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: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Do you find it not very suspicious then that even they and all those other steel parts were completely pulverized also?

Nope, because I've never seen any evidence of pulverized steel.


Thanks for your opinion.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And neither have you or Judy or anyone else.


That’s nonsense.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by spacevisitor
It is assumed that the explosives which were used were very special ones


The explosives used in all three WTC buildings were the same used in any other conventional controlled demolition.


Really, that is not what I read here.


The Twin Tower demolitions resembled conventional demolitions in that the Towers fell with dead-centered vertical symmetry; but differed in that material was ejected horizontally in all directions, resulting in rubble piles several times the diameter of the Towers' footprints. The Twin Towers exploded rather than imploded.
The Twin Towers were also demolished at a more rapid rate than is the case in conventional demolitions.


Then this.


Contrary Evidence
The distributed explosives theory can easily explain the gross features of the collapses from the top-to-bottom destruction to the pulverization of the Towers' materials. However, there are a number of more subtle features of the collapses that do not appear to be consistent with this theory, at least in its simplest form. The following collapse features suggest that the demolition of the Towers was accomplished using technologies other than just distributed conventional explosives. In contrast, many of the same features do appear to be consistent with the thermobarics theory, and the final one suggests the thermite theory.

• Absence of high blast pressures in collapse onsets
Careful study of photographs and videos of both collapses shows that the perimeter walls do not immediately blow out in the way one would expect if explosives adjacent ot the perimeter columns were used to destroy them. Rather, the walls telescope as they disappear into the burgeoning dust clouds, to partially reappear seconds later as fragments outracing the dust cloud.

• Rapid degradation of structure
Features of the onset of both collapses indicate that structures around and above the crash zones lost almost all their strength. In the South Tower, the top not only tips, it bends: The outer wall exhibits a peculiar curve extending about 15 floors above the crash zone. Similarly, in the North Tower, the top begins to telescope straight down with no evidence of bucking in the perimeter columns. In both cases the structure's strength seems to disappear even before any of the explosive features appear.

• Uniformity of pulverization
Photographs and reports from Ground Zero indicate that the vast majority of the estimated 90,000 tons of concrete in each Tower was turned to fine dust, not a mixture of dust and gravel or larger chunks. Since blast pressures from explosive charges fall off with the square of the distance from the source, achieving such thorough pulverization with distributed explosives would seem to have required a huge number of individual packages being placed throughout the building.

• Vaporization of people
Over 1000 victims were never identified despite over a year of efforts to identify victims from even the smallest fragments using DNA. Explosive charges would be unlikely to so thoroughly degrade the remains of so many people.

• Persistence of core structures
In both collapses, a large section of the core structure extending up over 600 feet remains standing for a few seconds and then collapses. The persistent remnant of the North Tower is very narrow and delicate. It is difficult to imagine how such structures could have survived the blast pressures generated by demolition waves of explosive charges, only to themselves collapse a few seconds later.

• Rapid oxidation and intergranular melting of steel pieces
The limited metallurgical examination of some of the few pieces of structural steel that escaped the blast furnaces shows very peculiar features, such as rapid oxidation turning inch-thick steel into paper-thin scrolled pieces, cavitation giving steel the appearance of Swiss cheese, and intragranular melting. These suggest a more exotic process of destruction than mere explosives.


911research.wtc7.net...



Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So when you look to these pictures and video, what do you see is happening?


Anyone and everyone can see that spire going straight down and the dust that was on it hangs in the air and blows away. This has been discussed ad-nauseum on this forum.


Firstly, I would appreciate if you from now on only speak for yourself instead for anyone and everyone.
Secondly it doesn’t matter to me if this has been discussed ad-nauseum on this forum; I am interested in the opinion of other members about it in this thread.
And thirdly, I see the steel parts completely pulverizing into dust.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You're only seeing what you want to see.


That’s also nonsense.




edit on 15/5/11 by spacevisitor because: did some adding




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
That’s nonsense.

If it's nonsense, then please show us images and metallurgy analyses that indicate the presence of pulverized steel at the World Trade Center, thanks.



Originally posted by spacevisitor
"These suggest a more exotic process of destruction than mere explosives."

