MarcStevens.net Forum

Full Version: Judy Wood examines the data
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Here is a video of a talk and "slide show" presentation Dr. Judy Wood gave showing the data that she finds interesting in regards to 9/11 building collapse destruction.

You may talk quietly amongst yourselves, but if I hear any trouble making I'll have to send you to the principle's office, so watch it, okay?

Here is the page on Judy's site with more links with various options of how to view this stuff.

- NonE

CB_Brooklyn

Court Cases in the US District Court,
Southern District of New York,
with Attorney Jerry Leaphart:

** Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html">http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html</a><!-- m -->
Docket No. 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
Title: Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA vs. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels

** Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case">http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=9 ... deral_case</a><!-- m -->
Docket No. 1:07-cv-04612-GBD
Title: Dr. Morgan Reynolds ex rel. USA vs. Science Applications International Corp. et al
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels

PRESS RELEASE: 9/11 Qui Tam Jurisdictional Challenges Filed - 2/29/08 - Two Qui Tam cases - U.S. District Court, SDNY -- 9/11 related - One alleges Twin Towers destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons - Other alleges No Planes hit the towers - Directed energy weapons toxic effects continue at Ground Zero:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://tinyurl.com/6p6h55">http://tinyurl.com/6p6h55</a><!-- m --> (OpEdNews)

PRESS RELEASE: Scientists See WTC - Hutchison Effect Parallel - On a Washington DC local radio station, WPFW, Scientists discuss true nature of destruction of WTC Complex on 9/11 and conclude it was related to a known effect:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://tinyurl.com/6n5ygd">http://tinyurl.com/6n5ygd</a><!-- m --> (PRLog)



The 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151&Itemid=60">http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60</a><!-- m -->

Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=163&Itemid=60">http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60</a><!-- m -->
I generally do not post negative things

But, my Opinion is that Judy Wood is either a nut job , or a dis-info agent

or

Both
Why they didn't use planeshttp://www.911closeup.com/

Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.

So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.

Now to the other problem.

Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.

Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.

The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

Remote control.

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.

Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.

In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.
WHAT PLANES - Morgan Reynolds presentation at Madison Wisconsin
http://tinyurl.com/28v9l44
Bruce Sloane Wrote:I generally do not post negative things

But, my Opinion is that Judy Wood is either a nut job , or a dis-info agent

or

Both
Why? Because she has a site where you can actually examine the data and think for yourself? Yeah, I can see where that might be considered dangerous. :rolleyes2:

- NonE
NonE:

Sorry, but Judy Wood was exposed. See this.

Quote:• Professor Wood is stupid, or a criminal

For example, her site promotes the idiotic theories from the mysterious Finnish military expert who wants us to believe that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by miniature hydrogen bombs that do not need a fission bomb to start the fusion.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/wtc/soldier0.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/wtc/soldier0.htm</a><!-- m -->
If this technology exists, it is a secret. Why would a professor at Clemson University promote a theory that has absolutely no supporting evidence?

We could understand her mistake if she was a professor of art or music, but she is a professor of mechanical engineering. Therefore, her promotion of the miniature hydrogen bombs is certain to be deliberate deception.


• Professor Wood promotes other criminals

Her page that has links has several categories. Under her category "Favorite 9/11 Sites" she has Stefan Grossman's site gallerize. We mention Grossman in these articles:
• The Bovine Gas Theory
• Why are we tolerating their deception?

Under her category "Excellent videos and articles" we find only these three entries:

• "Loose Change" (video), 2nd Edition
• 911 Eyewitness
• A Fairy Tale from Hell: An Introduction to 9/11
She also includes links to 911blogger and other sites that promote idiotic theories, such as the airplanes were illusions created by blue screen technology. Also, she promotes sites that cannot find any Israeli involvement in 9-11.

