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

[NickyNyce]

Everything I witnessed that day makes way more sense than any conspiracy theory. IMO, the buildings collapsed not just due to fire, "but also due to the passenger jet that was full of fuel and going 500 mph that crashed into it". This was a clear act of terrorism.

I also believe they collapsed due to poor construction, or should I say "super light weight construction that couldn't handle getting hit by a plane". The buildings collapsed at the points of impact, and they didn't collapse straight downwards at first. The first building tilted inwards and started to turn on its side. The second did just about the same thing. Both of these buildings also collapsed in the exact same way, which makes it seem even more obvious that they both had the same flaw, or weakness.

just my little opinion...again. All of this seems so much more reasonable than the 10,000 page book of how the Government pulled it off. The most incredible hoax the world has ever seen.....step right up ladies and gentlemen.

[Khris]

A building with a unique structure didn't behave like other buildings!

The all-powerful, hyper-intelligent government wanted to fake a terrorist attack, obviously used controlled demolitions but told everybody it was from planes, because people don't know the difference anyway (unless they have a youtube channel). Then they released reports that are totally suspicious and therefore obviously fake!

They did this because they needed a reason to go to war with Iraq. And while they can easily pull of a huge conspiracy with more than 10'000 insiders, right in the middle of New York, they couldn't fake their own Army finding WMDs somewhere in the desert, thousands of miles away!

That is a very solid case you make, and I was just converted. I'm now a truther and pledge to henceforth ignore how compression algorithms work whenever I look at scanned birth certificates.

[Jack]

- The Government/Illuminati/Federal Reserve/Rothschilds/Jews/Aliens are these superbeings who come up with a plan to demolish the WTC buildings using Death Rays/Disintegration Beams/Synchronised Explosives/The Hand of God while covering it up with Advanced Holograms of a Plane/A Real Plane but Empty/Also a Plane But Just Obvious Misdirection, thus ensuring that people will be skeptical of a plane's ability to take out the World Trade Center, and forgetting that if they pretended the Terrorists had Death Rays/Disintegration Beams/The Ability to Plant Explosives/The Hand of God they could more easily strike fear into the hearts of Americans.

And that, is why you fail. You lump all conspiracy theories together, even the junk like Dr Judy meant to confuse, and decide that if some are clearly false, all of them must be.

These things (that I have stated) have not been debunked. Debunking sites debunk theories that have no relation to what actually happened, which is called a straw man argument. Or they prove scientifically that fire can cause steel beams to sag and then consider this proof of fire being able to cause a symmetrical collapse at free fall speed (controlled demolition), but only implicitly. How many skyscrapers have experienced complete collapse due to fire, ever? Three! And they all have WTC in their name. Look it up.

Everything I witnessed that day makes way more sense than any conspiracy theory. IMO, the buildings collapsed not just due to fire, "but also due to the passenger jet that was full of fuel and going 500 mph that crashed into it". This was a clear act of terrorism.

I also believe they collapsed due to poor construction, or should I say "super light weight construction that couldn't handle getting hit by a plane". The buildings collapsed at the points of impact, and they didn't collapse straight downwards at first. The first building tilted inwards and started to turn on its side. The second did just about the same thing. Both of these buildings also collapsed in the exact same way, which makes it seem even more obvious that they both had the same flaw, or weakness.

just my little opinion...again. All of this seems so much more reasonable than the 10,000 page book of how the Government pulled it off. The most incredible hoax the world has ever seen.....step right up ladies and gentlemen.

And thank you both for making my point about an effective cover-up. You clearly have no idea about WTC7, because you keep talking about planes. Why don't you know about WTC7? The media didn't cover it. Because it's a smoking gun.

While we're on the subject, both of the twin towers were designed to withstand jet plane impacts. Look it up.

10,000 page book? That must sound really scary. It's a controlled demolition, that's all. They happen all the time.

That is a very solid case you make, and I was just converted. I'm now a truther and pledge to henceforth ignore how compression algorithms work whenever I look at scanned birth certificates.

Birth certificates? Holograms? Where do you get this stuff? It's no wonder people are having trouble with this.

