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

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   

All Seeing Eye



There were over 1400 melted vehicles around the area of the twin towers. Many of them were missing engine blocks, melted tires and interiors, door handles and missing glass in many.


Note that she's trying to prove her death beam hypothesis, but she doesn't give you photos. I've seen photos of apparently randomly burned cars, they were the ones running when the dust came through. Even a half mile away, sucking in a metric # load of finely powdered concrete has a negative effect on a car. Cars around them that were parked were NOT burned. Buildings with steel cores around the towers did NOT collapse. Nor did it melt manhole covers. Why no melted manhole covers or storm sewer gratings around the buildings?



Also it was never explained why Tritium levels were 55 times more than normal at ground zero. And of course we have ALL the strange cancers from first responders and many of them have died. They were forced to wear "air quality" badges which Dimitri says were really just radiation detectors in disguise so they could monitor everybody's exposure and pull people out of the hot zones for a while when their badges reported higher radiation. Easy to lie to everybody and tell them the badge is to monitor air quality. That is pure garbage if you think about it. There is not going to be that much difference in "air quality around such a relatively small area anyway.


I might add, it is as easy to lie and say it's a radiation detector. Proof? Got one? No? How did "Dimitri" know?

And the tritium has been explained away a million times. But, nuker-truthers always like to ruminate about tritium. If a thermonuke had gone off, you'd have a shiny crater. You wouldn't bother making a tiny thermonuke, because it would take more primary output than you could get the yield down to. There is a minimum output level for a thermonuke. And that minimum would level the buildings in all directions.




posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 





and vehicles spontaneously igniting that were not even close to the disaster. And wait, theirs more.....


Vehicles spontaneous catching fire.....

Cars are relatively easy to set on fire

Just last weekend had 3 vehicles burned at apartment complex

somebody parked over pile of leaves Heat from catalytic converter set the leaves on fire

Fire spread from initial vehicle to others parked nearby

Same at WTC burning debris falling from buildings set cars on fire, Burning papers were blowing all around
setting more vehicles on fire

Vince Dementri - CBS 2 NY reporting on fires

www.youtube.com...

Notice burning debris falling from WTC 7 and fires in the street



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

tothetenthpower


Carry On.

~Tenth


Ha! Glad you pointed out the forum change, I thought it was still in S&T



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Personally, I think Dr Judy Woods has a lot of pluck and a lot of good, rational, solid, simple points well explained.

I think she does a good job of letting the evidence speak for itself vs even her own interpretations.

It's shocking to see how such threads bring out the raging brazen biases and the terminal 'stupid' in perspectives.

Sigh.

Thanks for your courage in posting this.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
First and foremost, Judy Wood is a charlatan and a fraud. Her "work" has been sufficiently and exhaustively debunked ad-nauseum over the past decade.

Many papers and articles can be found around the internet easily debunking her claims, but I've included several in my thread:

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



On a final note, Judy was interviewed by a real physicist, Dr. Greg Jenkins, who destroyed her claims. In the interview, Judy can't even cite her own calculations, evidence, or anything at all. That means it's not her work:



How anyone can actually sit with a straight face and claim they accept her work and her "evidence", or even believe anything she has to say after watching the above video, is beyond my comprehension.

She's a fraud and a disgrace to the title of "Dr.", and the three letters after her name: Ph.D.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
THREAD CLOSED

The new rules for the 9/11 Conspiracies Forum are clear, and based on your prior efforts of contributing value to ATS.


(1) To Create New Threads:

Your WATS score (the blue W in your mini profile) must be 10 or better. And you must have been an ATS member for at least 30 days.


(2) To Reply To Existing Threads:

Your WATS score must be at least 1.0 and you must have been an ATS member for at least 48 hours.

All Members: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Update and Information

edit on Wed Nov 27 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join