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.

 

9/11 Judy Wood Lecture explaining the Facts about WHAT happened

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

hellobruce

leostokes
You did not watch the video, did you?


Yes - it has been posted here before, and laughed at by everyone, even truthers know it is a stupid conspiracy theory, as silly as the holographic plane theory!


You have some boldness to reply without looking at the evidence, don't you?




posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

leostokes
You have some boldness to reply without looking at the evidence, don't you?


What evidence? Judy Wood has been going on about beam weapons on 9/11 for at least 7 years, even truther groups have discounted her claims, and they will believe almost any silly claim about 9/11!



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


I know enough about energy beams to know that energy absorption of materials means that the effects will be shown on the top most layers first, which the buildings did not show, or the top would have crumpled before the lower half.

The buildings did come down pretty smoothly with the top intact, how could a beam of energy/light/whatever focus at the middle (and different heights to the other buildings that fell).



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

hellobruce

leostokes
You have some boldness to reply without looking at the evidence, don't you?


What evidence? Judy Wood has been going on about beam weapons on 9/11 for at least 7 years, even truther groups have discounted her claims, and they will believe almost any silly claim about 9/11!


What evidence??? It is the video in the OP. I am not going to reply to you until you state that you watched the video.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

leostokes
What evidence??? It is the video in the OP.


Oh dear, you are one of those...."I saw it on youtube so it must be true"!

Where is her peer reviewed paper on her claims......
edit on 26-11-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Biigs
reply to post by leostokes
 


I know enough about energy beams to know that energy absorption of materials means that the effects will be shown on the top most layers first, which the buildings did not show, or the top would have crumpled before the lower half.

The buildings did come down pretty smoothly with the top intact, how could a beam of energy/light/whatever focus at the middle (and different heights to the other buildings that fell).


How am I suppose to know?



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   

hellobruce

leostokes
What evidence??? It is the video in the OP.


Oh dear, you are one of those...."I saw it on youtube so it must be true"!

Where is here peer reviewed paper on her claims......


Not only that, he's a "thousand tasks of Hercules" truther. You MUST watch/rewatch an entire hour of Judy giving a death by slides or you cannot post!

Nope, my friend, I've spent all the time I'm going to spend watching Judy. I watched a similar video of her blathering about energy beams back when she first came out with her "theory".

But I'll trade you. If YOU will watch two hours of Feynman's Lectures, I can probably find two on materials, then I'll watch Judy's latest stupid energy beam hokum. There will be questions, though, and if you don't watch each and every minute with some effort to understand, I will be able to tell it.

edit on 26-11-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   

leostokes

How am I suppose to know?



If it makes no sense, it's probably nonsense.

Where is all the monatomic iron? It just doesn't go away, you know.

Ok. Just to cut all this short, your conjecture is that some death beam (is it still from satellites, or did she change that?) "dustified" the steel in the building by breaking all the intermolecular bonds, right? Isn't that still the core of her theory? Leaving iron suspended in the air that's only a few molecules at most. Or we'd have found tons of iron filings all over the area.

Right? You go for that? DId I summarize her latest screed correctly at the bone?
edit on 26-11-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Your supposed to know somthing before imagining some theory and expressing it with videos everyone seen a billion times.

I say it was magical fairies, too small to be seen with the naked eye, like nanobots, that sawrmed the buildings and ate out the steel days before the planes to weaken the structure and make them fall. my evidence you ask? WATCH THE VIDEOS MAN ITS SO OBVIOUS.

Thats how crazy you sound.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Bedlam
If YOU will watch two hours of Feinman's Lectures,


You will learn a lot and be entertained as well!



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Bedlam

hellobruce

leostokes
What evidence??? It is the video in the OP.


Oh dear, you are one of those...."I saw it on youtube so it must be true"!

Where is here peer reviewed paper on her claims......


Not only that, he's a "thousand tasks of Hercules" truther. You MUST watch/rewatch an entire hour of Judy giving a death by slides or you cannot post!

Nope, my friend, I've spent all the time I'm going to spend watching Judy. I watched a similar video of her blathering about energy beams back when she first came out with her "theory".

But I'll trade you. If YOU will watch two hours of Feinman's Lectures, I can probably find two on materials, then I'll watch Judy's latest stupid energy beam hokum. There will be questions, though, and if you don't watch each and every minute with some effort to understand, I will be able to tell it.