And just where did that information come from? Appendix C of the FEMA Report:


A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
Appendix C



Now, what has sulfur and causes a eutectic mixture? Look no further than thermate:


A mixture of thermite and sulfur produces thermate which lowers the melting point of the iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system. This is useful in cutting through steel.
Wiki

The only thing "exotic" was the incendiary called "thermate" that was planted in the buildings along with conventional explosives.

Professional Engineer, Jonathan Cole, did many thermite and thermate tests on steel. And as you will see in the video, his testing resulted in the same exact sharp edges and "swiss cheese" formations on the steel:





I hope after viewing the above, you'll let the "DEW made swiss cheese and sharp edges on steel columns" part of the debate go. A thermate reaction causes exactly what FEMA found in their metallurgical analysis of the steel.



Originally posted by spacevisitor
I see the steel parts completely pulverizing into dust.

"Pulverizing" requires two physical forces, one of which pulverizes the other. Let's look at the definition of "pulverize", shall we?


1. to reduce (a substance) to fine particles, as by crushing or grinding



Secondly, let's look at the actual video:




Anyone and everyone can see as clearly as possible that that spire falls directly straight down leaving the dust that was on it in the air. If you can't see that, then you either need:

1.) A bigger monitor.

2.) Glasses (or a stronger prescription).

3.) Help.


And that brings me back to my previous comment: You're seeing only what you want to see.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Anyone and everyone can see as clearly as possible that that spire falls directly straight down leaving the dust that was on it in the air. If you can't see that, then you either need:

1.) A bigger monitor.

2.) Glasses (or a stronger prescription).

3.) Help.


And that brings me back to my previous comment: You're seeing only what you want to see.


Well, due the things you say here it’s obvious to me now that any further discussion between us is useless.
Too bad, because it looks to me that our opinions about other 911 issues are quite the same.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Those holes are the result of large chunks of the towers raining onto the buildings below.


The large chunk or chunks that made that big hole seem to be missing... the building mass also seems to be missing



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


For the Love of God...it's steel. STEEL. Misspelling the word over and over and over again makes your argument look pretty damned lame. Also, for those who believe the original story, what is your explanation of the molten steel and high temps at Ground Zero?

Also, the energy weapons Ms. Woods suggested were used are possible and there are examples of such weapons being used by the US military and other groups.

You have sound cannons, which project a very precise beam of high frequency sound that can be tuned to cause horrible pain at a certain distance, but not affect others feet away. This is an energy weapon.

There has been testing (not sure about deployment yet) of a device that causes ones skin to burn, with much of the same properties of the sound cannon technology (precise aiming and tun-ability for stand-off distance/area denial applications).

Another thing to keep in mind is that energy weapons can be combined to attack a target with precision. Bunk you say? Absolutely not. What I'm referring to is a common medical practice that has been used to treat problems such as artery blockages and kidney stones. Using ultrasound (an energy projector) a surgical team can use multiple transponders aimed at the stone to affect it's destruction without damaging surround tissue. This method is safe, non-invasive and very precise.

If Wood's theory is right, I could see several of these energy projection devices placed in the area surrounding WTC1 and 2, and aimed to cause the buildings to basically vibrate into dust. Maybe that's what was in building 7, making the demolition of the building a necessity? Purely speculation on my part.

I think Dr. Wood has done an exhaustive job researching these weapons and the book is apparently very well documented with tons of specifics. People who dismiss her as "co-intell" or a "shill" based on a couple of hours on Coast to Coast and not on the validity of her work are wrong for doing so. I don't know if I believe her theory or not for now, because I, myself, have not read her book yet. I do find her ideas interesting, however, and one day I'll borrow the book and see what I think after reading it.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
the official conspiracy theory is a theory supported by a small circle of conspiracy theorists, which includes you and the people who composed the NIST report, the laser beam theory has even less traction. So I will go with what every other scientist on the globe with a related education in the field says, controlled demolition.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I thought the Coast to Coast interview was very interesting. The woman is not the most verbal since she is so
mathematical in her nature. I would have liked to have heard more details, only one of her books is available on Amazon.com currently. I know a few engineers and Phd people in life, and they are just people who edured more hours at school and who paid out more for their educations to stay longer. Her personal opinions deserve consideration and merit. She is not the simple popular opinion of the masses. There are alot of angry responders on here, which begs to consider why someone's new ideas inspire anger and fear...

