Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11

[monkey424]

Is anyone familiar with the 9/11 research by Dr Judy Wood?

Long video (~2.5 hrs)

http://youtu.be/bITl3lmbWb8

Short video (~15mins)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBG1LBALXQ&sns=em

I discovered Dr Wood's work earlier this year and have become obsessed with it. Her research is not conspiracy theory. It is evidence. And it is overwhelming evidence too. It is evidence that was somehow obscured from public awareness for a long time but is now readily available. And the evidence must be explained.

I like Dr Wood's approach to the subject. She presents information in a methodical, captivating and creative way. But it's the actual evidence she presents that speaks for itself. It is simply mind boggling.

I felt compelled to share this. People need to know this.

9/11 was basically a crime scene. The first question we ask in any crime is WHAT happened. Then HOW it happened. Then finally WHO did it and WHY. The problem is we were told the answer to those last two questions immediately after the event but bypassed the important first question of WHAT THE FUCK actually happened!

I personally remember watching the horror of 9/11 on the family TV as it unfolded. It was shortly before my final exams at high school and I was 18 years old. It all seemed so surreal and unbelievable. But everyone just accepted the images we were watching and the accompanying interpretation and side stories. I think we'd all been conditioned by similar scenes and plots from dozens of movies we'd all watched prior to the tragic event.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was the government agency responsible for explaining the technical aspects of the demise of the World Trade Center buildings (including building 7). I believe Dr Wood is the only person to date to refute the NIST reports by filing a formal request for corrections.

While the implications of Dr Wood's research are mind blowing, I find it more unbelievable that more people didn't see the reality from the start. The evidence was right there all along and witnessed by many. The only thing missing from 9/11 was a movie soundtrack.

[Snarky]

To save others some time: Her theory is that the towers were destroyed by some sci-fi "energy beam" superweapon that was able to disintegrate their molecular structure.

[Darth Mandarb]

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy (but only from a story telling standpoint).

As for nine-eleven... I go with Occam's Razor.  Religious shit heads murdered a few thousand people in the name of their peaceful religion.

Simple.

[Calin Leafshade]

To save others some time: Her theory is that the towers were destroyed by some sci-fi "energy beam" superweapon that was able to disintegrate their molecular structure.

Well I'm convinced.

[kconan]

  This one is even nuttier than the other theories.  She claims there was a "lack of debris".

[Scavenger]

It's a bit of a lengthy YouTube video, but do take the time to watch it.

The longer a youtube video is, the less true it's likely to be, especially if it's on the subject of something like 9/11, or videogame journalism. Because they need to set up a narrative and all of their crazy tangents from reality, and they need you to walk through their thought process to do it. And when you summarize it (Laser beams did 9/11) it falls down. Because in the end, it's just a story, and taking bits of a story out of context sounds crazy until you have the rest of it.

Truth can be seen from multiple angles, conspiracy theories generally only have one - and they only work when you believe every part of them.

[Cuiki]

Really interesting video all the way through. Thanks for sharing.

Also, I wish people weren't so dismissive when it comes to potential tinfoil stuff. Rejecting everything for the sake of it is almost as ignorant as buying into all of it.

[monkey424]

Thank you Cuiki for actually watching the video.

Again, I encourage EVERYONE to watch it. It is a compilation of evidence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

SOME of the evidence is:

1. The towers fell at free fall speed.

2. The retaining wall structure known as the "bathtub" at the base of the buildings was not significantly damaged. More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process.

3. The seismic signal was too small compared to other controlled demolitions (in particular building 7 that was not much greater than background noise).

4. The debris pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.

5. Copious dust was created, covering the streets and floating away.

6. Vehicles "toasted" in strange ways found near the site and several blocks away.

7. "Weird fires" with the appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating.

8. Unburnt paper littering the streets.

9. "Melting" steel cap workers boots, but without high heat.

10. Air tanks on fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC

11. Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map.

12. Tritium, an extremely rare hydrogen isotope associated with nuclear reactions, was found in abundance at the site.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see there is overwhelming evidence and hence why the video is lengthy. The evidence is there and the official story does not explain it, let alone acknowledge it.

"Conspiracy theory" has a stigma attached to it. Interestingly however, a recent social psychological study shows that people of "conventionalist" or anti-conspiracy persuasion may not be the mainstream now.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/11/22/scientific-study-reveals-conspiracy-theorists-sane/

To avoid bias, let's not label this conspiracy. Let's call it what it is. It's simply evidence you weren't aware of until now.

[Scavenger]

To avoid bias, let's not label this conspiracy. Let's call it what it is. It's simply evidence you weren't aware of until now.