How do you get an hour out of 52:10-52:22? I will no longer reply to your posts.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Biigs
reply to post by leostokes
 


Your supposed to know somthing before imagining some theory and expressing it with videos everyone seen a billion times.

I say it was magical fairies, too small to be seen with the naked eye, like nanobots, that sawrmed the buildings and ate out the steel days before the planes to weaken the structure and make them fall. my evidence you ask? WATCH THE VIDEOS MAN ITS SO OBVIOUS.

Thats how crazy you sound.


The only thing I know is what I see in the video. That seems to be more than you know. I will not reply to your posts.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

leostokes

How do you get an hour out of 52:10-52:22? I will no longer reply to your posts.


You said we had to watch the entire video. "DId you watch the whole video? Did you watch the video?"

But, let's cut to the chase. I'll ask again, because this is one of those final, decisive points.

Do you agree that Judy's theory involves turning the steel beams of the building into extremely fine dust, I believe she states outright that it breaks the intermolecular bonds, which would result in monatomic iron. Do you agree with this, yes or no?

edit on 26-11-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Fully agree with this, provide some sort of rational reason for your claims.

TONNES of molten steel was recuperated from the wreckage and sold off shortly after the incident. You cant scoop up "steel dust" because there is no such thing.

also "not responding to your posts" is the mark of a person who is just making up stuff and doesnt want to discuss obviousl flaws because [you] they know better, aka its all bullcrap.
edit on 26-11-2013 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Hey, Leo -

You don't even have to posit a mechanism. I'm asking you - does she or does she not say that her putative energy beams are causing the steel to break down at a molecular level? And do you embrace that? Is that an explanation you'd like to own? That the steel in the buildings is being transformed, through means unspecified, into either monatomic or near monatomic iron?

You know she does, I just want to hear you claim it to be your belief before we proceed to the OMG/face plant/failwhale dismissal part of the thread.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Ok.

Here's the quietus to Judy. And it's amazing to me that no-one's poked it in her eye before, I've ignored her for seven years but it was obvious then.

If you "dustify" steel by dissolving the beams with some sort of snark or Slaver digging tool that breaks intermolecular bonds (no doubt the source of her theory, but I digress), you don't just get beams turning to dust.

You get an explosion.

Nanoparticulate iron is explosive. It's aggressively pyrophoric. Had the steel beams turned to single molecules, hell, even small clumps of a few dozen molecules, it will # explode in a very impressive full on military fashion. If the clumps are bigger, you get purple blue fire raining all over Manhattan. You just can't "dustify" iron or aluminum and watch it rain down as white dust. It goes boom, if small enough, flash if larger, or it turns into extremely obvious unconcealable iron filings if larger still. It doesn't turn into something you'd mistake for concrete dust.

My Youtube contribution:


edit on 26-11-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
The video is faked and features the same or similar software
that was used in the movie independence day.



Judy wood is a gatekeeper/disinformation agent.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


There is no proof of free energy here what so ever.

The scenario was not monitored effectively enough to prove such a thing, since it would be necessary to examine the incident under laboratory conditions, and using several different types of equipment, in order to confirm exactly what process was at work.

In short, this was an incident, not an experiment of any sort I ever heard of, and until repeated experiments on any one of the myriad claims of free energy machines, beams, sources and methods confirm such a thing, it is the logical position to remain skeptical of any such claim, especially one which revolves around one of the most devastating incidents to befall the United States of America, no matter who one thinks is to blame for that incident.

Frankly, I find the suggestion a little crass, and the title of the OP a little dishonest.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I believe OP should be warned or banned.

idiotic thread title. Arrogant stupid logic. And a lie to boot.

It's running rampant these days. Some goober on youtube makes a claim. Comets the size of galaxies and nasa lies. Shut up you nasa employees who do not believe me and the expert on youtube...

Now Free Energy. Just watch it in action.. as I make up lies to show my stupidity.

And people wonder why I go nuts half the time. Is there any sanity left?


Go back to youtube and prove it to other youtubeans. they like it.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


I would like to take the opportunity to second your comments winofiend, and to reassure you that you are not the only one who is driven to excesses of rage by this sort of nincompoopery.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join