If this new weapon is out there, it is very scary. Who knows when they would attack again. Why? To instill fear, and limitations on the American people. Beacuse who ever is evil, jealous, and angry. Someone had something to gain from this evil horrible event. This is the kind of weapon that could be used to pulverize asteriods, meteriods, and comets.
edit on 15-6-2011 by frugal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Perhaps interesting for some here who want to look into all possible options for what could have been the real cause for why the towers did collapsed the way they did and why most of the different kind of building materials were pulverized into dust except as it looks for the most fragile of it all, paper.


Geüpload door 11septembervideos op 13 jun 2008
WTC dust contains steel, ABC, 19:35, 9/13




Here is another interview with Dr. Judy Wood, now from Jeff Rense.


Geüpload door JRense op 16 jul 2011
Dr Judy Wood Phd talks about her new book "Where did the Towers Go?" Jeff Rense is quite receptive to her extraordinary evidence revealing how the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 were demolished.

And Dr Judy Wood does not believe thermite or Nukes brought the towers down.


Rense & Dr Judy Wood - Where Did The Towers Go?



Here is for instance a list of the used materials in a Tower.



Not on that list but also interesting to know is where the 32 transformers of 30.000 pound + each did go?
Listen for instance to what Richard Humenn P.E. - WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer said about that and more.


Geüpload door ae911truth op 15 mei 2011
Mr. Humenn gives us quite a unique perspective inside the elevator shafts in the twin towers and how access to the core columns could have been gained.

This is raw footage from one of the experts appearing in our upcoming, hard-hitting documentary of evidence for the destruction of the 3 World trade Center skyscrapers -- "9/11: Explosive Evidence -- Experts Speak Out"


Richard Humenn P.E. - WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer




edit on 18/7/11 by spacevisitor because: add video



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Hoosyourdaddyo
 





I think Dr. Wood has done an exhaustive job researching these weapons and the book is apparently very well documented with tons of specifics.


So is Harry Potter but that doesn't make it true.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by spacevisitor



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

www.drjudywood.com...


Er, because red hot embers crashed down just on the back end?

No DEW, No nukes. Just common sense.

I'm late to this thread, but check out all the vehicles on her website
www.drjudywood.com...

lots of anomolies with the burned out vehicles. engine blocks burned out, but back of car still intact, paper along the streets not burned.

These 1400 burned cars don't make sense. Hot embers you say? I think my steel wood-burning stove says differently.
Most of the vehicles look like chemical burns to me. Judy Wood's theory makes a lot of sense.

THought this excerpt was interesting:

Antimatter Weapons

Excerpt from antimatter weapons.

"These two characteristics are still valid today and entirely justify the interest in antimatter. The first, is that the release of usable energy per unit mass is greater in annihilation than in any other nuclear reaction. One proton-antiproton annihilation releases 300 times more energy than a fission or fusion reaction. The second, is that when antimatter is brought in the proximity of matter, annihilation starts by itself, without the need of a critical mass as in fission, and without the ignition energy needed in fusion."

Excerpts from the following article

Air Force pursuing antimatter weapons
Program was touted publicly, then came official gag order
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
Monday, October 4, 2004

"The energy from colliding positrons and antielectrons "is 10 billion times ... that of high explosive," Edwards explained in his March speech. Moreover, 1 gram of antimatter, about 1/25th of an ounce, would equal "23 space shuttle fuel tanks of energy." Thus "positron energy conversion," as he called it, would be a "revolutionary energy source" of interest to those who wage war.

It almost defies belief, the amount of explosive force available in a speck of antimatter -- even a speck that is too small to see. For example: One millionth of a gram of positrons contain as much energy as 37.8 kilograms (83 pounds) of TNT, according to Edwards' March speech. A simple calculation, then, shows that about 50-millionths of a gram could generate a blast equal to the explosion (roughly 4,000 pounds of TNT, according to the FBI) at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. "

"I think," he said, "we need to get off this planet, because I'm afraid we're going to destroy it."


Testing



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by drivebricker
 


You really are guillible...

The supposed "yellow ribbon" is scene tape which had been tied to the pole then torn off

The red pavement markings are most likely either to mark off utilities or for emplacing the scaffold

Now do you really think they could place an section of aircraft landing gear which weighs several hundred
pounds in the middle of a crowded Manhattan street without anyone noticing ?

