Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Where did the towers go - directed free energy
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
tu capisci?
Evidence of energy weapon please
Some elementary questions..
1. Who designed it and when?
2. How does it function and what are details concerning its power source?
3. Which administration ordered it's use to kill Americans? which officials and departments within government were involved?
4. Where was it located during the attack? how was it hidden?
Or are you perhaps, as I suspect, just another sheeple who believes something without questioning simply because it goes against the "official story" and the person weaving the tale has a PHD?
Or perhaps you are right and there is a conspiracy of silence amongst the thousands of demolition experts all around the world who witnessed the "obvious" vaporising of a building 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
By the way, "Hot molten metal" is hearsay and is said to have been reported by first responders. Those first responders are not trained researchers in forensic engineering and science like Dr. Judy Wood is.
Is this man wading through "hot molten metal"? He doesn't look like a boiled chicken to me!!! Water boils at 212°F near sea level at normal atmospheric pressure. Since this firefighter is wading through liquid water that cannot be over 130°F (he appears to still be able to use his legs) and it certainly is not over 212°F because the surface of the water is fairly calm. Also, there are photos taken in the basement at point F, showing first responders walking through puddles.
Figure 278a is the result of handling by multiple agencies. NASA, USGS, and JPL. Did someone along the way misinterpret what was being measured? We know that the evidence proves that there was no high heat in those locations. Is it possible that the recording device they used is also sensitive to another energy field, one that is not associated with heat?
Table of Scalding Temperatures & Exposure Times that Cause Hot Water Burns
http://inspectapedia.com/plumbing/Scalding_Temperatures.htmThere is no reason to conclude any of that as it has no baring on reality.
Please provide the empirical evidence to show that a hurricane can be used as a power source for a energy weapon.
Because 1) it was not predicted to make landfall and 2) there was something of a bigger story that week.
Further you claim that the hurricane reached it's largest size on 9/11. That isn't true and is debunked by two seconds on wikipedia.
When people use dishonest tactics they are essentially admitting they cannot refute the information. What motivates someone to be this dishonest? Four days prior to 9/11 Hurricane Erin was approaching New York City. How could the events of 9/11 crowd out the news before it happened? How were meteorologists absolutely certain that hurricane Erin was not a threat putting millions of lives at risk? Even veteran hurricane sleuth Geraldo Rivera didn't know about Hurricane Erin!!!:rolleyes:
Geraldo Reflects On 40 Years In Journalism:
“If Only a Hurricane Had Come on 9/11″
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/geraldo-if-only-a-hurricane-had-come-on-911/Hurricane Erin: The Category 3 Hurricane That Should Have Prevented 9/11 From Happening
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ARDXSwbqxQEvidence of energy weapon please
Some elementary questions..
1. Who designed it and when?
2. How does it function and what are details concerning its power source?
3. Which administration ordered it's use to kill Americans? which officials and departments within government were involved?
4. Where was it located during the attack? how was it hidden?
Or are you perhaps, as I suspect, just another sheeple who believes something without questioning simply because it goes against the "official story" and the person weaving the tale has a PHD?
Or perhaps you are right and there is a conspiracy of silence amongst the thousands of demolition experts all around the world who witnessed the "obvious" vaporising of a building
As I said before:
"When 'white man' first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn't need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brother. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city."
1.) Did an unknown (secret) technology kill Native Americans and Japanese civilians? Yes, both groups of people were killed with an unknown (secret) technology.
2.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology proof that it existed? Yes, both groups of people knew that the unknown (secret) technology existed from witnessing its demonstration.
3.) Did both groups of people need to know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know that it existed? No, neither group of people needed know how the unknown (secret) technology worked to know it existed.
4.) Was an unknown (secret) technology demonstrated on September 11, 2001 in New York City? Yes, the empirical evidence proves that an unknown (secret) technology was demonstrated.
5.) Was a demonstration of the unknown (secret) technology on September 11, 2001 in New York City proof that it existed? Yes, we know that the unknown (secret) technology exists from witnessing its demonstration.
