9/11, 10 years on and Dr. Judy Wood

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Could the design of the core support itself for 110 stories without the lateral support of the floors and exterior?
My internal gut says no because it's too small compared to its height. But if an expert comes here and says otherwise I'll accept it.


fortunately physics does not work on your gut.

It was the core that gave the building its rigidity against the wind. It supported 53% of the weight. It would be more stable without the rest. But it would serve no purpose since it provided the means to get to all of those floors.

I already provided a python program indicating the building came down too fast. It takes 12 secons with constant mass and no supports to be destroyed. But Dr. Sunder of the NIST said the north tower came down in 11 seconds. Some sources estimate less than 9 based on the seismograph.

breakfornews.com...

This "gut" bull# keeps this dragging on.

psik




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Judy Wood's efforts at unravelling the mysteries of the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 have been reviewed over and over again on ATS, as Bonez and others have pointed out.

Personally, I don't buy her directed energy weapons theory, but I think a lot of her other observations and findings are important and actually bolster the idea that active dust was floating in the air that day, causing such things as the toasted cars and the melted soles of construction boots, etc.

Her stuff needs to be looked at with care.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Her stuff needs to be looked at with care.


That's for sure, she has a good collection of evidences. But till the point when she brings the Hutchison effect, a known fraud.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I wrote to Ms. Wood a few days ago the following. I got a violently worded abusive letter in response. I should think that if her reply to my e-mail was an indicator of her attitude generally, I would suspect that would put people off communicating with her. She is very proud of her 40 years experience as a 'forensic engineer' - whatever that means. I get the sense she's an expert witness that the big companies call in to dismantle opposing engineering analysis. She hasn't really done anything to help anyone, discover anything, or contribute anything of note.

This is sad, because I do think her table of evidence pointing to a 'cold' directed energy weapon is spot on. I don't buy the 'free energy' aspect, and its not really needed. I'm not saying there's not free energy devices around, I'm saying you don't NEED it. Now on this reasonable people can disagree. However, unreasonable people won't listen to reasonable argument, and I believe Ms. Wood falls into that category from my brief and unfortunate interaction with her.

She is right that if you're going to pull 1.25 million tons of stuff into dust, it takes a lot of energy. If you don't believe that, take a sludge to a piece of brick, and when you have it all broken down, then take a pistle and mortar and grind that pieces into powder, and then continue grinding until the powder blows away into a cloud of the type you saw on 9/11. In technical terms you need something like 40 MJ to turn every kilogram into plasma. (down to the atom) That's 50 quadrillion joules of energy! That's about 12 megatons TNT yield - a little smaller than the largest hydrogen bomb in the US arsenal! That would put out a helluva flash! And while there's plenty of evidence there was thermite, there's no evidence that there was 12 MT of the stuff (10x the weight of the building). So, the conclusion that you somehow made molecular bonds disappear is a sound one given the evidence that things did indeed 'dustify'.

But 'free energy' however that's defined, is off-putting to most serious scientific types. Its akin to Alex Jones saying David Icke was a turd in the punch bowl about the elite by saying they're reptiles. Its hard to swallow - no matter how good the evidence.

So, after looking at Judy's videos, which I recommend, I started wondering how 'they' coulda done it? It occurred to me that all you've got to do is make little critters (micro-robots, or genetically engineered mites) that are about the size of microfractures in steel and concrete and get them to widen those fractures while recovering the elastic energy in some coherent fashion. That way you could cause the big parts to fall apart with a lot less energy. Since domains in steel glass and concrete have specific shapes and sizes, it may also be that they fall apart in ready-to-use fashion, so tiny robots could make copies of themselves readily. That would let a few grams of these robots hop on to the building, be powered by microwaves from the E4B circling above, and consume it in 8.4 seconds. It also explains where the plane went where the bodies went, why the wing tip of the plane made a nice neat hole in steel backed aluminum cladding, etc.