In broad daylight on one of the busiest streets in Manhattan

Would need a rather large truck anmd several men to handle it, if not a lift

I suppose this piece of the landing gear is also faked ? Right.......?






What about this piece of aircraft? Neat trick isnt it...?




posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

_BoneZ_
There is evidence to suggest that Dr. Judy Wood has been "installed" into a position, or in actuality paid, to purposely and deliberately peddle the disinformation of energy weapons destroying the towers on 9/11. Nowhere in the 9/11 Truth Movement is her "work" accepted, or given any credibility whatsoever.

I would like to direct those in seeking the real truth, as opposed to a one-sided "truth", to visit my thread below to view a handful of many critiques and debunkings of Judy Wood's "work":

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign



Now, I'd like to direct everyone to an interview of Dr. Judy Wood by Dr. Greg Jenkins (PhD in Physics). From this interview, we can deduce that Judy Wood's "work" is not hers or her own. She cannot quote any of her numbers or calculations. In fact, she doesn't even know what she's talking about at all when it comes to physics:


Google Video Link



It is more than abundantly clear that Judy Wood was "given" this "work" to peddle as a plausible theory on what happened to the towers on 9/11. And solely to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, or make the Movement look ridiculously nutty so that people won't even consider other theories proposed either.

Without "her" numbers, calculations, or theories in front of her to read off of, she's just a plain Jane who hasn't the slightest idea of what she's saying, nor the most simple knowledge of physics.





Now, I'd like to direct everyone to an interview of Dr. Greg Jenkins (PhD in Physics) by Dr. Judy Wood. From this we see a fine comparison of work between the two.
You know boneZ, this post of yours makes your 9/11 truth movement look ridiculously nutty so that people won't even consider other theories proposed either.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 




_BoneZ_
There is evidence to suggest that Dr. Judy Wood has been "installed" into a position, or in actuality paid, to purposely and deliberately peddle the disinformation of energy weapons destroying the towers on 9/11. Nowhere in the 9/11 Truth Movement is her "work" accepted, or given any credibility whatsoever.

I would like to direct those in seeking the real truth, as opposed to a one-sided "truth", to visit my thread below to view a handful of many critiques and debunkings of Judy Wood's "work":

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign

Has Dr. Judy Wood published any thing on holograms? Please list your sources.
Has Dr. Judy Wood published any thing on no planes at the WTC? Please list your sources.
Has Dr. Judy Wood published any thing on TV fakery? Please list your sources.
Oh, excuse me. You are not really implying that, are you? My mistake. I withdraw the questions.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Anyone and everyone can see as clearly as possible that that spire falls directly straight down leaving the dust that was on it in the air.

Yes I do see exactly what you said. I acknowledge the validity of your statement.

Now let me tell you what I see.

The outer walls peel away leaving the core column standing alone. Looking at the lower part of the spire (prefabricated into columns) I see dust spewing down. The volume of the flowing dust seems to increase. What is the source of this dust?
We are looking at a 700' spire. The base is hidden from view. I assume the spewing off of dust goes all the way down to the base. At the last, I see the lower visible section diminish in mass and disappear having turned to dust.

It fell vertically down because the base, which is out of sight, behaved like the upper part it was supporting. The whole spire, top to bottom, disappeared.

So you see, you do not speak for anyone and everyone.

Can you acknowledge the validity of my statement?



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 




Perhaps interesting for some here who want to look into all possible options for what could have been the real cause for why the towers did collapsed the way they did and why most of the different kind of building materials were pulverized into dust except as it looks for the most fragile of it all, paper.
Yes reams and reams of paper were found throughout. Did these papers all come from offices in the WTC? From the multitude of file cabinets?
But there were no file cabinets found in the rubble. Well there was just one found. Here is its picture.
Where are all the other file cabinets? Could it be that the steel cabinets turned to dust thereby freeing the papers to scatter in the wind?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   

leostokes
Now, I'd like to direct everyone to an interview of Dr. Greg Jenkins (PhD in Physics) by Dr. Judy Wood.

That is not an interview of Dr. Jenkins by Judy Wood. Dr. Jenkins did the interviewing of Judy Wood. That video is also a hoax video. A video that has been deliberately edited in such a way as to deceive others about what actually transpired during the interview.