Where did the need for 10,000 (there's that scary number again) insiders come from? To get the military to stand down? They were running the biggest collection of drills the world has ever seen. So many, they literally couldn't tell the truth from a drill when the call came. Look it up. These drills actually always happen on the same day of a terrorist attack, like the subway bombings in the UK following 9/11 (7/7 etc) or the recent shootings in Paris and such. But that's just more circumstantial coincidences, that happen every single time. You can look that up too, but you won't.

I think that when most people realise that the government is definitely involved in both the attack and the cover-up, they can't accept it. It's the government, the good guys. A government working for its own interests rather than the people can't exist, right? Just a few bad apples.

I'm not here to sermonise you with my beliefs, and I feel that I have made the absolutely observable and provable facts of the matter relatively clear. That was certainly a controlled demolition, the symmetry is what is always sought in a controlled demolition. That is not possible, by definition, with an uncoordinated fire. There are thousands of engineers and architects that have put their credentials behind these plainly observable facts and demanded an re-investigation (which will never happen of course), called AE911. Don't look that up. I'll let you know when the number of PhDs reaches 10,000.

[Khris]

Look, you are not smarter than us. It's always the same with you conspiracy types: you cannot accept that we simply look at the same phenomenon but come to a different conclusion. Therefore you need to invent some other reason. It's not that I can't accept that the government is bad. It's that the arguments you have listed are not convincing to me. (Plus, that government was bad. They are basically war criminals. Yet I don't think they planned 9/11, because the evidence points to 19 terrorists.)
The same "arguments" that you find extremely compelling exist for lots of other conspiracies, and there is a reasonable answer to everything you have mentioned.

For instance you claim that a) just fire cannot have caused the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and that b) they fell in freefall speed.
a) is just an assertion, based on willful ignorance of how the construction of the towers was unique
b) is addressed here: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm (please show how this is a straw man... )

The fact that you keep bringing up how other buildings did not collapse from fires, ignoring that those buildings had a tight mesh of beams and not what's basically a metal sausage casing attached to a metal pole shows that your arguments do not have the level of sophistication you might think they have.
Plus, your posts contain other red flags, for instance the tired old "the media didn't cover X". When a CT makes this claim, it's pretty much a surefire bet that the media actually covered X extensively.

You are not smarter than us; we are not the "sheeple" you wish us to be. I'm actually very interested in conspiracy theories in general, and the typical mistakes CTs make. To me you're just one of an army of crackpots who have not bothered to do basic research into why people fall for conspiracy theories.

[Darth Mandarb]

Why can't you all see the [obvious] truth?

There is, clearly, a nefarious group of individuals known as IDeA (Internet Defense Advocates).

These men and women are called upon when a conspiracy theorist's internet discussion isn't going well (like, for instance, when a discussion has over 15 pages of, basically, nobody agreeing with the conspiracy and offering facts to completely destroy the argument in the first place).  They enter the discussion and attempt to back up the original argument's points.  Their tactics range from subtle (seemingly calling out the original concept as silly, but saying the over-all "facts" are still part of the conspiracy) to downright blatant (attempting to belittle those who disagree).  Sometimes they like to mix a little of each.

They are expensive, but well worth the cost.

[Gurok]

Yeah! Conspiracies make me so angry! Killuminati! Fight the power, monkey424.

P.S. Darth, when's the next lodge meeting?

[Darth Mandarb]

P.S. Darth, when's the next lodge meeting?

I may (or may not) have any (or a) idea what you are (or are not (or might not be)) talking about.

[NickyNyce]

Bridges are made to withstand cars driving on them. Look it up. So I'm guessing every time a bridge collapses, this means the government did it?

Planes are the safest way to travel. Look it up. So every time one does crash, it must be due to the government?

The Titanic was the greatest ship in the world that could never sink. Look it up. Yep, had to be the government that planted explosives. So by you saying that the towers were built to withstand getting hit by a plane, or could never collapse due to fire, means absolutely nothing.

Just because the towers were supposed to be able to withstand an impact, doesn't mean that there is no way in the world it could never happen. Things fail all the time, but it's more fun to say that the government killed thousands of people to go to war. Don't you think that a simple bomb somewhere would be enough to do this?

Hell, if one terrorist does something bad with a single gun, countries go to war now. Why try to pull off the craziest, most unbelievable, most incredible hoax in the world, that smart people like you would never believe, to go to war?

Some people choose to start believing things from the opposite ends of the spectrum. I start off disbelieving, and some start off thinking aliens could be the culprits until proven otherwise.

