could get in and start looking for bodies and people who might be still alive.


What he said. Also that some cars appear smashed up good is more of a reason to think that they got struck by debries around ground zero and were moved out of the way afterwards. After looking further through the site from Figure toast1 on, one gets the impression that whatever reacted with the metal of the cars COULD have been in the wtc dust, IF the pictures are in cronological order and moments after the collapse. It cant be the fumes having been really hot, else it wouldnt be just the metal reacting and whoever would have been caught into the dust cloud, would have been very dead very quick. Something reacting with the metal was observed at the pit in ground zero as well. Whatever was in the twin towers must react with steel in some way and there must have been plenty of it, for the dust to toast cars in a nearby parking lot and reacting with the steel in the pit weeks after the collapse.

If that is true, that still does not make a good case for killer sattelites.
edit on 6-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by spacevisitor


Did you notice that he say "it must have been from when debris dropped."
How do explain that with the cars which were far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River)???

Here you can see why he did find it all unbelievable.

drjudywood.com...

So what is your impression of that?
edit on 6/5/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding

Judy Wood made the error of assuming that the cars at FDR Drive were there before the towers collapsed. They could have been parked originally in the vicinity of the WTC, hit by debris and red hot embers and moved there in order to clear the side streets so that fire trucks, etc could get in and start looking for bodies and people who might be still alive.


That’s a good point which was as it seems already debated.


In the debate over toasted cars ignited by this article, some have argued that the wrecked vehicles on FDR drive were damaged at the WTC and were loaded up and transported and dumped on FDR drive for storage.

First, there is no evidence that this was done.

Second, it makes no sense to load up wrecks, transport them, only to dump them in a busy thoroughfare for storage. These wrecks would have had to be picked up yet again and transported again.

If vehicles were truly moved from the WTC to FDR Drive, we wonder why WTC steel beams were not stacked up on FDR drive, as well, if it was such a good storage area.

Third, governments may be stupid, but we doubt they could be this inefficient. If reported, it would have been a minor scandal.

Fourth, we might be wrong about the facts here, but it looks like the motive for this speculation about shifting wrecks around lower Manhattan is to protect the official story or thermite story or other pet theories.
We fail to see any other explanation for such a "forced" interpretation for these photographs.

Fifth, marks on the roadway suggest that some of these vehicles were pushed to the side of the roadway until they could be removed. For example, see this figure. This is a more natural explanation for why some of the cars appear to have been moved from where they were damaged rather than all the way from the WTC.


drjudywood.com...



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
After looking further through the site from Figure toast1 on, one gets the impression that whatever reacted with the metal of the cars COULD have been in the wtc dust, IF the pictures are in cronological order and moments after the collapse. It cant be the fumes having been really hot, else it wouldnt be just the metal reacting and whoever would have been caught into the dust cloud, would have been very dead very quick. Something reacting with the metal was observed at the pit in ground zero as well. Whatever was in the twin towers must react with steel in some way and there must have been plenty of it, for the dust to toast cars in a nearby parking lot and reacting with the steel in the pit weeks after the collapse.

The reason I think this is that the cars displayed in that particular parking lot only begin to be affected after the dust cloud that was the wtc passes over the parking lot, so it must be totally unrelated to any space based weapons.

I think this thread can go into the hoax section.
edit on 6-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
What kind of planes do you think hit the Twin Towers, those claimed hijacked planes with those civilians on board or some specially adapted remotely controlled planes so to say, which I believe?

It could be either, but I don't see the relevance to the topic at hand.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by spacevisitor


Did you notice that he say "it must have been from when debris dropped."
How do explain that with the cars which were far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River)???

Here you can see why he did find it all unbelievable.

drjudywood.com...

So what is your impression of that?
edit on 6/5/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding

Judy Wood made the error of assuming that the cars at FDR Drive were there before the towers collapsed. They could have been parked originally in the vicinity of the WTC, hit by debris and red hot embers and moved there in order to clear the side streets so that fire trucks, etc could get in and start looking for bodies and people who might be still alive.


That’s a good point which was as it seems already debated.


In the debate over toasted cars ignited by this article, some have argued that the wrecked vehicles on FDR drive were damaged at the WTC and were loaded up and transported and dumped on FDR drive for storage.

First, there is no evidence that this was done.

Well, there is no evidence for DEW, either!. However, it's far simpler and appeals more to common sense that cars were moved and dumped than that some were mysteriously hit by space beams!!

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Second, it makes no sense to load up wrecks, transport them, only to dump them in a busy thoroughfare for storage. These wrecks would have had to be picked up yet again and transported again.

That would have taken more time and required more personnel. This was a much needed temporary measure.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
If vehicles were truly moved from the WTC to FDR Drive, we wonder why WTC steel beams were not stacked up on FDR drive, as well, if it was such a good storage area.

Typically poor argument. There was presumably no room left because all the space had been taken up with dumped cars.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Third, governments may be stupid, but we doubt they could be this inefficient. If reported, it would have been a minor scandal.

?? Why so?

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Fourth, we might be wrong about the facts here, but it looks like the motive for this speculation about shifting wrecks around lower Manhattan is to protect the official story or thermite story or other pet theories.
We fail to see any other explanation for such a "forced" interpretation for these photographs.

Nah! It's just more common sense to suppose these damaged cars had been moved!

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Fifth, marks on the roadway suggest that some of these vehicles were pushed to the side of the roadway until they could be removed. For example, see this figure. This is a more natural explanation for why some of the cars appear to have been moved from where they were damaged rather than all the way from the WTC.


Those marks could have been made during removal from transporters and storage. That's FAR more natural.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
drjudywood.com...


edit on 6-5-2011 by micpsi because: corrected code



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join