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

[Mandle]

Mandle

The two tall buildings (WTC1 and WTC2) collapsed straight down; from the top and straight down. They didn't topple.

The twin towers were designed (as are all modern skyscrapers) to collapse downwards into their footprints if ever a fatal structural flaw happened. If skyscrapers were NOT designed this way then the entire city of NY (or any other major city) would just be a dominoes chain waiting to happen: If all the buildings could topple over then just imagine the carnage from this event. No...sorry but people already thought about how to stop this from happening...

Mandle

Nevertheless, your dust experiment inspired me to conduct my own, being the science nerd that I am. For this experiment I used flour, assuming this is similar to concrete dust. I went up to the balcony and dropped a sheet of paper and threw the flour up in the air. The flour hit the ground first. But your experiment has merit too. You have demonstrated that living room dust is similar to the dust in the hazy photograph, i.e. they are both composed of very fine particles that stay suspended in the air.

Oh man...I just gotta say...I'm sorry and at the same time killing myself laughing...but mostly sorry!!!

I didn't actually do the dusting experiment in my living room that I said I did. It was kind of intended as a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour about dodgy science, and I thought that it was obvious that I was joking about it. So...sorry again for that but....does there happen to be a video of you performing the flour experiment? That would be AWESOME to see!!!

Misj'

The reason she doesn't focus on the planes is not because they appear to be a distraction but because there is not enough evidence related to the planes. Think about it. Did we see any wreckage? Apparently a landing wheel or two were discovered at ground zero somewhere (in addition to some guy's passport). But where was the rest of the plane? Remember, a plane did not hit Building 7, suggesting that maybe you don't need planes to demolish a building. We all saw a plane fly into the tall building, like a knife through butter, but is this actually possible? Judy Wood and others assert that it isn't. You'd expect to see some resistance from the concrete and steel structure resulting in some distortion / wreckage of the plane, regardless of it's speed. Just watch any YouTube video on a plane crash and you'll see how vulnerable they are. Eg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_NT43aJ_Jw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Are you actually suggesting here that the planes hitting the towers was completely faked?!

This is SO disrespectful to every one of the many thousands of people who lost someone important in their lives who was on one of those planes that I cannot even fathom it...

Are all the people reading off the names of lost loved-ones at the anniversary memorial ceremonies hired actors???

Or did you mean something different?

SIDENOTE:

I have noticed a rather large inconsistancy in the way the "impossible" survival of "the bathtub" and the "impossible" collapse of "Tower 7" are treated:

Let me get this straight:

(A) The bathtub walls could not possibly have survived the impact of both towers collapsing.

(B) There was no logical reason for Tower 7 to collapse.

In case (A) the bathtub walls were buried underground and reinforced massively...In fact: Why would they have NOT been designed to withstand the collapse of the towers??? Did the engineers that designed the entire structure think that the towers were going to stand forever like the Pyramids and never have to get replaced??? Or did they think that when the towers finally became obsolete that they were going to be taken apart one rivet at a time instead of detonated in a controlled demolition? Anyway...I digress: The bathtub walls survived which it seems was highly suspicious but...

In case (B) the collapse of Tower 7 was impossible to explain even given that millions of tons of rubble had just rained down a few blocks away, even though this structure was above ground and not underground secured by millions of tons of earth and concrete...AND was closer to the collapse than the bathtub walls...

I think this is a huge inconsistancy!

[Darth Mandarb]

1) Re: Filing cabinet. You reckon heat melted the filing cabinet? Ok. Heat from where? Fire? Fire needs oxygen to burn, so i suspect there would have been oxygen present. To burn paper, you need heat + oxygen. So why didn't the paper burn

This is flawed thinking. 

Rub your hands together and it'll generate heat without fire/flame.  The sheer amount of friction created from the collapse of those building would have generated tremendous amounts of heat/energy (enough to say, vaporize human beings).

Also; consider that there might have been fire elsewhere which caused the heat but didn't come in contact with the filing cabinet.  Think of a fireplace in a home.  The fire is in one area but the heat fills the entire house.  One year around Christmas I put a candle too close to the fireplace and the wax completely melted leaving the [un-burned] wick behind.  Not really the same thing but you get the point.

