The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

CB_Brooklyn

Diogenes wrote:

Oh no, I do get what she's doing, or trying to do.

So Judy, what exactly powers a "Directed Energy Weapon?"

Answer; Dunno.

Where was this weapon?

Answer; Dunno.

How could such immense energy be focused so that it dissolve steel, but not boil the organs of those around the building?

Answer. Dunno, but it Alka Seltzered the steel.

It what?

How does it work?

Answer; Dustification of the steel.

THAT'S NOT EVEN A WORD!

The woman is 24 carat of crazy and it's worth pointing out that the supporting paper by "Ace Baker" is a musician and conspiracy nut, who doesn't believe planes hit the building at all.

The only nut that exists are loudmouths like you who refuse to look at the information and must therefore spew out the junk as seen in the above quote.

CB_Brooklyn

humanji wrote:

Nothing in my comments was meant to, other than to say that she is incredibly biased, so that she is hardly going to be objective, is she?

When an objective observer of this "debate" comes along and offers unbiased information on the events, then I'll take notice. But if the best "truthers" can come up with is people who, for reasons known only to themselves, go out of their way to sound like they're making things up (even if they're not), then can you really be surprised if their arguments aren't taken seriously?

Biased? Exactly how is she biased? I don't see her as being biased in any way, especially since all she wants if for people to look at the data.

bonkey

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

Just because you don't have the ability to understand her new paper does not make it nonsense. Fact is it's her best work yet

Ah...so you clearly do have the ability to understand her new paper then. Good...we'll come back to this shortly.

So I take it you're saying you believe that a space-orbiting beam weapon was used to destroy the buildings - this being the real truth* that Wood is claiming?

Would you care to make the case yourself...given (I said I'd come back to this) that you understand it and all.

Would you care to comment, for example, on her "billiard ball" example? Do you believe that had a beam-weapon not been used that the building would have taken some 90 seconds to collapse, as per her maths?

Would those same maths apply if, for example, we cut the ground-level supports on a multi-storey building?

If you believe they wouldn't apply, can you explain why it would be different?

If you believe they would apply, can you explain why video footage of conventional demolition jobs on multi-storey buildings contradict these maths?

If you don't know whether they would apply or not, can you clarify the basis by which you can suggest you understand her work?

Incidentally...It being her best work is not a terribly useful qualification, unless you'd like to pass comment on the rest of her work given that this is what you're comparing it to.

all she wants if for people to look at the data

I disagree. I'm pretty sure that I can find at least one comment by her which suggests she is trying to assert that the official clarification of the events of the day is false. Indeed, I believe I can state with authority that this is exactly what her billiard ball example is attempting to do.

That's not asking me to look at the data. Thats asking me to believe her interpretation of it.

jc

dan_y

I think the reason the buildings collapsed so quickly has something to do with the island from tv's lost.

Diogenes

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

The only nut that exists are loudmouths like you who refuse to look at the information and must therefore spew out the junk as seen in the above quote.

Just want to check something, do I have the pleasure of speaking to the Ace Baker?

humanji

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

Biased? Exactly how is she biased? I don't see her as being biased in any way, especially since all she wants if for people to look at the data.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html

From the foreward:

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
- George W. Bush, November 10, 2001, Bush's address to the UN

Translation: The truth is pretty outrageous! And, exposing this outrageous truth will implicate the true terrorists, those who are guilty

If she's making an unbiased, scientific report on the event, why does she need to misrepresent what Bush said? It's not a very good start. The whole thing just seems like crazy talk. Some of the physics she talks about don't seem to make sense, and I'm no where near qualified to talk about physics, but even I can tell she's talking bull.

Even looking at some of the examples on that site just makes me laugh. Like the way she draws attention to "fuzzballs" which is basically the dust people kicked up as they walked through the dust covered streets. What's so important about that?

She's reaching, even more so than most people with theories on this.

CB_Brooklyn

humanji wrote:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html

From the foreward:


If she's making an unbiased, scientific report on the event, why does she need to misrepresent what Bush said? It's not a very good start. The whole thing just seems like crazy talk. Some of the physics she talks about don't seem to make sense, and I'm no where near qualified to talk about physics, but even I can tell she's talking bull.

Even looking at some of the examples on that site just makes me laugh. Like the way she draws attention to "fuzzballs" which is basically the dust people kicked up as they walked through the dust covered streets. What's so important about that?

She's reaching, even more so than most people with theories on this.

I don't see how her comment of Bush makes her biased. She has never said that Bush orchestrated 9/11.


Take a look through the pictures in her Star Wars Beam Weapon paper. In particular, check the round cylindrical holes in WTC 5 and the toasted cars. Only directed energy can explain those !!

CB_Brooklyn

See bottom of post for important links
========================================


It's an Urban Myth that the Twin Towers Collapsed.


The Twin Towers Did Not Collapse,
They Were Pulverized Into Dust.


Look at the following photos:

Where's the hundreds of tons of steel beams? Each tower was a 1/4 mile tall!

On top of that, where's the thousands of desks, chairs, bookcases,
computers, xerox machines, water coolers, filing cabinets, doors, sinks, toilets, etc?

source: http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/HTRHome.html


BEFORE:


AFTER:



========================================


On the afternoon of 9/11/01 the "rubble pile" left from WTC1 is essentially non-existent.

WTC7 can be seen in the distance, revealing the photo was taken before 5:20 PM that day.




========================================



These documentary excerpts reveal only one filing cabinet to have been found.
No doors, no phones, no computers, and no doorknobs:


http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm

http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/doorknob.htm



========================================


The material did not break through the subbasements:


No debris in subbasements:

Source: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

PATH train was not crushed:



Mall (1st subbasement) not crushed (photos filed 9/19/01):
Original High Resolution: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image311.jpg



Original High Resolution: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image312.jpg



Empty hole in subbasement under WTC 2 (photo filed 9/18/01):
Original High Resolution: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image300.jpg



========================================

The material did not spread out over the surrounding area:


Mostly unburned paper mixes with the top half of the Twin Towers. As seen a block away, a large portion of the towers remains suspended in air. This dust looks deeper than one inch. Most of the curb looks filled in.



========================================


Examine the following three pictures.

Notice any similar characteristics?


Mount Saint Helens - Erupting Volcano - Massive Energy Release:




Nevada Desert - Nuclear Blast - Massive Energy Release:

Original High Resolution: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/26_nuke1.jpg



WTC - Massive Energy Release:




========================================



The disintegration of the steel core caught on film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQ



========================================


WTC 3: Huge gash. Building material "missing"




========================================



WTC 4: Clean vertical cut on the north wing.
Building material on other side of cut "missing"

Original High Resolution: http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image194.jpg



Yellow box below locates north wing of WTC 4. As can be seen, the wing was “cut” in line with the north face of WTC 2:

Original:
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image271.gif



========================================



WTC 5 / WTC 6: Round Cylindrical Holes. Building material "missing".
Mid-section of WTC 6 "missing"

Original High Resolution: http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image140.jpg


========================================

Call Me Jimmy

Oh jesus...

jhegarty

So aliens took it or what ?


You do know the building was made out of steel and plaster board, not brick ?

CB_Brooklyn

What Toasted These Cars?

See here for much more: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html



Cars along FDR drive were randomly toasted. These cars are at least 1/2 mile away from the WTC.
Note the waviness of the tire tracks. What happened?





Did one car run under the other during the event or were they stacked after the event?
The marks in the pavement suggest they were pushed to the side of the road.





What was this thing across the street? Was it a car? Was it a van?
What caused that line of burn marks on the hood of the car in the foreground on the right?
In the left foreground, the remains of a vehicle sit atop a white sedan.
Are we looking at the front or the back end?
It looks like the front end and if it is, its engine is missing.
We can see daylight through the wheel well.





Why would the front of this fire truck wilt?





The front half of car 2723 is toasted, but check out the new wax job on the back.
Notice the missing front door handle and the untouched back door handle.





========================================



Does This Look Like a "Collapse"?






========================================
========================================
========================================

Dr Judy Wood, former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University, files official Request for Correction (RFC) with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) citing fraud and deception in the 9/11 NIST Report.

Dr Wood is represented by attorney Jerry Leaphart.

See her website for her paper co-written with Dr Morgan Reynolds entitled
"Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)":
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com

They show clear evidence that the World Trade Center was destroyed by a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW).

Download Dr Wood's latest radio interviews where she details her latest research:

Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/#news


"DEW Sponsors and Department of Defense Contractors":
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/DEW_Contractors.html



Read through the RFC information in the "news" section and learn that NIST contracted with Applied Research Associates (ARA) for the 9/11 NIST report.

Not only is ARA a manufacturer of directed-energy weapon technology, but are also a founding sponsor of Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

DEPS, founded in 1999, put out their first newsletter one year before 9/11.
An excerpt from this newsletter is as follows:

"Lasers in space, lasers in the stratosphere, lasers
on and over the battlefield - we're at the
beginning of an evolutionary new wave of
weaponry."


Videos:

Judy Wood at Cooper Union, NYC
September 10, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7643791621546831344

Judy Wood speaking at the forum 9/11 Search for Truth in Seattle
October 28, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8344867178250739868


For the Best in Uncensored 9/11 Research:
http://www.911researchers.com

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

Only directed energy can explain those !!

What type of directed energy? How does it explain it?

humanji

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

I don't see how her comment of Bush makes her biased. She has never said that Bush orchestrated 9/11.

But she is twisting his words. Actually, not even twisting, just making up stuff. It shows that she is implying a cover up, and that Bush is involved.

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

Take a look through the pictures in her Star Wars Beam Weapon paper. In particular, check the round cylindrical holes in WTC 5 and the toasted cars. Only directed energy can explain those !!

No, gravity and falling debris would explain those.

humanji

Also, the photos that claim to be from the afternoon of 9/11 are certainly not from then. They're from days later. You can tell because a) the smoke has cleared and b) the construction crews have moved in to clear the rubble.

Ciaran500

Can we just delete this since its just been copy and pasted and CB seems to have no interest in discussing it in here.

Nick_oliveri

humanji wrote:

No, gravity and falling debris would explain those.

This external thread would probably show the "toasted cars" he was talking about.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread279884/pg1

That forum is teh funny.

Threads with titles like.... "Hoax? Subliminal Red Flashes in all of the 9/11 News Broadcasts"!

So Glad

Ugh, this has been discussed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, always ends up same conclusions, whatever you want it to be.

Diogenes

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

Biased? Exactly how is she biased? I don't see her as being biased in any way, especially since all she wants if for people to look at the data.

Hey Cb simple yes or no are you Ace Baker?

Ciaran500

Nick_oliveri wrote:

This external thread would probably show the "toasted cars" he was talking about.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread279884/pg1

That forum is teh funny.

Threads with titles like.... "Hoax? Subliminal Red Flashes in all of the 9/11 News Broadcasts"!

LOL

that forum wrote:

Now Since you think the government had nothing to do with 9/11 Explain to me how all those cars could have possibly burned like that when they were 2 blocks away from the incident..

Burnt cars = government did it

Diogenes

Ciaran500 wrote:

Can we just delete this since its just been copy and pasted and CB seems to have no interest in discussing it in here.

I believe we are in the presence of none other than "Ace Baker" a musician and a "no planer".

Yes thats right Ace believes no planes hit the WTC. He got his ass handed to him on the JREF forum, and now has come here to spread the "truth". He's frankly madder than a bag of squirrels.

mike65

Has anyone hit the report post button? Okay I will.