It's conjecture at best, and most of these are based on faulty assumptions anyway.

But even if it were true, to what end? What possible reason would the US Government have for setting loose a Sci-Fi Superweapon on the WTC, but not use it elsewhere? Surely it would be a pretty amazing weapon if we were able to disintegrate buildings without ever having a visible setup for them. And it's been, what, 15 years? Why hasn't it been used again? Why attack the WTC? To get people on your side for a war? Well, that would have pretty much have failed immediately, since people were widely and vocally against war anyway. There is no possible reason for the laser beam theory to actually be there without the US Government being both too smart to be caught by the populace and too dumb to know the consequences of their actions.

Why didn't the US Government just say "Hey, the terrorists have a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, we should stop them before they use it again!". That would have been great for riling people up for war! Why even include planes at all?

If the attacker wasn't part of the US Government, why dress it up like a plane hitting the building? They could just say "We have the fucking hand of God here, stop your heathen ways" and then that would have been a way better terror attack than a plane.

Like, the plane-hitting-the-WTC theory is pretty robust. Desperate people using desperate measures against the USA.

The laser beam theory just... doesn't have any grounding in anything that came before it.

But here's my counter argument to your "evidence":

That weapon doesn't exist.

Prove that it exists, can be reproduced, and that the technology was available in 2001 and then I'll entertain it. And if such a weapon exists, why isn't it being used in lieu of drone strikes, which are our current unmanned siege weapon?

[monkey424]

A Google search gives me these definitions.

Fact.
noun
A thing that is known or proved to be true.

Conjecture.
noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

--------------------------------------

Used in 9/11 context.

FACT:  Cars were destroyed in unexplained ways by apparent spontaneous combustion.

CONJECTURE: The weapon doesn't exist.

--------------------------------------

Talking about questions of who did it and why are distractions from looking at the evidence. Again, I encourage EVERYONE to look at the extensive evidence Dr Wood has compiled in the video.

[Snarky]

In addition to what Scavenger says: Each tower was hit by a fucking airplane. People saw it happen. It was caught on camera (in the case of the second plane, on lots and lots of cameras, and broadcast live all over the world). There is no remotely plausible argument that can be made that it didn't happen.

Then the buildings burned for a while, then they collapsed. Even most conspiracy theorists acknowledge that the towers probably would collapse by themselves given the crash and the fire, they just think the way they collapsed isn't right. But this is a ridiculous argument: if the buildings were already about to collapse, why complicate whatever nefarious plan was going on by also using a top-secret energy beam or even just controlled demolitions to bring them down slightly faster?

Analysis of the physics of how the collapse happened can be interesting, but we need to acknowledge that our models of exactly what happens during a big fire are both complex (with the risk of making mistakes) and limited. There are phenomena we don't fully understand or can't predict. (I'm reminded, for example, of that guy who was convicted of murdering his family and burning down his house because scorch patterns on the floor were interpreted as signs of someone having doused it with gasoline, until later experiments showed that such patterns can form naturally in a fire without involving any propellant.)

Your list of "evidence" strikes me as a collection of random factoids that may or may not be true individually, but add up to nothing that undermines the obvious explanation or even comes close to suggesting the doctor's crackpot theory.

[Ali]

CONJECTURE: The weapon doesn't exist.

By calling that conjecture, you're asking for it to be backed up with facts, but that's impossible. It's hard to prove a negative, just like Bertrand Russell can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. The onus isn't on someone else to prove that a hitherto unknown energy beam doesn't exist.

Religions and conspiracy theories like to tie unrelated, unexplained phenomena together into a reassuring narrative that suggests someone is in charge. As Alan Moore puts it:

"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless."

[monkey424]

FACT: Cars were destroyed in unexplained ways by apparent spontaneous combustion. There are many photographs and videos including news reports showing this. There is even a before and after photograph of a full car park; the cars were curiously "toasted" AFTER destruction of the towers. The images did not receive much publicity in the aftermath.

The planes obviously took center stage and got all the attention that day. But just because we saw it on TV replayed again and again and again does not make it any more true than the cars. The planes appear to be a distraction from the other stuff going on.

And what about Building 7? That building was the third to collapse that day, but like the cars did not receive much attention. No plane hit that building. The NIST report explanation is that a fire somehow started as a result of the destruction of the other two taller buildings, and that the fire caused one single column to fail leading to a total global collapse of the building, symmetrically and neatly into it's own footprint. If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise in the known universe.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but..

I encourage EVERYONE to watch the video in its entirity before forming an opinion.