I find nothing fantastical or mysterious about metal melting and not burning paper.

Dr. Wood just claims it's impossible, and won't take the time to actually prove it's impossible, because that would only serve to disprove her theory by either showing that it CAN be done (melt metal without burning paper) or that the tech for he mystery weapon isn't possible.

[Scavenger]

Scav

1) Re: Filing cabinet. You reckon heat melted the filing cabinet? Ok. Heat from where? Fire? Fire needs oxygen to burn, so i suspect there would have been oxygen present. To burn paper, you need heat + oxygen. So why didn't the paper burn?

Look here.

Hey look at that picture, looks like it didn't melt, it was just charred and crushed. Like a pancaked Baked Alaska. Can you show me a picture of an actually melted filing cabinet to compare?

And what's THIS? Burnt and crushed together paper with unburnt paper in the middle? OH MY. Something sandwiched between those bits could have been protected by the outer layer!

2) Re: Steel-cap boots. As Dr Wood says: "When your oven starts to melt you know the turkey is done!" Why were there no reports of burnt feet?

Give me evidence the steel in the boots was melting, and not the soles. Besides which, a firefighter's boots have multiple layers of insulation. Their boots are designed to protect them, even if the outer layers of the boots (perhaps the rubber in the soles?) loses integrity.

3) Re: Toasted cars. Was the dust superheated? No witnesses reported this. In fact they reported the dust was cold / warm. However the cars definitely appeared to be on fire. But organic things like trees, paper, etc were not affected. Why?

Wood is an insulator, and especially in a place like New York, it's pretty wet, it doesn't catch fire easily. Metal (perhaps on CARS) is a conductor.

You've given me no evidence it was a energy beam. And the website is a nightmare to navigate, it has no clear direction, it's the diary of a madman.

[Misj']

The reason she doesn't focus on the planes is not because they appear to be a distraction but because there is not enough evidence related to the planes.

The following is a transcript from the original youtube video you cited:

2h10m
Question: You haven't gone into ehm about the airplanes.

Wood: Well, good question. As I like to say: the towers turned to dust. Airplanes can't make buildings turn to dust. Real airplanes can't, and neither can fake airplanes. So they're a distraction. But often people have - they've been taught that there's been airplanes that hit...what happened to the passengers what happened to the airplanes. I don't get into that because it's such a distraction. But it is an interesting question. What happened to the airplanes? – Joey Moore, that flight attendant that flew out of Boston that morning he saw the flight attendants of flight 175. That was the last time he saw them.

Someone in the audience mumbles.

Wood: The flight attendants of flight 175? – He saw them that morning in Boston. The one's that supposedly ended up in the south tower, flight 175.

Question: They didn't really go into the plane?

Wood: Yes, but he doesn't know where they went after that. We don't know.

She herself stated that the reason she doesn't go into the planes is, because they are a distraction. It's her words, not mine. Now, her argumentation as to why they're a distraction is as followed: airplanes can't make buildings turn to dust. However, the turning to dust is supported only by her hypothesis (not in my opinion by the evidence she presents). So the reason they are a distraction - and should be ignored according to her - is, because they do not fit within her hypothesis.

... because there is not enough evidence related to the planes. Think about it. Did we see any wreckage? Apparently a landing wheel or two were discovered at ground zero somewhere (in addition to some guy's passport). But where was the rest of the plane?

Take a step back for a minute.

I have never seen any physical evidence of the twin towers. I have seen photographic evidence but can they be trusted? - I have also never seen any physical evidence of the planes flying into the twin towers only photographic evidence. But you are now telling me – and Wood is hinting to it in her answer – that this photographic evidence can't be trusted because the planes were fake.

Now if we assume that the photographic evidence of the event are tainted and cannot be trusted. Then why rely on photographic evidence at all (her entire argument for dustification is based on photographs)? – Either you have to trust it all or mistrust it all, or you have to have a very good reason not to trust specific parts while trusting others. In this case her reason is solely based on them not fitting her hypothesis.

We all saw a plane fly into the tall building, like a knife through butter, but is this actually possible? Judy Wood and others assert that it isn't. You'd expect to see some resistance from the concrete and steel structure resulting in some distortion / wreckage of the plane, regardless of it's speed.