Mike.

CB_Brooklyn

mike65 wrote:

Has anyone hit the report post button? Okay I will.

Mike.

I was going to address each and every question/comment but since this thread will be deleted I won't waste my time.

Ciaran500

Convienent


The reason it would be deleted is because there is no discussion in here, add some and it should stay.

CB_Brooklyn

Ciaran500 wrote:

Convienent


The reason it would be deleted is because there is no discussion in here, add some and it should stay.

okay...gimme a little time to reply

CB_Brooklyn

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

We went with the available evidence. Dr Judy Wood's evidence is new! But Wood does not use the term "vaporize", instead she says "dustify". Watch the film Race To Zero Point on Google and you'll see that this technology does exist.

How do you know it wasn't used at the Pentagon? It might have been... In Drs Wood/Reynolds' Star Wars Beam Weapons paper is a picture of a car fire at the Pentagon with similar characteristics as in the WTC toasted cars photo collection.

There's nothing "magical" about these weapons. They do exist. See here:

Evidence for Existence of Directed Energy Weapons
http://www.911researchers.com/node/25

The 9/11 StarWars ExoW CoverUp: Why NASA and NGA was part of the Perp System
(See the main post and the comments)
http://www.911researchers.com/node/403

Directed Energy Weapon Sponsors and Department of Defense Contractors
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/DEW_Contractors.html

humanji wrote:

Also, the photos that claim to be from the afternoon of 9/11 are certainly not from then. They're from days later. You can tell because a) the smoke has cleared and b) the construction crews have moved in to clear the rubble.

WTC 7 is seen standing which means that photo was shot before 5:20PM ET on 9/11/01.

Diogenes wrote:

I believe we are in the presence of none other than "Ace Baker" a musician and a "no planer".

Yes thats right Ace believes no planes hit the WTC. He got his ass handed to him on the JREF forum, and now has come here to spread the "truth". He's frankly madder than a bag of squirrels.

No, I am not Ace Baker, although I do agree with his conclusions.

TV-Fakery on 9/11 has already been conclusively proven and is only not believed by the most brainwashed of the Truth Movement.

These Videos of REAL Plane Crashes Explain 9/11 TV-Fakery Very Clearly
http://www.911researchers.com/node/98


911 Octopus 8: Media Perps Unmasked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_ySSJ_L6Zs


CNN Cartoon - 19 Rector Street building should NOT be there:

http://www.911researchers.com/node/389


The Frozen Fireball


http://www.911researchers.com/node/483


Half in, half out. No break in building between engines and fuselage.



Technology Review Magazine Discusses How the Military and TV Networks Can Use TV-Fakery To Alter World Politics:

http://www.911researchers.com/node/174

billy the squid

CB Brooklyn

Keep your comments to the dedicated 9-11 thread

and do NOT use big massive red letters to make a point, they make your message look like spam and if I se it again, I will deal with it as spem.

thanks.

This will be merged with the 9-11 thread in a moment.

oscarBravo

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

Half in, half out. No break in building between engines and fuselage.

This is just a completely silly point. The engines on a 767 protrude well forward of the wings. If we can still see the engines in this frame it's because the wings haven't hit the building yet - so why would there be a break in the building between the engines and the fuselage?

oscarBravo

CB_Brooklyn wrote:

The Frozen Fireball

Two things: first, assuming an original framerate of 30fps (actually 29.97 for NTSC), the eleven frames shown here have a realtime duration of a little under half a second. A 200 foot wide fireball won't change its shape or size too dramatically in less than half a second, especially (as is the case here) when it is captured at the peak of its expansion, just before it starts to dissipate.

Second, if you watch closely you can see that the fireball is actually changing (billowing is the term I'd use) from frame to frame.

Flyingfish

This is worth a quick view, highlights some of the problems with the exclusive footage as aired on CNN.
CNN Fake Footage: More Proof for the Hard Headed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hwdJTOdEmY