Hai capito adesso? 0 -
-
-
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »Yes, so clearly the people on the site who actually saw the molten metal in front of them are not in as good a position to say whether or not there was molten metal there as somebody who wasn't there at all.
Fair enough.
By the way, I find it very odd that an American like you is peddling their book on a poky little Irish website.
So are you saying that these guys are being cooked alive? By the way, are you the official spokesman for Ireland? :rolleyes:
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
So are you saying that these guys are being cooked alive? By the way, are you the official spokesman for Ireland? :rolleyes:
You do realise that Dr Judy Wood's theory is so ridiculous, even other (equally outlandish) CTer's are attacking it.
In order to explain the above you have to choose the following.
1. Say the photos are fake
2. Make up that this is actually a by-product of the energy weapon, the dustification also creates heat
3. Ignore and cut/paste more stuff from Dr Judy Wood's page.0 -
-
-
-
Hello there
I am surprised to see that there is no significant amount of discussion about dr judy wood's work this forum.
Anyone tempted to fall for the controlled demolition or micro nukes hoaxes (or indeed the ludicrous 'airplanes caused it' theory) should look into the work of dr judy wood. She irrefutably destroys these two theories in her book 'where did the towers go?'.
Key evidence to rule out explosives and airplane driven collapse:
1 - lack of any significant or appropriately sized rubble pile
2 - lack of appropriate seismic signal
3 - no damage to bathtub/slurry wall.
There was no molten steel underneath wtc. Photos of large water puddles at the site on the day prove this. There would have been massive steam explosions. People were walking and climbing all over the rubble would have been cooked alive.
Iron and aluminium microspheres can be explained without the need for a thermite theory. The buildings had large quantities of iron and aluminium in their construction materials.
The fact that they were turned into fine dust in mid air is really something.
Dr wood demonstrates in great detail the type of technology that was used to do this. No theories, just hard, scientific evidence.
Check out her websites drjudywood.com and wheredidthetowersgo.com. I also highly recommend andrew johnsons website checktheevidence.com.
please check out this video of a 70 story steel spire turning to dust
[link to m.youtube.com]
Discuss!
Juicee, I seriously doubt that this is the first time there has been a discussion about a book on this forum. Why does the textbook WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood create such animosity? Could it be that because it contains overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable evidence that leads to the conclusion of an energy weapon being directed in a highly selective manner (only buildings with a WTC prefix) which "dustified" buildings in midair? (DEW DROPS) :rolleyes:
Why would posters on this wee little Irish forum like Monty Burnz, Jonny7, King Mob, Sixtus, humanji, VINCWM, DublinWriter, BMF Plint, 14sep12, beeno67, whatstherush, who_me, and twowheelsonly support the lies and objectives of the American Fascist State and ignore the truth presented by Dr. Judy Wood? What is their motivation? What do they have to gain?
The textbook, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph. D., is not about a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. It is a 540 page textbook about factual evidence, empirical evidence that reveals the truth in a way that is undeniable to anyone who reads it. Dr. Wood's textbook has not been refuted by anyone, nor can it be. Those that choose to focus on hearsay, speculation, conspiracy theories, or unqualified opinions while ignoring irrefutable factual evidence by avoiding it is what keeps a cover-up in place. Diverting the public to arguing between the two false choices of "9/11 Truthers" verses "The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory" while ignoring the facts is classic perception management designed to hide and obscure the evidence.
It wasn't poor construction, jet fuel, demolition charges of any type, missiles or planes, mini-nukes, or super-duper-micro-mini-nano-thermite that turned two quarter mile high buildings with a combined weight of over a million tons into microscopic dust particles in mid-air taking less than 10 seconds each. There were over 100 floors in each tower. Try clapping your hands 100 times in 10 seconds.:eek:
The truth does not depend on who supports it. Truth is not a club or a matter of “opinion” or "belief". Neither is truth a political or economic objective. Truth doesn’t have sides. The truth is singular and the truth is unifying. By reading Dr. Wood's research and collection of evidence as compiled in her textbook the truth is known, so there is no need to "Re-investigate 9/11". If you want unity, then seek the truth by reading her textbook. If you were assigned to do a book report, would you read the book or rely on rumors, conjecture, and uninformed opinions from other people? This isn't about beliefs, it is about evidence.