That was the idea. NO need for Free Energy (though not saying there wasn't any, just saying you don't need it with this scenario)

Well, Ms. Wood would have none of it - and was quite violently abusive of me on a personal level for suggesting it.

So, I think Ms. Wood's her own worst enemy - and perhaps because I'm still reacting to her nasty violent abuse I wonder if she's a disinfo agent - a paid 'expert' to trot out evidence that cannot be hidden - and then cast a very dubious narrative around it so serious folks don't take it seriously, and attack those who do. That's the only thing I can think - but who knows? who cares?

The evidence is the interesting thing...

My comments below:

* * *
Dr. Wood,

A friend asked me to review a video of yours. I think your work is excellent, with only minor quibbles.

Thank you for your effort.

William Mook

* * *

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Dr. Judy Wood - Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference - YouTube
Date: 2014-04-18 04:28
From: william.mook@mokenergy.com
To:

Bruce,

You asked me to comment on Dr. Judy Wood's summation of the evidence re: 9/11...

I don't see where she gets 'free energy' - but her systematic organizing of evidence is sound and her conclusion;

Somebody has the ability to direct energy to disrupt the molecular bonds of matter.

is as well.

So, I AGREE. (I do not agree that a 'free energy' system is needed - more below)

You have buildings massing 1.25e6 metric tons - that's 1.25e12 grams.

Imagine you have deposited a 1 gram package if iron eating self-replicating robots on to the roof of the World Trade Center towers, or in the drones that smacked into the building. How many doubling periods would it take for this package to consume the world trade center?

DP = LN(1.25e12)/LN(2) = 40.185

With a replication time of 200 milliseconds (0.2 second) the entire tower would be reduced to 'dust' in 8.4 seconds. A kilogram package reduces this to around 30.219 - increasing replication time to 0.277 seconds to achieve the same 8.4 second time interval.

How much energy will it take? That is determined by the size of the particles - the size of the dust - which is given by settling times. These were between 300 micrometers and 800 micrometers in size - judging by the velocity of the 'dust' in the videos. Also, the swarming behaviour looks similar to swarming behaviour in some robot based systems being studied (i.e. peeling behaviour).

William

* * *

So, this is my best guess - energy use scales inversely with size. So, a 12 MT blast (50 PJ) converts the tower to plasma - a 12 kT blast (50 TJ) converts the tower to pieces 1000 atoms across - a 12 tonne blast (50 GJ) converts the tower to pieces 1,000,000 atoms across. The covalent radius of an iron atom is 123 pm. So this is 123 pm = 12 megaton ; 123 nm = 12 kiloton; 123 um = 12 metric ton - so there is a convergence here.. in fact the 'mites' or whatever you want to call them, could have carried substantial energy with them aboard an airplane capable of carrying tonnes of payload - and then share them with their 'daughters' or whatever you want to call them. It explains all the evidence there is, and it is within technical feasibility, since Vik Oliver and Adrian Bowyer built the first self-replicating machine (publicly known) in 2005. So, maybe the military got a head start and weaponized it? Its far out, but more understandable than 'free energy' - again not saying 'free energy' doesn't exist. But with this tech it doesn't have to.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: WilliamMook
So, after looking at Judy's videos, which I recommend, I started wondering how 'they' coulda done it? It occurred to me that all you've got to do is make little critters (micro-robots, or genetically engineered mites) that are about the size of microfractures in steel and concrete and get them to widen those fractures while recovering the elastic energy in some coherent fashion. That way you could cause the big parts to fall apart with a lot less energy. Since domains in steel glass and concrete have specific shapes and sizes, it may also be that they fall apart in ready-to-use fashion, so tiny robots could make copies of themselves readily. That would let a few grams of these robots hop on to the building, be powered by microwaves from the E4B circling above, and consume it in 8.4 seconds. It also explains where the plane went where the bodies went, why the wing tip of the plane made a nice neat hole in steel backed aluminum cladding, etc.