And why are the comments disabled? Because hoaxers don't like to have to read facts busting their hoaxes.


This is the full interview by Dr. Jenkins of Judy Wood:



No sane, logical, educated person can watch that video and agree that Judy Wood knows what she's talking about. I've seen non-college educated individuals discuss science in a better manner than this.

What is the most glaring throughout the entire video, is that she constantly states that she can't remember her numbers or calculations. What scientist cannot remember their own calculations? That is proof that her calculations are not hers. They were given to her by someone else, she didn't have them memorized, and she became the face of the disinformation.

And on top of all that, she keeps looking away from Dr. Jenkins while she's talking and won't keep eye contact with him during the entire interview, which is one of the many signs that someone is not telling the truth.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



No sane, logical, educated person can watch that video and agree that Greg Jenkins knows what he's talking about. I've seen non-college educated individuals discuss science in a better manner than this.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




No sane, logical, educated person can watch that video and agree that Judy Wood knows what she's talking about. I've seen non-college educated individuals discuss science in a better manner than this.

"All smart men are Democrats" is false.

Such universal statements that allow for no exceptions are false by their form. Furthermore, posters who regularly make negative universal statements directed at the same individual look like they are promoting an agenda, not a debate. Universal statements are by their form designed to shut off debate. Furthermore, if the poster makes such universal statements thinking ATS members are really going to believe the assertions, he has a low view of member's intelligence. The opposite is a better guess. Moronic universal statements are more likely to attract agreement from morons.

"Dr. Judy Wood does not know what she is talking about" is false. She earned a doctor's degree from a major engineering university. She earned a position on the faculty of a university. She has clearly impressed many sane, logical educated persons. If you, _BoneZ_ , do not see this fact then your credibility as a debater falls and suspicion of your sinister motivation rises.

Here is another one of your universal statements.

from _BoneZ_
Anyone and everyone can see that spire going straight down and the dust that was on it hangs in the air and blows away.


A lot of people see what you see and agree with you. But, a lot of others see "dustification". If you really believe your universal statement, your credibility as a debater falls. If you expect "everyone" to see the same thing you see, you lack credibility.

Question. How do you explain the spire falling vertically down. Why did it not fall over? Where did its support go? Does it fall into a 700 foot deep hole? Let me help you out here: Can you find it in the rubble? Surely, it was one of the last things to fall. It ought to be on top of the pile. If you find it in an old rubble picture, it proves your point. Why don't you go to China and look for it?

edit on 3-1-2014 by leostokes because: add such

edit on 3-1-2014 by leostokes because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2014 by leostokes because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2014 by leostokes because: correction of grammar

edit on 3-1-2014 by leostokes because: add deep

edit on 3-1-2014 by leostokes because: find it in the rubble

edit on 3-1-2014 by leostokes because: top of the pile

edit on 3-1-2014 by leostokes because: if you find

edit on 3-1-2014 by leostokes because: an old

edit on 3-1-2014 by leostokes because: China



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   

leostokes
Furthermore, posters who regularly make negative universal statements directed at the same individual look like they are promoting an agenda, not a debate.

The only person who's promoting an agenda is Judy Wood, of course, and the one single person who revived this thread that's been dead for 2 years, and a similar thread that was dead for one and a half years. Now they're at the top of the 9/11 forum trying to bury other more important threads. That has "agenda" written all over it.

These threads were dead and buried for a reason. This "theory" has been debunked for many years, and nobody is buying it.




leostokes
"Dr. Judy Wood does not know what she is talking about" is false. She earned a doctor's degree from a major engineering university. She earned a position on the faculty of a university.

That all means nothing when watching video interviews of her. When a "scientist" constantly states that she cannot remember her own calculations or numbers, there's a very serious problem going on.




leostokes
She has clearly impressed many sane, logical educated persons.

False. All one has to do is take a look around a few search engines and one can see that most websites that invoke her name think her and her theories are bogus.




leostokes
A lot of people see what you see and agree with you. But, a lot of others see "dustification".

False again. It is not "a lot of others". It's more like "very few others". I can count on one hand how many people I've seen claim that her "theories" have merit. And they're probably all the same person.

Just like the one single person who revived two long-dead threads.


For those visiting these "DEW" threads, they can


I'm going to bow out of this thread now and let it die the lonely death that it had previously.




edit on 3-1-2014 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join