Why are AE911Truth & Wikipedia Censoring Information about Dr. Judy Wood?

originally posted by: epowell
Take a peak at this video at 6:15 - Notice what happens to the steel columns...

As expected, they fell down in the collapsing building.

When dust disintegrates to smaller and smaller nano-sizes, it generally floats UPWARDS into the atmosphere...

What do you think iron particles that size does in the atmosphere?

Yes he did say that... watch this whole video OR just nip in at 0:20 and again at 1:00.
www.youtube.com...

How about you actually listen to it, as if you had bothered to listen you would know he never said any money was missing!

You seem to just believe any silly conspiracy site, like Judy Wood's, without actually doing any research yourself!

So please show a timeline for 9/11.

Did the thermite go off before or after the mini nuke? Did the beam weapons go off before of after the explosives?

Or did the thermite get ignited from the missiles launched by the holographic planes, which set off the explosives which detonated the mini nuclear weapon which powered the beam weapon from space which destroyed the building?

a reply to: hellobruce

HelloBruce is attempting the classic debating technique used by those who don't have truthful facts to dispute valid observations presented to them > this technique involves (aside from mockery and sarcasm) primarily the attempt to SHIFT the focus of the discussion AWAY FROM THE EVIDENCE.

HelloBruce, I am happy to engage you in debate, buy many posts ago I presented 3 POINTS. The reason being that it is first essential to determine accurately WHAT the crime was... then we can discuss the WHY, HOW, WHO... etc. > so in case you missed it, I will right here re-post those 3 basic points, and ask you to STAY ON TOPIC AND PROVIDE ANSWERS TO THESE THREE QUESTIONS (no distractions, no attempting to divert the discussion elsewhere - just stick to these three points, then we can move on... READ CAREFULLY:

"So let's take 3 core pieces of evidence and see if some doubters can refute:

POINT 1) If the towers ( WTC 1 and 2) were "brought down" by bombs or planes then the entire weight of the buildings 500,000TONS EACH would have come crashing down in less than 12 seconds.

TRUE or FALSE?

2) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then there should have been a corresponding seismic signal.

TRUE or FALSE?

3) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then there should have been a rubble pile higher than 1 or 2 floors tall.

TRUE or FALSE?

4) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then the "Bathtub" (retaining wall holding back the Hudson River) would have surely been damaged and NYC would have been flooded.

TRUE or FALSE?"

originally posted by: epowell
a reply to: hellobruce

HelloBruce is attempting the classic debating technique used by those who don't have truthful facts to dispute valid observations presented to them > this technique involves (aside from mockery and sarcasm) primarily the attempt to SHIFT the focus of the discussion AWAY FROM THE EVIDENCE.

HelloBruce, I am happy to engage you in debate, buy many posts ago I presented 3 POINTS. The reason being that it is first essential to determine accurately WHAT the crime was... then we can discuss the WHY, HOW, WHO... etc. > so in case you missed it, I will right here re-post those 3 basic points, and ask you to STAY ON TOPIC AND PROVIDE ANSWERS TO THESE THREE QUESTIONS (no distractions, no attempting to divert the discussion elsewhere - just stick to these three points, then we can move on... READ CAREFULLY:

"So let's take 3 core pieces of evidence and see if some doubters can refute:

POINT 1) If the towers ( WTC 1 and 2) were "brought down" by bombs or planes then the entire weight of the buildings 500,000TONS EACH would have come crashing down in less than 12 seconds.

TRUE or FALSE?

2) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then there should have been a corresponding seismic signal.

TRUE or FALSE?

3) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then there should have been a rubble pile higher than 1 or 2 floors tall.

TRUE or FALSE?

4) Assuming POINT 1 is true, then the "Bathtub" (retaining wall holding back the Hudson River) would have surely been damaged and NYC would have been flooded.

TRUE or FALSE?"

What core pieces of "evidence?"

1. Why pick 12 seconds? The time to collapse is not fixed by any method.
2. There will be seismic signals of some amplitude regardless of the mechanism of collapse.
3. Height of the rubble pile depends on too many variables to pick a magic number.
4. How is the integrity of the bathtub related to the mechanism of collapse?

originally posted by: epowell
the attempt to SHIFT the focus of the discussion AWAY FROM THE EVIDENCE.

I pointed out you have no evidence, just silly made up stories.

HelloBruce, I am happy to engage you in debate,

Then how about stop posting silly made up stories then?

POINT 1) If the towers ( WTC 1 and 2) were "brought down" by bombs or planes then the entire weight of the buildings 500,000TONS EACH would have come crashing down in less than 12 seconds.

Please show us the maths backing up that claim first.

then there should have been a corresponding seismic signal.

Received where and by whom exactly? Please tell us exactly how large this signal was, and how large it should have been. Please show us the physics and maths behind your figures.

then there should have been a rubble pile higher than 1 or 2 floors tall.

Please tell us exactly how high the pile of rubble was.... and how high it should have been, according to you. Please detail how you worked out the height it "should have been"

then the "Bathtub" (retaining wall holding back the Hudson River) would have surely been damaged

It was.... please detail how much you think it should have been damaged, remember to detail how you worked that damage out.

You really are not making much sense.

Friendly Reminder:

"Gatekeeping" or trying to control the discussion of a thread is not allowed.

Flooding a thread with the same post over and over is not allowed.


Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: epowell
a reply to: Bedlam

Bedlam... all due respect to you, but I can see that perhaps you are a little bit confused.

Confuse this - what happens to molecular iron in air? Simple, straightforward. Do you know?

As to the post you keep repeating like a mantra - WHY would the building have to fall in exactly 12 seconds?

Have you never seen a structure be critically damaged and not fall immediately? I have. Let's start there. Why exactly 12 seconds? Show the math.