Posted by someone connected to the oil industry who is creating controversy and doubt so that the evidence is ignored and overlooked. Dr. Wood's research is being countered the same way they denigrated and covered up the research of Dr. Clair Patterson (accidentally discovered the pollution caused by tetraethyl lead in the environment while determining the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old)

Why didn't you post Dr. Wood’s "violently worded abusive" reply to your email Mr. Mook?

To keep a cover up in place people are herded into making false choices. Thermite is the lie behind door #2 for those who didn't like the lie behind door #1 (19 bad guys with box cutters). And if too many folks start hearing about the evidence Dr. Judy Wood presents, they show you the lie behind door #3 (nukes). When that fails to work anymore they bring out the lie from door #4 (micro-robots). Sheeple are kept choosing which lie is best so that they don't turn around and see the wide open field of evidence behind them. Example: If you don't like the story of Lee Harvey Oswald, you have "the grassy knoll." If you don't like the story of Osama Bin Laden and 19 bad guys with box cutters, you have "thermite", "mini-nukes", or "micro-robots." Meanwhile, there are folks in the arena to start fights and create the image of "infighting" so that the "infighting" side show becomes the central focus.

SUGICO MOK ENERGY CORP.

In the development of these blocks, ExxonMobil works with Sugico Mok Energy Corp., which owns 51 percent stake in the working areas.

Exxon Evaluating CBM Blocks in Indonesia

The evidence leads to the only conclusion that a type of LENR was weaponized to destroy the WTC on 9/11. This is why the oil industry wants to keep a lid on this type of energy source.

RESEARCH TRIANGLE, N.C., Jan. 24, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Industrial Heat, LLC announced today that it has acquired the rights to Andrea Rossi's Italian low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology, the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat). A primary goal of the company is to make the technology widely available, because of its potential impact on air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and biomass.

Industrial Heat Has Acquired Andrea Rossi's E-Cat Technology



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BloodBrother

Exxon evaluating blocks in Indonesia. Blocks I control? Wow!

This is very interesting. Thank you for this.

Its news to me... and so, I'm wondering what's going on.

Actually, I was wondering what Yusef Merukh, owner of the coal fields mentioned, was doing these days. I'll have to give him a call to find out what's up with using my company in this way.

Basically, I signed a letter of intent, as Sugico Mok Energy, back in 2006 with Merukh Enterprises, owner of these fields, to make use of them as solar collector sites, to reclaim them along lines described here.

www.scribd.com...

I was selling oil futures on the Singapore exchange to fund a $16 billion project to make 600,000 barrels per day of crude oil from sunlight rainfall and coal waste at $8.57 per barrel. ASTM changed the rules for testing crude oil that the futures markets used world wide to independently determine merchantability. They excluded coal derived liquids from testing! This derailed the deal since there was no accepted test. However, Merukh and Sugico in Sumatra, still used my plans to convert coal fields into solar collector sites as a way to reclaim old surface mines. I gave them that for their support through this process.

I'm still sitting on the rights, waiting for the markets to accept coal derived liquids again, so I can move forward with 100 GW per year solar panel plant;

www.scribd.com...

I did the Indonesian deal after an attempt to do a similar deal in the USA in 2004 was derailed by - guess who? ExxonMobil!

www.scribd.com...

Fact is, I'm a competitor of ExxonMobil and a real threat since making more oil from coal than conventional oil is left in the world at $8.57 per barrel would bankrupt ExxonMobil immediately because their cost of production is $70 per barrel and going up!

Damn! I just looked, Dr. Merukh died in 2011.

www.thejakartapost.com...

Yet is still listed as chairman of his company in 2014!!

investing.businessweek.com...

So, that's sad and weird. But par for the course in Indonesia, where anything goes!

I'll have to talk to Gustaff, his son about all of this. I'm certain he's still in control of the land and this will come as a surprise to him. haha - if not, it won't come as a surprise that Coal Bed Methane was not part of the deal - so, again, thank you for this bit of sleuthing!