[Cuiki]

Even if she can't give any absolute and undeniable proof that this new weapon was indeed what caused it, one could argue she does a pretty good job at (implicitly) debunking the jet-fuel theory at least.
(skip to 2:00:30 to see it all summed up in a nice table)

Just remember people often act in what seems like strange and unpredictable ways, so saying "they had no reason to do it" is not exactly a sound argument against what looks like scientific evidence.
I'd rather not play the "who-did-it-and-why" game, though. I'm just saying it's an interesting video that gives a different perspective on the things.

[Scavenger]

Even if she can't give any absolute and undeniable proof that this new weapon was indeed what caused it, one could argue she does a pretty good job at (implicitly) debunking the jet-fuel theory at least.
(skip to 2:00:30 to see it all summed up in a nice table)

Jet fuel doesn't need to melt steel beams. Oh my god, do you not know that heat causes expansion in metal and also metals to become more pliable and weaker at higher temperatures? We wouldn't hot forge swords if this wasn't true! And it's not as if the large amount of pressure from a huge falling weight coupled with the massive amount of flammable material inside of the WTC couldn't have raised the temperature! As FEMA puts it:

The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. The heat output from these fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.

The jet fuel set the fires, it was additional combustion within the WTC that weakened the structure. All the fuel had to do was spread fire. It didn't have to be particularly hot. It just needed to set enough OTHER fires that WOULD become hot enough to weaken the steel frames.

FACT: Cars were destroyed in unexplained ways by apparent spontaneous combustion. There are many photographs and videos including news reports showing this. There is even a before and after photograph of a full car park; the cars were curiously "toasted" AFTER destruction of the towers. The images did not receive much publicity in the aftermath.

Ah yes, the large shockwave from the building's collapse, the hot air expelled from it couldn't have anything to do with it, it must have been lasers... which wouldn't have caused the cars to be toasted, since the laser would have to have been going on way after the building's collapse, and we would have noticed it.

The planes obviously took center stage and got all the attention that day. But just because we saw it on TV replayed again and again and again does not make it any more true than the cars. The planes appear to be a distraction from the other stuff going on.

Ah yes, the planes are a distraction from.... the giant laser beam setup the government obviously had. Tell me again why they would want to cover this up? If the enemy has the Hand of God, why did they need planes for a distraction again?

Just remember people often act in what seems like strange and unpredictable ways, so saying "they had no reason to do it" is not exactly a sound argument against what looks like scientific evidence.

No, no, it is. What you're saying is:

"There is no reason not to believe that hundreds, if not thousands of people, worked on a top secret laser project to blow up the World Trade Center while planes were flown into them, and it was set up and deployed without anyone knowing or caring about the outcome, causing the needless deaths of thousands of people, without a single one of these people stepping forward to admit that they worked on a top secret Superweapon that blew up the World Trade Center. This technology, far beyond what lasers are capable of, was built completely secretly and the planes were just a DISTRACTION from the REAL weapon, even though the use of this superweapon for whatever reason would have got the sympathy of the American public far more easily than a couple of planes. This weapon was never, ever used again in any circumstance, nor any technology like it. The government successfully covered it up until a single person managed to uncover the truth, which for some reason hasn't been silenced by the Government which is perfect in it's covering up of this giant laser right up until now."

You may as well say that aliens came down and blasted the WTC, because there's no reason to believe that they didn't! And there's no reason not to believe that Russell's Teapot didn't fall from the sky onto Building 7 and caused it to collapse, because there's no reason that teapots can't do that apparently. You literally have to believe that the US Government is a cartoon villain who is smart enough to build a giant laser beam, and dumb enough to try and cover up attacking their own people with planes hitting their laser beam target. It's utterly ridiculous.

Once again, prove that this weapon exists, and then this theory will be taken seriously. Until then, I'm not wasting hours of my life on 9/11 truther videos.

[Snarky]

The identity and motivation of whoever was behind it becomes an issue because the only way theories such as this could remotely work (even if we grant the possibility of an energy beam weapon being deployed) would be if there was a gigantic coverup, prepared in advance. For example, Dr. Wood has apparently claimed that during the clean-up work, they were shipping in dirt and stuff to Ground Zero just so there'd be debris to remove.

So now you have two implausible claims:

(1) That, contrary to all appearances, the towers weren't brought down by the planes that very clearly hit them, but by some other, secret means that doesn't even exist as far as we know.
(2) That someone staged the whole thing to look like a terrorist attack, which would involve the collusion of many, many people in government, media, intelligence agencies, various private citizens, and even the terrorist group that took responsibility, in the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Americans (including in many cases their own friends, family members and colleagues) for some purpose unknown. And all this without any of the participants spilling the beans, or any credible evidence of the conspiracy leaking in the decade and a half after the act.

Against the alternative: That the terrorists who were on the flights, from the group that had tried to blow up the WTC before, in fact crashed the planes into the towers, just like we saw on TV, for the reasons their leader stated over and over. That the destruction and the fires set by the crash caused the towers to collapse, just like it seemed, and that various stuff around was destroyed as well, by fires, debris, shock waves and other things you might expect.

That doesn't mean that every last piece of data you can drag up can be properly explained. There might be some mistakes and misinterpretations in the official accounts (just as there clearly are in the analyses of freelance/amateur experts who post their reports on YouTube), and there might even be some details that were covered up for various reasons. (For example, measurements of certain toxic particles in the air in the aftermath may have been suppressed because they desperately needed people on site to clean up; there could conceivably have been some secret intelligence or military activities going on in the buildings that they didn't want people to know about... stuff like that.) Minor unexplained details or discrepancies don't invalidate the broad strokes of the official account, and certainly don't point towards a secret superweapon.

You know, if your equations tell you that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, you don't start raving about the secret levitation rays that have been installed all over the world, and that their flapping wings are just a distraction from what's really going on. First you check your calculations for errors, and if you can't find any you figure there's something missing from your model, that they do in fact fly because of their wings but we don't yet understand in every detail how it happens.

[RickJ]

... You may as well say that aliens came down and blasted the WTC ...

But..but..but..isn't that that where they got the super laser beam technology.  I mean there's no way human beings are smart enoguh to invent such a thing...it had to be space aliens!

[Darth Mandarb]

I think Snarky and Scavenger have said any counter-arguments I would have made so I won't engage in that regard!

I have always been (and continue to be) fascinated by how differently people can interpret the same events (particularly controversial events like nine-eleven).

The counter argument I usually make to people that insist nine-eleven was an inside job (or postulate some conspiracy) is the president can't get a blowjob without the world finding out about it.  You think something THAT massive (a cover-up of the murder of thousands of American citizens) would even remotely be possible?  I really just can't accept it.

The other thing I always consider is that human beings have a remarkable ability for "connecting the dots" (call it pattern recognition, etc.).  It's an evolutionary thing that has, for the most part, been a survival tactic.  That large predatory cat hunched up its legs and crept low to the ground when it attacked Ooga last month, and Grump last week... I have determined that when it does this, there is a danger.  Flash forward a couple thousand years and we're not, for the most part, concerned with large cats on the plains stalking us... so this "gift" turns to imagination instead of survival.  We like to draw parallels, make connections, see things even when they aren't there (Jesus in toast anybody?).

This ability is really fantastic!

Here's a challenge I'll put forth; somebody give me an absolutely INSANE theory about nine-eleven (even nuttier than super freak'n laZer beams) and give me 10 years and I can find "facts" and "evidence" in all the data from nine-eleven to support it.  No matter how nutty the theory, the human mind (imagination) can drum up connections and lines of "reason" to support that claim, make it sound "official" and people would believe it.  Just as they do Dr. Wood's theory.

I don't take anything from Dr. Wood... I'm sure she'll go viral, write a book, make a million or two, etc. 

This is, I suspect, her intent with the whole thing anyway.  Not finding any answers or "truth". 

That's just my nutty theory though

[Cuiki]

Gee, thanks for being so patronising.

I'm not articulate enough to explain my point of view and to argue with the three of you (not that I want to, anyway), especially as this is starting to look a bit like one of those religious threads...

But let me just say this and then I'll shut up:
You don't believe it's possible for a relatively big number of people to keep a secret like that hidden from the public eyes? Okay, might be true. I never even claimed that's what 9/11 was all about. But I wouldn't be so sure about the absurdity of grand schemes being hidden from the public in general. Think about the NSA and how many people worked there for years before somebody was brave (or crazy) enough to *publicly* expose their activities. Why didn't any of the other employees say anything sooner? Who knows. Maybe they though they were doing the right thing, maybe they were too scared (and quite rightly so), or maybe they just couldn't give a fuck and quite liked their jobs. But it worked. (And it does to this day, as far as I know.)

[Gribbler]

This thread belongs on Project Avalon forums. Seriously, however you wanna call it, "conspiracy theory" or "truth", you're gonna find more of it there. And each "truth" backed up with 6-hour long video. Look, I get it. We all want our world to be much more interesting place. Take that Sun portal theory for example. All stars in the universe are just jump gates to planets that surround them. Is it true? I don't know. Never say never. Maybe in a 100 years it'll be common means of travel. It sure sound cool. Hell, cool enough to make a sci-fi AGS adventure game out of it! Right?