[Mandle]

These things we know: No skyscraper has ever experienced complete collapse due to fire of any size or duration, unless you count 3 buildings in new york

Were any of these other skyscrapers hit at max speed with a jetliner still mostly full of aviation fuel?

No? Then why compare them at all?

"any size or duration" just went right out the window...

A normal skyscraper fire fueled by merely the flamable materials present in the building (no matter how long they burn for) can in no way compare to the heat generated by full tanks of aviation fuel acting as the accelerant...

Try adding as much coal as you can to a pot-belly stove and try to melt it for 24 hours: Then pump in some aviation fuel for 30 minutes and let's see how well it holds up...

A quick, incredibly hot fire will melt the hell out of metal structure in 30 minutes...

A slow burning normal fire will do nothing to the structure even if it continues for a week...

Metal reacts to sudden and violent changes of temperature suddenly and violently...

Metal cares nothing about slow fires below its melting point...

[Jack]

For instance you claim that a) just fire cannot have caused the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and that b) they fell in freefall speed.
a) is just an assertion, based on willful ignorance of how the construction of the towers was unique
b) is addressed here: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm (please show how this is a straw man... )

The straw man is "debunking" the fall of 1 & 2 when I (and AE911) am clearly talking about the blatant controlled demolition which was the collapse of WTC 7.

Dunno if y'all noticed, but I've been talking about WTC 7 this whole time. That's 7. 7 does not equal 1, neither does it equal 2. WTC 7 was not struck by an air-plane.

BTW jet fuel is kerosene. A jet flame generates a lot more heat than a normal kerosene/jet fuel fire because it is physically accelerated. And if the building does experience a partial collapse, it will never collapse in on itself, which is the path of greatest resistance.

But what would be the point in discussing 1 & 2, when you see WTC 7 implode and your brain says office fire because the government said so? (No it's not office fire because planes and big metal sausage).

Forget it.

[Snarky]

I hate to keep this thread going, but I can't resist my curiosity:

So why do you think the government decided to leave a "smoking gun" by blowing up WTC7? As you say, it didn't make much of an impact on the popular imagination (probably mainly because there were no reported casualties, as it had burned for hours and been evacuated when the firefighters noticed signs of its impending collapse â€" which doesn't tend to support the controlled demolition theory), so it can hardly have been useful to achieve the supposed goal of justifying war. What did destroying it contribute to the scheme, and if the cover story was going to be the two planes, why did they throw in something that according to you doesn't fit?

This isn't "NASA faked the moon landing"-crazy. It's "NASA faked the Challenger disaster"-crazy.

[Khris]

Dunno if y'all noticed, but I've been talking about WTC 7 this whole time. That's 7. 7 does not equal 1, neither does it equal 2. WTC 7 was not struck by an air-plane.

You have mentioned Buildings 1 and 2 multiple times:

No skyscraper has ever experienced complete collapse due to fire of any size or duration, unless you count 3 buildings in new york.

Or they prove scientifically that fire can cause steel beams to sag and then consider this proof of fire being able to cause a symmetrical collapse at free fall speed (controlled demolition), but only implicitly. How many skyscrapers have experienced complete collapse due to fire, ever? Three! And they all have WTC in their name. Look it up.

If you must act like a smartass, at least don't be a pathetic liar at the same time.

[Mandle]

Actually, do you know what would be amazingly cool?

Monkey424: Make a game based on everything you have researched, with the main character a conspiracy theorist who has stumbled a bit too close to the truth, like Mel Gibson in that movie so redundantly named, all things considered, that I need not name it...

I'm not even being a bit snarky here: With the amount of knowledge you have gathered on this subject you obviously feel very passionate about it could be an incredible game experience for the player, and your passion should see you through to the completion of the project...

Given a well-enough developed project you could even potentially get Judy herself to voice the role of her own character, and/or maybe even support a kickstarter funding for it!

Also, you would be furthering your cause to spread the word of your beliefs in a way more creative and artistically satisfying manner than posting massive info-dumps on online forums...

I'm serious man:

I WOULD TOTALLY PLAY THAT THE SHIT OUT OF THAT GAME!!!

[Retro Wolf]

I was going to say something similar Mandle, make a bloody game Monkey! Any game!