BloodBrother wrote: "Posted by someone connected to the oil industry who is creating controversy and doubt so that the evidence is ignored and overlooked."

I guess I don't understand how you get that out of me saying, "So, after looking at Judy's videos, which I recommend, I started wondering how 'they' coulda done it?"

My only connection with the oil industry is to put them out of business by making oil so cheap, their reserves are worthless.

I also said several times in my post, I'm not anti-free energy by any means. I am merely thinking about how it might be done without free energy, since I know more about nano-bots than free energy. Though I am aware of my friend Robert Forward's 1984 paper in Nature about tapping zero point energy - which has a lot of similarities to some stated free energy devices. I'm not saying this can work, I haven't done my homework on that. I'm only saying that there's more thing in heaven and Earth than dreamed of in physics class.

BloodBrother wrote: "In the development of these blocks, ExxonMobil works with Sugico Mok Energy Corp., which owns 51 percent stake in the working areas."

And provides this link:

www.naturalgasasia.com...

Well Sugico does have rights over these areas - as solar collector sites - if they are to be developed as coal bed methane, I would have to approve it.

Alright, Merukh, in my name, has sold 'exploration blocks'. Had they wanted to develop those blocks, they would have gotten serious money, and a deal, which they now claim they would have approached me about.

hmm..

As the article says, "Indonesia needs investment of $505 million to build CBM production facilities up to 2014." Well, they haven't gotten a dime afaict, since they're not developing anything on those sites.

The article also says, "The government is targeting CBM production to reach a minimum of 500 MMSCFD in 2015, the report said."

Well, sure, they're targeting that, but they're not putting in money, and neither is ExxonMobil afaict.

haha... I will tell you, if I were do a coal bed methane project across thousands of hectares in Borneo, I wouldn't be worrying about nanobots and dustification. I'm just saying. I have spare time because I'm doing substantially smaller projects these days - and have awakened to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job - and wanted to share my thoughts on the subject.

Actually, I've posted more about UFOs recently than this.

I need to talk to Gustaff to see how much money they got for the exploration rights... they might have written me, my address has changed since Sugico Mok was filed in Ohio in 2008.

That filing will expire this month. So that's interesting this came up now.

If you check the records in Ohio, the company hasn't filed any tax returns since it has been inactive following the ASTM ruling in 2006.

BloodBrother asks, "Why didn't you post Dr. Wood’s "violently worded abusive" reply to your email Mr. Mook?"

Because I felt it wouldn't benefit anyone and I was uncomfortable doing that. Besides, I wanted to discuss with someone the idea that self-replicating goo might have been weaponized for this purpose. Not bring up personal #. She said horrific things about me in very violent prose, and that didn't reflect well on her or me. Quite literally, I said thank you for the work you do. That was it. I included a copy of an e-mail I sent to a friend analyzing her video as an attachment.

In this venue I did however, want to explore this possibility of self-replicating nanobots as a possible method of 'dustification'.

I have said, and will continue to say, that Ms. Wood is spot on in her conclusion that a 'cold' directed energy weapon was used. No matter how it was done. Records show only 84% of the steel was recovered, and less than 20% of the concrete afaict, though I'm still toting up trucks of trash recovered.

It seems something was operating that caused that stuff to 'dustify'. The only reason I'm not talking about free energy devices and methods of reducing the energy requirement involving free energy is that I know nothing about that stuff. So, I'll leave it to others that do.

That doesn't preclude me from talking about the stuff I do know about.

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions could cause things to fall apart. Nanobots could use Low Energy Nuclear Reactions perhaps. However, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions will not cause a lightweight aluminium airliner to cut through steel cladding on the side of a skyscraper forming a perfect silhouette on the side of the building, even the wingtips cut through several inches of steel! Ms. Wood points this out in her talk and then asks, there are people standing around the opening, where's the plane? Nanobots ate it I figure!
The only reason



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: downunderET

Fascinating how many equate the term debunk with false or not true.


Yawns.....





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join