Do I understand you correctly when I conclude that you state that: rather than a distraction, the – apparently fake – planes are a cover-up?


EDIT:

Remember, a plane did not hit Building 7, suggesting that maybe you don't need planes to demolish a building.

I think that most people here agree that throughout history there has been ample proof that - under the right conditions - buildings can be destroyed without the need for a plane. That in itself is, however, not really an argument to proof that when a plane and a building try to occupy the same space, said plane cannot be the cause of the collapse of said building.

[Radiant]

These are two good examples of preferring urban legends over fact checking.

"Buildings topple over". Yes, in cartoons they do, but to expect anything resembling a real-life skyscraper to topple over belies a complete ignorance of the structural physics involved. No, buildings do not topple like that.
"Wood burns easily". No, it actually doesn't. As anyone who has tried to light a campfire can attest, it's not exaclty easy to get wood to burn; that's why you use e.g. pieces of paper to start the fire.

Essentially, whenever you see a statement like "I'd expect X to happen but..." you know whoever said that hasn't bothered to do basic fact checking.

[NickyNyce]

You are also forgetting that tens of thousands of people witnessed these planes hitting the towers with their own eyes. Even people inside the towers watched the planes hit, and some of them escaped to tell about it. People from miles and miles away saw these planes and knew something wasn't right due to their flight path.

Nothing like this has ever happened before, and this is the perfect breeding ground for conspiracies to pop up, because there is nothing to compare it to. Apparently Dr. Woods is the savior of the universe, and will tell everyone about it when you buy her book. Was she standing there that day when the planes hit? Was she there when people were climbing the rubble looking for survivors?

Let's face it, some things that happened on that day are not easily explainable, but that does not mean that energy weapons did this. You still have not answered my question about where this weapon was, and where it was pointed. The towers collapsed from the points of impact, not from the top. So the energy weapon thing makes no sense at all. Fire fighters boots were hot and melting...yep, I would expect that. That is not strange at all. The ground was hot and smoking for weeks after the collapse. Out of all the people that watched those towers come down(tens of thousands), nobody has said a word about an energy weapon or that something looked fishy. But Dr. Woods says they were all fooled and are too stupid to see what really happened. There is an old saying...There's a sucker born every day...and people like Dr. Woods, prey on that.

You also mention that they found some pieces of the plane. Did you expect anyone to find all of it? Are you insinuating that someone placed those pieces there when nobody was looking?

[Mandle]

You also mention that they found some pieces of the plane. Did you expect anyone to find all of it? Are you insinuating that someone placed those pieces there when nobody was looking?

You just gave me a great image of an adventure game character looking around sneakily and then pulling an airplane's landing gear out of his pocket...

[Snarky]

Don't tell me this discussion has petered out? I'm bored. Tell me more about the cold fusion death rays!

[monkey424]

Hey Snarky. Don't worry mate, I'm back!

Anyone else besides the usual crowd want to join the debate? Just dive right in!

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

Mandle

Firstly addressing your baffling bathtub conundrum.

   

Diagrams sourced from this website..

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html

Notice the relative position of the bathtub wall and the WTC buildings. As you can see the wall is directly adjacent to WTC1 and WCT2 while WTC7 is further away, outside the bathtub enclosure and across the street. The bathtub wasn't designed to withstand the impact of a building collapse, and if they wanted to demolish / dismantle the buildings for some reason they wouldn't dare use explosives because that is too risky! Engineers were concerned about this when clearing the half collapsed buildings; they specifically didn't use explosives. There are other ways to dismantle a building, piece by piece if necessary.

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

Mandle and Radiant

Yes, buildings can topple. Like this one in Shanghai.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pktM__i-8IQ&autoplay=1

The WTC buildings that fell neatly and symmetrically into their own footprint is more reminiscent of a controlled demolition.

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

Mandle and  Misj'

An aircraft penetrating a building like a knife through butter defies the laws of physics (but perhaps you won't believe that until MythBusters cover it). As unbelievable as it sounds, it can only mean that the planes were indeed fake!!