Student comments about Professor Wood
Students wrote the following comments about Professor Wood at the website Rate My Professors. Only these three comments are available to the public:

12/17/05
She is an odd lady, to say the least. She is very good at what she does, but she can't always explain it well enough for students to understand. SHE TAKES FOR EVER TO GIVE EXAMS BACK!!!!! It took here 3 weeks to give an exam back once.
12/12/05
Like others said, she had good intentions and when she wasn't trying to convince us Bush blew up the WTC she was actually nice, but she wasn't a great teacher. Too many times she starts examples and doesn't finish them. And yes, she was in a coma for 6 years. How crazy is that.

11/30/05
She woke up from a coma and decided her calling was to become a professor. She did not really seem to know the material, and she was hopeless at trying to convey it to the student. She fails to be able to complete a thought if not a sentance. If it is possible at all, aviod her.


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=495285" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRat ... tid=495285</a><!-- m -->
If these students are correct in their description of Professor Wood, she may be suffering from brain damage. This would fit the pattern that we find in this criminal network. Specifically, they look for people who can be taken advantage of in some manner, such as through deception, bridery, blackmail, and threats.
Professor Wood is promoting the theory that the World Trade Center towers were brought down with miniature hydrogen bombs, and she may be promoting that theory because she honestly believes it due to brain damage.

She may not be a member of the criminal network; rather, she may be one of their Useful Idiots.

By the way, the possibility that a university professor has brain damage should not surprise you. Students and parents have been complaining for years that some teachers are incompetent; that we need to put teachers through tests; and that we should eliminate tenure because it is allowing the incompetent professors to have lifetime employment regardless of how appalling their behavior is.

Professor Wood's personal website:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://members.tripod.com/~JudyJudyJudy/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://members.tripod.com/~JudyJudyJudy/index.html</a><!-- m -->


Bush blew up the WTC?

Note that one student commented "when she wasn't trying to convince us Bush blew up the WTC".

That student makes it seem as if she was pushing 9-11 on the students. However, this report creates the impression that Michael discovered this 9/11 information on his own. So, was she pushing 9/11 on the students or wasn't she?

More importantly, the student says that she was blaming Bush for destroying the WTC. If that student is correct, she belongs in the same group as Webster Tarpley, Wayne Madsen, Alex Jones, and virtually everybody else in this 9/11 truth movement who ignores or minimizes the Israeli / Zionist involvement.

None of these people are truly exposing the 9/11 attack. Rather, they are doing damage control for Israel.
Newtonian physics proves conclusively there were no plane crashes at the four alleged plane crash sites on 9/11/2001.

The frame-by-frame analysis that shows building 7 falling at free fall speed in accordance with physics law -- the same method used to prove the speed of "collapse" can be applied to the plane that flew into the south tower. Very interesting that the plane had zero deceleration as it ascended completely into the tower. It went completely into the tower with zero deceleration which cannot happen according to Newtonian physics. The conclusion, though difficult to fathom, is irrefutable according to Newtonian physics.

The following quotes are from two pages at Morgan Reynold's website.

Newton's Third Law of Motion. "To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts."

"classroom example 1:
Q: An unfortunate bug strikes the windshield of a bus moving down the road. Quite obviously, this is a case of Newton's third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the bus windshield?
A: Each force is the same size. For every action, there is an equal ... (equal!). The fact that the bug splatters only means that with its smaller mass and strength, it is less able to withstand the force resulting from the interaction.
Now consider example 2:
Q: A speeding plane strikes the wall of a ("motionless") Tower. Obviously this contact between objects is a case of Newton's third law of motion. An aluminum plane hits the steel building and the building hits the plane. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the plane or the force on the building?
A: Each force is the same size. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The fact that the steel beams, spandrel belts, and steel-reinforced concrete floors of 5-6 stories shatter, fragment and form an airplane-shaped gash...OOPS...you're kidding! This correction just in: the fact that an aluminum plane crumples, shatters and leaves no "airplane-shaped silhouette of passage" in a collision against massive quantities of structural steel only means that with its lower mass, density and strength relative to the building, the plane is far less able to withstand the equal force exerted on both bodies. "

"We can check our understanding with a few calculations. Each WTC Tower weighed approximately 500,000 tons. As a first approximation, if a plane hit the upper five floors, these floors would weigh approximately 22,727 tons (5 floors divided by 110 floors = 4.5 percent of 500,000 tons). A Boeing 767 would weigh approximately 140 tons flying as described by government and media. The mass of such a plane would be 0.6 percent of the mass of five floors in a Tower (140/22,757). Therefore, the aluminum plane would be less than one percent of the mass of the section of the steel/concrete building it allegedly hit. The plane's material density and strength (resistance to forces like bending, etc.) would also be vastly inferior to those of a Tower. Conclusion: bye-bye airplane." <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=morgan_booted" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=9 ... gan_booted</a><!-- m -->

"Most of us would agree that planes are flimsy things, as Marcus Icke points out: “Computer simulation and mathematical analysis of the impact by MIT, University of Purdue and others indicate that upon impact the wings of the 767 would have shattered and the fuel ignited outside the towers facade, the aircraft would have lost about 25% percent of its kinetic energy on impact and that the tail fin would have sheared off due to torsional forces. In layman’s terms this means that the aeroplane would have decelerated sharply [emphasis added] crumpled up and exploded against the tower’s wall with only heavy objects like the engines and undercarriage puncturing the towers facade. The entire airframe would not have glided through the outer wall and would not have left a large hole roughly the same shape and size of a Boeing 767-200.”"

"WTC crash videos show the south tower silently “absorbing” a plane and completely enshrouding it. Oddly enough, no deceleration occurs in these videos. Those clever Arab pilots parked each aircraft as if flying into an upper level airplane hangar without “braking.” A noiseless collision without deceleration is physically impossible and the chances of two 767s vanishing completely inside two towers are slim and none."

"Furthermore, physics rejects any theory that posits an invincible airplane (a plane remaining intact after a high speed collision with a steel skyscraper) that also disintegrates (flimsy) or shreds itself in the next instant in the same general physical environment (temperature, etc.)"

"... another physical problem for the official WTC theory is that the maximum spread across the north tower hole is 126 feet and the south tower spread is only 103 feet, openings insufficient to accommodate a 767 wingspan of 156 feet. And wings with momentum do not “fold back onto themselves” in order to slip through an undersized hole along with the fuselage. Momentum breaks wings off in a forward motion and they torque inward (pdf) during deceleration but there is no evidence that this happened... In videos, we see zero wing and tail foldback, instead we observe 100% clean penetration of the wings and tail. A gash large enough to swallow a complete aircraft is important because wing tips and/or tail section were not sheared off on the impact side of either tower but disappeared. "

"While a 767 would carry enormous “momentum” or kinetic energy at impact, resistance by steel columns, spandrel plates, floors and core would consume its fixed energy supply rapidly. A more plausible sequence if only for its empirical regularity would be that the violence of the collision and consequent deceleration would shatter and break wing tips off. The wing tips would not break through columns, plates and floors but bounce to the ground below, rejected by intact columns and spandrel plates."

"The two end points—easy tower penetration at high speed without visible deceleration and flight termination within 200 feet—are nonsense."

"There is no convincing physics for how two wide-body aluminum jetliners flying at high speed could penetrate steel walls, floors and core via undersized gashes, exhibit no deceleration in videos, decelerate to zero within a quarter second, and conceal themselves entirely within each tower. We Have Some Holes
in the Plane Stories --http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=91...have_holes
Dionysus Wrote:NonE:
Sorry, but Judy Wood was exposed.

People need to do their own research and review. Do you agree with that? If not, need I ask why not? No.
^^ Look... I've done my own research and I'm satisfied that she's at best a liar and at worst a criminal. But you guys do what you want. Don't say I didn't warn you.

P.S.-- Planes of some sort did hit the buildings. They were remote controlled. They weren't holograms or any of that nonsense. See this and this.

Quote:4) Do something useful!

We can spend the rest of our lives trying to figure out what type of plane hit the South Tower, what type of aircraft hit the Pentagon, etc, but what good will it do us? We have enough evidence to show that the 9-11 attack is a scam, and we ought to start talking about how to make our world a better place.
For anyone who is interested, THIS LINK will take you to the page where Judy's interviews are listed. Some of them are really excellent and if you listen to them while following along on the net looking at the pages and pictures and charts and such she explains the various bits and pieces of data and why she comes to various conclusions regarding them. Her specialty is materials science, and interferometry, so there is a lot of stuff that is obvious to her eyes but not to someone unfamiliar with these fields. So listening to the conversation and examining the images and other pieces of data can really help one to see whether what she says makes sense to you or not. As I posted before, Popper pointed out that it is not necessarily possible to prove something, but it is quite easy to prove something is NOT, and that is what she does with most of the current theories that most are positing. She does not know what "did it." But she knows a lot of things which could NOT have done it, and that is the point of studying her materials.

As someone said previously, (sorta) "so what?" In a way, I agree. We all know that the government is evil no matter who did whatever they did. But the reason that I find this material of value is that it TOTALLY disproves the 19 guys with boxcutters theory, and THAT theory is what the entire myth that all the rest of the crap - the "Patriot Act," the TSA, the various millions of people killed, the soldiers and civilizations filled with depleted uranium and on and on - is based upon. It is important not to know WHAT or WHO did it, but to know that all of the justifications are complete lies, planned and coordinated lies, lies of such depth it is hard for a normal person to conceive of such depravity. That is why it's of import.

It really is outside of the capability of most human minds to even begin to grasp the level of evil involved in 9/11. That is why it is important. It is valuable to be aware of the fact that some humans are capable of these kinds of actions.

- NonE

{addendum} It's like, if you have a body bleeding out on the sidewalk with multiple gunshot wounds, it is gonna be a bit hard to swallow when the shooter's friend says, "Oh, he died of cancer. It's a sad but totally natural death."

{addendum #2} It is also valuable to try and be able to get your head around the fact that MOST people will do almost anything than to acknowledge to themselves that this is true. It's like the people in Germany who HAD to know that they were burning Jews by the hundreds of thousands and who pretended, to others, but also to themselves, that this was so horrible that it simply could not be true, therefore they were not going to believe the irrefutable data right in front of their eyes.
This is (hopefully) my final word on the matter. I gave up on 9/11 a long time ago. The bad guys won that round-- I salute their game. We need to prepare for the next one.

From 9-11 Activists Without a Clue

Quote:What Is Wrong With The 9-11 Movement?

I think this 9-11 movement is becoming the same farce as the anti-war movement. I think these 9-11 groups have been dominated in an attempt to make sure we have no effect on the world.
For example, I've been complaining for a long time that we have enough evidence that the attack was a scam and that we can stop wasting time looking for more evidence. Every hour we spend searching for more evidence is an hour that we could have spent on something productive, such as spreading the information to other people or discussing what to do to make the nation better.

For more than a year I have been listening to complaints that we don't have enough information, or that nobody yet has a book or video about 9-11 that is good enough to release to the public. I am told that we must wait, but wait for what? Wait for a perfect book or video to come along? Wait until we have every possible bit of evidence about the scam?

These are nothing more than attempts to manipulate us into doing nothing. If we wait for the perfect book or video, we will be waiting forever. How can any book or video be perfect? And how can we wait for all the evidence about the scam? No matter how much evidence we have, someone could complain we don't have enough.

The people who commit these scams are not getting away with them because we lack evidence. And they're not getting away with them because our books and videos are too crummy to present to the public.

I am not advocating that everybody stop looking for evidence. Rather, I am saying that while some people look for evidence, the rest of us have more than enough evidence to prove the attack was a scam, and we should start getting this information out to the public.
Newton's Three Laws of Motion are high-school physics. It's empirical evidence that no planes impacted the twin towers.

A lie is a lie and can't be proven to be the truth. Only the truth can be proven.
Newton's Three Laws of Motion invalidate large planes having impacted the twin towers. It also means the main stream media was complicit.

The truth matters. Each person will always have a need to prioritize where and on what they expend their energies. Some people, anarchists included, are cooking meals right now, as well as doing a plethora of other activities.

There are people that can't handle the truth or the rigors required for obtaining the truth and thus project onto others that it's a waste of time to pursue the truth. In this instance, They won, I'm moving on, is not a motto. It's a person accepting defeat where there's no evidence of defeat.

Dionysus Wrote:This is (hopefully) my final word on the matter. I gave up on 9/11 a long time ago. The bad guys won that round-- I salute their game. We need to prepare for the next one.

Since you gave it up a long time ago yet you still dig up information in attempt to persuade people to stop digging into the issue, hopefully you will no longer waste your time on what you consider to be a waste of time. You go from your personal needs to claiming what we need.

BTW, Judy Woods and Morgan Reynolds are, as far as I know, the only people in the so called 911truth movement to file a court case against some of the perps. They wouldn't attempt to take to trial the Qui Tam case if it was based on lies.
GREAT NEWS!

Dr. Judy Wood has finally got her research in the form of a book: Where Did the Towers Go? It's just been released and I've ordered a copy.

The book has a website with more reference material: Towers

For those seeking perspective on the various issues surrounding the physical nature of the attack on 9/11, Judy Wood has tirelessly compiled and referenced more data than anyone. From my point of view her material helps to clarify the failures of most of the "conspiracy theories" to make rational sense. She does not claim to know what happened on 9/11, but she does logically, step-by-step show what could not have happened. She then shows evidence for some as yet un-understood patterns of energy, apparently first discovered by Nicolas Tesla and currently being tested by John Hutchison, which are consistent with the evidence. Note, she is making no claims here, as some have suggested, she is only pointing out that this latest cutting edge research is NOT INCONSISTENT with the evidence, and therefore she considers it most important that more thought be put in this direction (as opposed to the constant bickering about theories which the evidence clearly shows must be false).

Some of John Hutchison's strange experimental material:
[center][youtube]3LhvpC2lsCs[/youtube][/center]

Judy Wood has my utmost respect as one who is open minded to the evidence and who is honest enough to follow that evidence regardless of the personal cost, which has been substantial. In that regard I consider the word "hero" to be applicable.

- NonE
After watching the claim in the Loose Change documentary that the twin towers collapsed due to controlled demolition I was unsatisfied that conventional explosives could have converted essentially all that steel reinforced concrete into dust. It just didn't fit my understanding of conventional explosives that I had previously researched regards the Alfred P Murrah building explosion. In that case I knew that a nitrogen fuel bomb couldn't [strike]due[/strike] do that much damage from that great a distance. To cause that much damage the truck would have had to of been parked inside the building. And even then it probably wouldn't have taken out but maybe one or two of the concrete support columns.

In the case of the twin towers, whatever explosives, aside from nuclear, would have had to have been placed on or covered every square yard of floor space in order to pulverize to dust each square yard of [strike]dust[/strike] floor space. It seemed wholly implausible that that much access to the floor space could have been accomplished let alone go unnoticed.

Dr. Judy Wood's explanation of the evidence was the first convincing explanation I had seen that could account for converting essentially all the concrete to dust.

Also, the bit in Loose Change where a man that worked at ground zero said that no office machines or computers were found and that the biggest piece he saw was half a key pad from a telephone. That furthered my dissatisfaction with the theory of conventional explosives used for controlled demolition.

Lastly, last week I watched the new Towers presentation at Judy's website. I'm looking forward to the few unfinished chapters to be uploaded. Especially the chapters titled "Holes" and "Conclusion".
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reference URL's