OK, guys, so I am not going to keep banging these 3 questions over your heads... the answers are totally obvious and any thinking person can easily agree:

The answers to these questions (you all know them by now, if not look at the previous few posts) - prove without question that neither Thermite, Bombs, nor Jet Fuel could have "taken down" the towers... WHY, ---
Because: if that were the case then,
1) the seismic signal would have been at least 5.5X stronger that it was -
2) the rubble pile would have been MANY TIMES HIGHER
3) NYC would have flooded due to a cracked bathtub.

These 3 points are SO CLEAR, SO SIMPLE, SO OBVIOUS that I think that the honest/intelligent people on this forum are by now completely BORED with all these attempts to DISTRACT from these hard cold realities.

SO LET'S MOVE ON (and leave some of you behind, if you are not able to keep up... LOL)

Now we can easily see that Jet Fuel, nor thermite, nor bombs could have caused the buildings to go away.....
.... SO WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO THEM????????? ANYONE GOT ANY ANSWERS?????

EDIT: message for Samkent, HelloBruce, and Bedlam... If you guys want to reply to my posts in future, of course that is your right, but just to let you know > I won't be reading them anymore.

a reply to: epowell

Because: if that were the case then,
1) the seismic signal would have been at least 5.5X stronger that it was -
2) the rubble pile would have been MANY TIMES HIGHER
3) NYC would have flooded due to a cracked bathtub.

What qualifications do you have to make these statements?

1. Why aren't professional seismologists agreeing with you ?
Are they in on it too ?

2. WTC had at least 6 floors below ground. Is that high enough for you?

3. The bathtub was damaged to a slight extent.
But your assumption that NYC would have flooded is silly.
Proof: NYC averages 33 feet above sea level.

You should really look beyond conspiracy websites for your info.

Attention!

Everyone needs to stay on the topic of the OP.

Talking about each other is ALWAYS considered off topic.

Discuss the OP.

NOT each other.

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: epowell

And the petard with which all the death beamers are hoist - what happens to molecular iron in air? Or even small molecular aggregates?

I'll give you a hint - iron is pyrophoric.

no significant seismic signal
no significant rubble pile
no cracked bathtub

= 'collapse' was not caused by:
bombs - thermite -jet fuel

you can research yourself to confirm these things

- - -

time to move on in this discussion or do we allow trolls to bore us to death and kill this forum?

WHAT THEN, COULD HAVE CAUSED THE BUILDINGS TO COLLAPSE AND NOT:
1) SHAKE THE EARTH SIGNIFICANTLY
2) LEAVE ALMOST NO DEBRIS BEHIND
???

a reply to: epowell

WHAT THEN, COULD HAVE CAUSED THE BUILDINGS TO COLLAPSE AND NOT:
1) SHAKE THE EARTH SIGNIFICANTLY
2) LEAVE ALMOST NO DEBRIS BEHIND
???

1. Unless you are a seismologist that is an assumption on your part.
2. See below.

The [May 30th 2002] ceremony marked the end of cleanup efforts after eight months and 108,342 truckloads of debris.

1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed

35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero)

Did you believe it turned to dust and blew away?

Over 55,000 discrete pieces of evidence had been recovered

time to move on in this discussion or do we allow trolls to bore us to death and kill this forum?

I've seen it before.
Just because you cannot support your viewpoint with sustainable proof, others become trolls.
There are many of us here to answer your questions concerning 911.
You have to decide where the truth is.

Consider this:
Almost 60,000 people were involved in the;
Clean up
Debris sifting
Evidence collection

Those 60,000 have spouses too.
Couples get divorced. Divorce gets nasty.
How many have said something is amiss?

The President supports a simple DNC office break in and the world finds out.
The President gets a BJ in the oval office and the world finds out.
The head of the CIA can't keep his affair secret.
Yet out of the 100,000+ people surrounding 911 not one word of conspiracy.

1) no earth shattering kaboom

In order to vaporize that much steel in a few seconds (let's say 3, for the sake of argument) so much energy would have had to have been poured into the building that the air would have "violently expanded" - we call that an explosion. Also, that much heat energy would also have flash fried everyone downtown as you've got this pesky thing wherein hot objects radiate their heat away as the fourth power of the temperature difference. Yet, people were left alive in and near the building.

So, no direct heating of the iron/steel to cause vaporization occurred.

2) No giant mushroom cloud/fireball/dead people everywhere

If you postulate "dustification" of the steel (and not other substances, go figure) it also has to not kill people nearby AND get past the sad sad consequence of iron's pyrophoria. And that's this - you would have had a massive explosion, a fireball, and all the oxygen in the area would have gone bye bye. Because iron's pyrophoric, in a big way. If you prepare a few grams of molecular iron and dump it into the air, you get a foof and a purplish fireball. Because that iron has a huge surface area to volume, being molecular, and it really REALLY wants all the oxygen nearby. And it literally burns. Millions of tons of molecular iron would have made a really nice substitute for a thermobaric weapon. And everyone nearby again would have been cooked that weren't suffocated.

3) Energy weapons with big effects typically have big side effects

You wouldn't, at first glance, expect to be able to dustify a building in a handful of seconds and, you know, not kill everyone nearby with the stray radiation. If you can dustify steel, why doesn't it dustify people, too? Enough special qualifiers for your magic dust beam and it starts smacking of magic.

4) No iron filings everywhere

It's not just going to go away for you. Either it's going to go up in a huge multimegaton smoky purplish foof due to pyrophoria, or it's going to turn everyone to barbeque by infrared radiation, or it's going to leave 1.5 megatons of steel filings down wind. Yet, this would immediately be obvious. It wasn't.