Check this out..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSzHmHnR78&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This video includes 3D model analysis carried out by Richard D Hall. Various videos showing the plane flight path and impact, many filmed by amateurs, were superimposed onto the 3D model and are all consistent with available positioning data from civilian radar. It appears that the videos were not faked, however since planes ultimately can't penetrate a building like Wile E. Coyote through a pavement, the only explanation is that the planes existed as an illusion.

The technology to create an illusion of planes adds yet another level of complexity. The planes might have had something to do with the mechanism that brought down the towers (excluding Building 7) but we can only speculate here because there is not enough evidence.

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

Darth

I accept that heat can come from other sources such as friction. But I don't accept that friction alone can result in metal melting. Your Christmas candle probably melted from infrared radiation.

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

Scav

I mentioned those three things (i.e. filing cabinet, steel cap boots and toasted cars) because there is a similar theme going on. Another one is the exploding air tanks on the firetrucks prior to the building collapse. You have to admit that all of these occurrences are strange. What specific evidence would you like to see to convince you that a directed energy weapon was used? Have you seen it before?

Another anomaly is the curious curved holes that appeared in windows of nearby buildings (compare this to a regular break in glass caused by a projectile and you'll see there's a difference). This along with the other anomalous effects can all be replicated in John Hutchinson's experiments involving interference of energy fields.

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

NickyNyce

Why is a directed energy weapon such a ridiculous idea? Think John Hutchinson, not Dr. Evil. We know that the physics involved can be replicated. We also know that the Reagan administration commissioned a defense program to develop such technology. Nikola Tesla was likely the first to discover the technology back in the early 1900s. You cannot deny that the existence of the technology is a possibility if not a probability.

In regards to your question of the whereabouts of the weapon. Simple answer - I don't know. How could I possibly know that!? There is evidence of an energy weapon and that's all I can say. The evidence points to something other than the alleged planes causing all the destruction. The buildings mainly turned to fine dust. Planes and fires cannot do this. But John Hutchinson's experiments strongly implicate a class of technology that can.

[Ali]

Check this out..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSzHmHnR78&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This video includes 3D model analysis carried out by Richard D Hall. Various videos showing the plane flight path and impact, many filmed by amateurs, were superimposed onto the 3D model and are all consistent with available positioning data from civilian radar. It appears that the videos were not faked, however since planes ultimately can't penetrate a building like Wile E. Coyote through a pavement, the only explanation is that the planes existed as an illusion.

I didn't watch the whole video (they are all too long), but I did watch the carefully reconstructed 3D representations of the second plane striking.

I don't want to have a go specifically at you, monkey242. But I find it extraordinary that anyone could watch video after video of a plane hitting a building, and listen to the screams of the onlookers, and draw the conclusion that no planes hit that building.

None of us have an innate, gut sense about what happens when planes fly into buildings. And our models are not always correct (c.f. the unsinkable ship of 2012, the uncrashable stock market of 2008).

[Mandle]

What happened to WTC 6?

[Darth Mandarb]

What happened to WTC 6?

[RickJ]

Not that it matters but here are some facts:

Aliens
Yup.  Aliens!


Airplane Wings
Each wing is made from a solid piece of aluuminum ~5 inches thick at the fuselage end and 1-2 inches thick at the tip.  The Davenport Iowa, Alcoa Aluminum factory makes them for Boeing.  I had several projects in this factory, over a period of several years, and walked by the NC milling machine that cut these out of a solid aluminum plate.  Ribs, skin, and other parts, I was told, are attached to the solid aluminum substructure. Here is a satelite view of the  Alcoa factory

WTC Construction
The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society have a good description of the WTC towers' construction.  You can read the full article here.  Here are a few facts from the article.

The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight.  Modular construction methods were used (i.e. lots of bolts)

A lightweight “perimeter tube” design was used (i.e. 36 cm square steel tube, able to support weight but not so much lateral impact)


Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story (i.e. to support a concrete floor).


The building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air.

[NickyNyce]

So they used this weapon to kill civilians, police officers and fireman trying to put out two towers that were hit by an illusion. Yep, sounds totally reasonable.