Now those that have read her textbook know the truth. Those covering it up should be held accountable. After all, it is the cover up that has enabled what has transpired since 9/11, not what happened on 9/11. So the cover up of 9/11 has been a far worse crime than 9/11 itself. Remember, the truth is known and is knowable. What should be done about those covering it up?
On 9/11 over a half mile of vertical building height, containing nearly 150 football fields of floor space, was reduced to a near-level field of dust and debris, where rescue workers walked horizontally or rappelled into empty caverns to look for survivors. How was this possible given the standard laws of engineering and physics? The 9/11 Commission Report bypassed this central issue, as did the report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Contrary to its stated objective of determining 'why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed,' the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made the stunning admission that it did not investigate how the towers fell. Neither the standard view that the Twin Towers collapsed from fire nor the standard opposition view that they were intentionally detonated by thermite explosives explains the evidence, nor do they follow the laws of engineering and physics. Dr. Wood left Clemson to research the 9/11 conundrum full time, and she has focused her research strictly on physical evidence and scientific principles. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? provides an understandable, credible, and photo-enhanced summary of Dr. Wood's disturbing findings, which resulted in her lawsuit against the contractors of the NIST report.
Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry.
She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers in her areas of expertise.
In the time since 9/11/01, she has applied her expertise in materials science, image analysis and interferometry, to a forensic study of over 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips and a large volume of witness testimony pertaining to the destruction of the WTC complex. Dr. Wood has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation of what physically happened to the World Trade Center site on 9/11. And, based on her analysis of the evidence she gathered, in 2007, she filed a federal qui tam case for science fraud against the contractors who contributed to the official NIST report about the destruction of the WTC. This case was filed in the US Supreme Court in Dec 2009. To this day, Dr. Wood's investigation is the only comprehensive forensic investigation in the public domain.
Please find below an October 2011 two hour interview with Dr. Judy Wood from the One Step Beyond TV show with Theo Chalmers on SKY 200 in the U.K., a book review by Eric Larsen, novelist and Emeritus Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York, and a song by Charlie Pound of the U.K.
One Step Beyond with Dr. Judy Wood
http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2011/11/judy-woods-where-did-towers-go.html
Where Did The Towers Go? - Evidence Of Directed Free-Energy Technology On 9/11 – Book Review by Eric Larsen Ph.D.
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/reviews/13984-where-did-the-towers-go-evidence-of-directed-free-energy-technology-on-911-book-review-by-eric-larsen-phd.html
After reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Charlie Pound of the U. K. produced the song WAKE UP THIS YOUR ALARM !WAKE UP THIS IS YOUR ALARM !
music, lyrics, and vocals by Charlie Pound © 2012
http://youtu.be/H2dI-yRkFXY
Verse 1:
Where did the towers go? Away with the breeze that blows.
And how much steel did they find? Could it be shipped in time?
I don’t know I haven’t seen the receipt, but it doesn’t make sense to me!
All those cars in a line, door handles and engines gone.
I’d tell you if I could, but you need to ask Judy Wood.
Before you accuse someone, you better make damn sure you know what was done!
Chorus:
Wake up! this is your alarm!
Wake up!
Verse 2:
So while you're sitting on the fence, why don’t you check the evidence?
I’ll tell you something that you’ll learn, World Trade Center paper doesn’t burn.
And how could those buildings fall, with a seismic impact so small?
I know that something’s wrong, eight seconds the north tower's gone.
I’d tell you if I could, but you need to ask Judy Wood.
Before you accuse someone you better make sure you know how it was done!
Chorus:
Wake up! this is your alarm!
Wake up!
Middle eight:
You know it was 2001,
here we are and we're still arguing!
Chorus:
Wake up! this is your alarm!
Wake up! this is your alarm!
Wake up!
Wake up!
Wake up!
“The towers didn’t burn up, nor did they slam to the ground. They turned into dust in mid air.”0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement