9-11 Truth

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:37 pm

Posted by susie on 05/15/2015

A & E is not interested in asking questions. They want to only steer people toward their own "agenda".

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:39 pm

Posted by susie on 05/15/2015
www.drjudywood.com/

Dr Judy Wood - WDTTG BEM- Nov 8-9-2013 from Andrew Johnson on Vimeo.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:40 pm

Posted by Admin on 05/16/2015
I've got a huge article/video resource on 9/11 here if anyone's interested.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:40 pm

Posted by susie on 05/17/2015
This shows the vertical cut-outs in the center of WTC6. To the left of WTC6 are the remains of WTC1. Note the fairly consistent diameter of the holes. The holes are essentially empty: little debris visible inside the holes.
www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image151.jpg

That, and the lack of seizmic activity, the intact bathtub, the burnt cars litered throughout the city with plastic parts like police lights not melted and still intact and scorching up to the insulation and no farther of automobiles.
Rapid rusting of autos afterward. Twisting of metal only replicated by John Hutchinson experiments.
Videos of steel turning to dust in mid-air.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:41 pm

Posted by schpankme on 05/17/2015

May 17, 2015 0:39:24 GMT susie said:
This shows the vertical cut-outs in the center of WTC6.
Note the fairly consistent diameter of the holes.
The holes are essentially empty

Note the "Pickett Fence looking Super Structure" that was Cut with Demolition Charges, at repeating dimensions,
so these buildings could be easily trucked away. This building like all WTC buildings were dropped into their
basements.

9-11 Truth US9J4Fzz0WqNaVUScBO4

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:44 pm

Posted by susie on 05/17/2015
Your evidence that the building materials were "trucked" away? The BS media story was shipped to China I believe. Before investigation could take place.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:45 pm

Posted by susie on 05/17/2015
The trade center was built in the river and the bathtub was constructed to hold back the river. If the buildings had collapsed, first there would have been significant seizmic activity, and the bathtub would be broken flooding downtown NYC.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:45 pm

Posted by susie on 05/17/2015
Survivors in the corner of one of the towers report looking up and sayin "Where did the tower go?" As it was clearly not overhead nor was there ample debris to account for all those floors.

Even comparisons with other demolition buildings prove there was not enough floors of debris left.
And there is that nagging seizmic data lack. And intact bathtub.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:49 pm

Posted by susie on 05/17/2015
drjudywood.com/wtc/pics/Spire2m_ss.jpg
The amazing steel spire turning to dust.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:49 pm

Posted by susie on 05/17/2015
I have a copy of Dr Wood's book and the materials science is rather compelling.
Until you research the evidence fully assumptions on what happened can not be made. Just as with Eric's evidence of the flat earth is more believable because of evidence presented.

Explanations of why there was no seizmic activity, sufficient residue, no bathtub destruction, and no heat. Why cars blocks away were toasted yet plastics did not melt. Why not one person filed a lawsuit about the nist discrepancies but Dr Wood. Why the steel beams that were left have Hutchinson effect evidence.

Where is all the evidence of thermite? Architects and Engineers is headed by someone who doesnt want the questions asked he cant explain. Controlled op indeed.

Rather hard to CGI every single independant film made that day but if there is evidence they were all tampered with I have not seen it. I am going to go through Eric's papers on it. I also know when you are trying to get information out in alternative media you use all resources. To discredit the materials evidence because Dr Wood used Santilli as a way to get her information to the public is shortsighted at best. I listened to the fool until he bashed my friend Larry Nichols, Clinton Chrinicles, after I got him an interview with Larry..

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm

Posted by lizardking on 05/18/2015
www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=195&Itemid=60

www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=170

"In December 2007, Dr. Judy Wood posted her study of the very striking similarity of experimental characteristics of the “Hutchison Effect” to a number of pieces of evidence at the WTC. Dr. Wood and I were given an opportunity to discuss this issue on Ambrose Lane’s “We Ourselves” show in January 2008 and on our second appearance, John Hutchison joined the discussion. Following this radio show appearance, two of the people associated with the 911 Scholars group –Prof Jim Fetzer (the founder) and Ace Baker (not a listed member of the Scholars group, but a regular guest on Fetzer’s radio show) - when challenged, began to behave differently towards Dr. Wood and I– at least in relation to the “Hutchison Effect” study. I attempted to document this “change in behaviour” in the articles linked above. Following the actions of Baker and Fetzer, I asked that my name be deleted from the 911 Scholars list.

In the articles linked above, I documented the very strong reaction of Fetzer and Baker – they both (essentially) agreed that John Hutchison was a fraud – and in saying this, ignored and considerable amount of evidence which suggested, beyond reasonable doubt, that John Hutchison’s work was valid."

www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60

"Simon Hytten’s current position on 911 has become almost surreal – he states that ALL the photo and video record is fake, there were no victims and it was all a simulation. He has tried to persuade some people that basic observations (such as the towers turning to dust) may not actually be correct. Would anyone believe this? Apparently, they would – a friend of mine, who knows me personally - for a short time began to believe that Simon Hytten’s view that one couldn’t determine what happened to the WTC because all the videos were “fake”. The conversation with my friend illustrated to me that “following” someone can mean that they can “lead you” in the wrong direction. However, as evidence is not a person, you are not subject to being influenced by a personal agenda if you stick with analysing evidence.

Perhaps Simon Hytten’s slow but sure “building up” of a following around September Clues can itself be seen as yet another “perception management” operation – perhaps this time made easier by the very convoluted nature of the video anomalies he originally set out to illustrate (i.e. it really does make you reconsider what is real and what is not)."

I don't know which, if any of the 911 "truthers" are 100% genuine anymore but Simon Shack and Ace Baker are not on my list.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:51 pm

Posted by susie on 05/18/2015

May 17, 2015 15:17:29 GMT @rayngryphon said:
Ace Baker did not seem to rate an interview with anyone of any "significance" that I know of.

His conclusions are suspect precisely because of What they are. But we have yet hear any sensible objection to them.

Susie, how do you explain both Santilli and Wood disparaging Jim Fetzer for no reason that I can see but that he asked Wood what her theory was over and over again, a question she repeatedly refused to answer on air, even though it is plastered right over the cover of her book? Since when (since evolution or the ball Earth theory or climate change) is Hard Science so squeamish and truculent about such a question and thus all its "evidence"?

How do you explain the fact that Dr. Judy used the same corporate government friendly lawyer for her "court case" as all the other "Truthers"?

I give no credence to Fetzer as I have heard him "off air" and he obviously has an agenda.
If I was not versed in conspiracy I would probably have made the same mistake she made in her legal actions.

You are talking about a person who knows only her study which she has been versed in. She knows nothing of research into who is screwing who in this clusterbang. Do you suppose she was dumbfounded by the shit that was broadcast that day? If it were you and you knew damn well the story could not fit the physical properties of what is concrete fact would you want to make every effort to get your word out? Could you then be coopted by sinister forces in order to derail your research? Avert your efforts?

Remember all courts are controlled by Freemasons. If she knew that she would never have attempted a case. It was doomed to be derailed from the inception. Assuming all learned people know who rocks this boat is again, shortsighted.

I only can conceptualize concrete fact and the physical properties of 9-11 warrant more than what "experts" like Fetzer can fabricate. Tesla energy written all over that scene. I do not see the "experts" explaining all the available evidence.

All I see are accusations that supposedly explain away the questions I have about Seizmographic absence, an intact bathtub, why metal was scorched on the same surfaces that plastic did not melt, lack of residue for all those floors of debris, and why every 9-11 guru including Alex Israel Jones has such a boner over disproving Dr Wood's evidence.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:51 pm

Posted by lizardking on 05/18/2015

May 17, 2015 16:39:43 GMT susie said:

And why every 9-11 guru including Alex Israel Jones has such a boner over disproving Dr Wood's evidence.

Agreed. All of the shills who disparage Judy and her work only give her more credence.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:52 pm

Posted by susie on 05/18/2015

May 17, 2015 16:52:40 GMT @bobo24 said:
For The $keptics: US Currency & False Flag Events Confirmed

Im still waiting on "bombing" evidence in the pile of evidence from 9-11. So far it is inconclusive. Bombs would have made the towers leave a hell of a lot more physical residue than they did. Bombs would have caused repercussion effects of the adjacent buildings. Bombs would have caused the debris to collapse the bathtub. Bombs would have caused seizmographic evidence. All of which is absent.

Bombs could not explain the hurricane directly off the coast of NYC. Bombs can not explain why the path of that hurricane was identical to Sandy yet averted right at the time the buildings disintegrated. And where were all the tragic weather reports tracking that hurricane? Not a peep. Yet their own radar images show it clear as day directly offshore and the dust rising from the towers locale in the same shot.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:55 pm

Posted by susie on 05/18/2015

May 17, 2015 18:21:12 GMT said:
Steel when exposed to moister will Rust, in fact most designers of Steel Frame Buildings allow the Beams
to Rust to protect them; which works fine for all Structural Steel, kept out of reach of the Public.

How was the Tesla-Hutchinson-Building-Atomizer (THBA) deployed on all Seven (7) Buildings at the WTC?

Was the THBA ground based or Air Based?

Where is the THBA, is it portable?

Do you believe the Video shown on 911 is Real Time?

Im talking about instant rust effects not over time as steel's properties warrant. I never claimed there was some instrument, as that is beyond my immediate knowledge. i know they control the weather so the Hurricane, not reported excessively like Sandy was, yet right there on their own data can be seen.

Considering the hurricane is in effect Tesla's tower shape I have no trouble seeing his experiments duplicated by the Dirty Bastards Club on that high holy Masonic/Satanic date using the energy from the hurricane directionalized into the trade center. What they used to do so of course would never be exposed to the goyim. I would love to know though.

The video? I know they use holograms in battle to distract enemies so that would account for an eyewitness I personally know who saw the planes. He also felt a coolness fall over the area he could not explain. This would debunk any supposed "heat" melting the steel. Also no paper would be flying about as it did while settling from out of the buildings. All the photos show papers unburnt next to these supposed "hot" glowing areas.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:57 pm

Posted by lizardking on 05/18/2015
I notice a lot of anti-free energy comments. Like Eric, I fully believe there is a conspiracy to keep free energy hidden from us because if it were harnessed, the world economy would collapse.

When Tesla died, the FBI confiscated all of his work and during his lifetime, JP Morgan was sent into mislead and control him. These actions were only taken because what Tesla discovered would've changed the course of human history.

For anyone who feels like attacking Judy Wood, she is the only one who brought a lawsuit against the government and you cannot argue with what she is saying. You can call her conclusions preposterous but that does not in any way disprove them. She's a very qualified woman who is uniformly abused by everyone within the 9/11 truth movement. This gives her a level of credibility because she is being attacked by known disinfo agents. On top of this, the arguments made in favour of controlled demolition only do not take into account the extremely unusual events that occurred that day, such as cars on roofs, cars flying through the sky, melted glass panes, paper that didn't burn, etc. The controlled demolition truthers ignore the fact that the footage of firemen walking around the ruins of the WTC buildings in the days after the event are preposterous and go against all laws of science; for instance, we are meant to believe that men in Wellington boots walked through molten steel lava pools without being horrifically injured. Why would Larry Silverstein "accidentally" admit to having the buildings "pulled" if he was not trying to control the opposition? This is simple gatekeeping designed to mislead those who question what happened on 9/11. It is the same tactic used by Bush when he mentions explosives in the WTC buildings during a speech.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm

Posted by susie on 05/18/2015
I still want to know where the seizmographic evidence is for an implosion. Why the bathtub was not damaged, and why paper did not burn. And why a shitload of dust was seen on everything immediately following. If someone could explain those things sufficiently I would appreciate it.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:05 pm

Posted by seven1 on 05/19/2015
WTC 1&2 collapsed from the top down, dust from top down, so comparing that to a standard building demolition is at best an apples to oranges comparison, at worst deliberate misrepresentation. The only "charges" used on those buildings were for cookie cutter plane cutouts since no passenger planes actually hit those buildings. Whatever hit those buildings, be it cruise missiles or flying "balls" could not have been the single cause of building collapse, that combined with the relatively "quiet" collapse points to a wholly different cause of collapse.

Is a directed energy weapon magic? Not at all, maybe some would call it exotic because surprise, surprise, a hidden technology has been weaponized. This technology is something that no one invented, some have discovered and you can surely bet some have mastered. I don't like calling it a "technology" because it's simply a property of the world we live.

This is where the our flat earth comes into play, just like 9/11 served many purposes so does the concealment of the flat earth. Conveniently keeping the sun 93 million miles away, and the moon 238,000 miles away avoids having to answer what's really going on up there. If suddenly "they" had to explain those two luminaries in the sky and what makes them work, there would be a lot of hard questions to be answered. Undoubtedly the conversation would turn to energy and what could be done with it. What can be done with the properties of that energy? Could toppling buildings be out the question, or possibly even a free energy system.

For someone searching for the truth and to wholly dismiss Wood's research you either have an agenda to stick to, or are willfully ignorant to theories other than your own. The puzzle pieces of the evidence she put together works quite well.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:08 pm

Posted by eschaton on 05/19/2015

May 18, 2015 15:51:15 GMT @rayngryphon said:
Eschaton:

"Thieves" came and stole much of Ed's belongings shortly after he died so like Tesla it's hard to say exactly how much he actually knew."

So because he was robbed his knowledge is comparable to that of Tesla (the Vatican)?

If my belongings were robbed after my passing would that mean that my knowledge was comparable to that of Tesla?

No he's not comparable just for that reason alone. My point is that we can do nothing but speculate because we don't have access to the full array of writings, blueprints or tools (technologies) that Tesla or Leedskalin were using, only what was left behind.

If your life work was speculated to involve secret techniques and or technologies and as soon as you died your library and belongings were raided, then yes that may raise a flag that you were actually on to something. I'm not saying that these are alone proofs of anything except that we don't have all the facts.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:13 pm

Posted by lizardking on 05/19/2015

May 18, 2015 5:17:36 GMT said:
Paper shown on the CGI Videos blowing all over the place, or Paper shown during clean up?
WAG - Thermite would not have set every floor on fire.

The '100% CGI video theory' stems from a man whose brother has connections to Bin Laden.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Posted by lizardking on 05/19/2015

May 18, 2015 18:15:26 GMT @rayngryphon said:
I think you are failing to account for the scope of the dissipation or degeneration of human mental power and intelligence, a fact that no doubt plays a not inconsiderable part in your comments (as in the developmental effects of history every subsequent cult of history or science has us apply to history).

This only goes to my contention that Judy Wood and others have knowingly or unknowingly started a free energy cult.

You said in another comment that you only recently learned that the Earth was not a Globe, so stop pretending that you are some form of specialist. Also, stop putting words in my mouth, I never mentioned aliens and I do not believe that they had anything to do with the sophisticated technology that must have existed in the past.

You keep on insulting Judy Wood but you cannot produce a rebuttal against her work. Maybe you think Free Energy is fancy dancy magic bullshit but Controlled Demolition has never been submitted into court by any of these thermite worshiping truthers.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:21 pm

Posted by lizardking on 05/19/2015

May 18, 2015 19:12:33 GMT @rayngryphon said:
"stop pretending that you are some form of specialist"

So now that we have leveled the playing field, let us address your choice remarks, and we will let our "intelligence", as it were, speak for itself, will we not?

Specialist, indeed. That I am not. But I do hope that my arguments (and they are too numerous to mention here) against the claims and not the evidence furnished by Dr. Judy Wood are sufficient for some people to consider without the need to assume that anytime someone says "Judy Wood" that that means that she is being personally attacked like some feeble woman (or theorist) who needs your or my help. (Latent misogyny and racism, anyone?)

Your tone throughout this thread implies you are in some way capable of debunking any of Judy Wood's research. I am not putting any words in your mouth but simply observing the tone you have taken in every response you have made to Susie. That is completely different to assuming I believe aliens are responsible for the creation of the pyramids, which I don't, and have never said, and it is you who mentioned aliens, not me.

Why are your arguments against Dr Wood "too numerous to mention here?" That is the entire point of this thread, is it not? I am sure we would all be interested in seeing your thorough research. One example would have done, but you couldn't even produce that. You can type out this mammoth comment, but not even try to refute a single piece of Judy's evidence.

Don't lump me in with your "stupid people." I admit when I am wrong. All I care about is the truth. I base this on the evidence, I do not have a theory and then try to fit the evidence around it.

You respond to me with off-topic rants, you do not rebut ANY of my evidence, and then you have the nerve to call me rude. I think we know who is being civil here. Using your words, to show that you are self-admittedly new to all of this, is in no way uncivil. It is simply knocking you down a peg after all of your high and mightiness.

As to your point regarding video views, let us take into account Eric, the founder of this website. Eric, quite rightly, believes in Free Energy and he is someone with millions of book sales and tens of millions of video and website views, seeing as they seem to mean so much to you. Popularity means nothing to me because the masses are the most gullible, ignorant and misled people on the planet. The truth is more important than popularity. If you want a dick size competition, leave me out of it.

It is suspicious that you are so obnoxious, repetitive, angry and dedicated in your replies to anything to do with Free Energy/Dr Judy Wood. It is almost like you have been hired to spread disinfo against these theories.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:22 pm

Posted by lizardking on 05/19/2015

May 18, 2015 20:07:13 GMT said:
May 18, 2015 19:44:27 GMT lizardking said:
do you have any opinion on how the Towers were taken down
What is your evidence based on

Thermite Charges were used to bring down all SEVEN (7) Buildings making up the World Trade Center (WTC).

My evidence is based on hind-sight, using Photos taken after the Event and During Clean-up.

www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=326&Itemid=6

"Steven Jones, a physicist who joined the 9/11 Truth movement from Brigham Young University during 2005, introduced the theory that thermite/thermate played a role in the destruction of the towers; and in 2007, he refined this theory to propose that nanothermite or "superthermite" - a finely granulated form of thermite - was in fact the substance used, and its high reactivity served to pulverize the steel, concrete and many additional tons of skyscraper material, including the buildings' contents."

Unfortunately, Steven Jones and A&E for 9/11 Truth are Controlled Opposition and therefore any theory that originates from them is untrustworthy by default.

You claim to believe in the thermite theory because of the work proposed by A&E for 9/11 Truth, despite the fact that you believe that all of the footage of the event is fake. This is a contradiction in terms, because Niels Harrit relies on this very same footage for their theory;

"There are reasons to believe that the 9/11 movement's nanothermite experts are actually aware of this problem. For example, during a recent interview ("9/11: Explosive Testimony Exclusive"), Niels Harrit explains that nanothermite is built from the atom scale up, which allows for the option of adding other chemicals to make it explosive. He states that the role played by the red-gray chips found in the dust is unknown. But he is convinced, based on observation of the towers' destruction and the molten metal present, that both explosives and incendiaries were used. It's just that he and his fellow researchers have not been able to prove that the nanothermitic material they found in the dust has the explosive properties he believes were necessary to accomplish the destruction.

Harrit suggests the use of "a modern military material which is unknown to the general public" as an explanation for the missing pieces to the 9/11 nanothermite puzzle."

Also known as Free Energy?

www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=60

9-11 Truth Jones_firemen

"This image was included in Jones’ September 2006 paper with the caption “Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble.”.

The image in Jones’ PDF (linked above) has “GEOEPOCHE 85” in the lower right corner, indicating it came from page 85 of a copy of the German magazine Geo Epoche.

Jones fails to properly source the photo. Geo Epoche is not mentioned anywhere in his paper’s references, so we don’t know what edition it came from.

However, the picture has been doctored. If the orange color was real the workers’ skin would have melted off their faces. As Dr Jim Fetzer said in comparison (paraphrased): “would you put your face over a boiling tea kettle?” That’s just a mere 212° F compared to Jones’ 1500°+ F orange image.

Here is the original photo, as archived on hereisnewyork.org. As can be seen, the workers are using search lights. They are not “peering into a hot core”:

9-11 Truth 5575

It should be noted that there are NO pictures whatsoever of molten metal in the ruins at Ground Zero."

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:23 pm

Posted by lizardking on 05/19/2015
That theory originated with Jones and therefore you have no choice but to care about what he thinks and says. The entire thermite explanation was propagated by him and relies on him and his community to prove it. So far, they haven't.
Because I do not insanely believe that every single photograph or piece of footage captured on that event is CGI, I can only rely on the work of Dr Judy Wood, the only person to submit her conclusion into court.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:26 pm

Posted by lizardking on 05/19/2015

May 18, 2015 23:14:37 GMT @rayngryphon said:

You just don't have enough defensible material. And I can understand desperation creeping into a vigilant curiosity with respect to the imposing logistics of either 9/11 or living through its ongoing psychological operations have the benefit of, let's face it, three world wars so far.

What happened to the towers and what did that to them are two very different if inextricably connected problems. As Judy herself has said on camera, we cannot just resort to whatever is in the "tool box". But we needn't exclude any possibility as a rule either.

There is no need to drag people into refuting the physical evidence Judy lays out so well, speculative though some of it is.

To accuse me of being desperate when you haven't rebutted one single claim is pathetic. That itself is desperate, shill behaviour.

"There is no need to drag people into refuting the physical evidence Judy lays out so well, speculative though some of it is."

Then why did you mention your "NUMEROUS" arguments against her evidence?

There most certainly is a burden on someone to refute her evidence if their only answer concerning the destruction of the Twin Towers is thermite, which, as I have shown here, is by no means a reliable or remotely proven theory.

www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151&Itemid=60

Why do ALL of the TRUTHERS attached to the 9/11 movement have affiliation with Directed Energy Weapons? Why are they trying to dissuade truthers from the view that it was Directed Energy Weapons or Free Energy?

by Sponsored content

9-11 Truth

9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth

Re: 9-11 Truth