And how silly of them to not know that a car would catch fire, a tank would explode, boots would melt and windows would have funny looking cracks in them while they used this weapon. Who do they think they're trying to fool here. Good thing we have Dr. Woods and her book that's on sale to figure this out. If this was all true, Dr. Woods would already be 6 feet under ground. FACT!

Here's some fun video's.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0R4RRGjOSo0
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KBxUEZh4jOM

[Andail]

Ok, I'm not even going to begin questioning this whole fake airplane theory, since it's just too outrageous for me to ingest and form stringent arguments against, so I'll focus on the energy weapons themselves...

Whoever has these weapons... why aren't they using them for, say, taking over the world? Or, for something. Has it run out of batteries?
Was this the only usage they had, destroying offices buildings and killings thousands of civilians, an act which had only negative consequences for everyone?

[Radiant]

Yes, buildings can topple. Like this one in Shanghai.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pktM__i-8IQ&autoplay=1

Did you notice (1) how this building is constructed in an extremely different fashion and from completely different materials than the twin towers, and (2) how it is called "amazing" that this happened, i.e. the very title of the movie you link already points out that this is not normal behavior for a building?

The WTC buildings that fell neatly and symmetrically into their own footprint is more reminiscent of a controlled demolition.

Are you a controlled demolitions expert? No? Thought not.
Actual controlled demolition experts have gone on record stating the exact opposite of what you claim. Simply put, expert analysis trumps amateur guesswork.

[Snarky]

Christ, there's too much here to form an overall response. I think it would be most interesting to see a list of things monkey424 is unwilling to accept because of some perceived weaknesses in the evidence, vs. things he's ready to believe in despite huge holes in the theories. To take just one:

Think John Hutchinson, not Dr. Evil. We know that the physics involved can be replicated.

That's the problem though! Hutchison's "effect" has not been shown to be replicable by reputable researchers or under controlled conditions. Indeed, there seems to be rather better evidence of fraud in his videos than in the videos of planes hitting the WTC:

One particularly damning piece of evidence against him is a video he produced for a television special which shows a toy UFO levitating and jumping around wildly. A string is clearly visible in the upper left-hand corner of the video, wiggling in sync with the UFO's movements. At first Hutchison claimed that it was a wire which was part of the apparatus, but later he confessed that he was "creative" with the footage because he has been unable to reproduce the effect since 1991.

The best possible spin he could come up with is that he's admittedly faking videos because he himself has been unable to reproduce the effect since 1991! (It might also be noted that the Wikipedia article on the "Hutchison Effect" was deleted on the request of John Hutchison, apparently because it was too critical in tone.) You'd rather believe this guy has discovered some sort of magic levitation/energy field, than accept that a building could collapse because of fire?!

So one has to ask, why do you reject the obvious, well-documented, happened-in-front-of-our-eyes explanation the moment someone just claims there's any inconsistencies in the physics, while you're perfectly happy to accept the most outlandish science fiction and conspiracy theories (and sorry, but when you're talking about faked planes and suppressing news of a hurricane, you're definitely in conspiracy-land) despite the fact that the "scientific" principles they're supposedly based on have been widely discredited? (Cold fusion, most prominently.) It's not particularly rational.

[Mandle]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KBxUEZh4jOM

This video Nicky posted is really good! The guy in it has read Dr. Woods' book (although in this video he only talks about the first 2-3 chapters...He plans a series...) and gives a very sensible review of it. After hearing him read from the book and seeing some of the pictures in the book I must say that Dr. Wood is a fairly despicable person with no feelings whatsoever for the people who lost their lives or for their loved-ones. Anyone who watches the video should be able to pick the exact point I'm talking about. It's really psychotic and offensive in a jaw-dropping way.

[Misj']

Mandle and  Misj'

An aircraft penetrating a building like a knife through butter defies the laws of physics (but perhaps you won't believe that until MythBusters cover it). As unbelievable as it sounds, it can only mean that the planes were indeed fake!!

Thank you for the completely inappropriate MuthBusters remark. I have never mentioned MythBusters, nor do I consider them doing (good or otherwise) science. I know they were mentioned, but not by me. I also know that you said this as a joke but at the same time - I feel - to belittle my (valid!) comments.

Check this out..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSzHmHnR78

This video includes 3D model analysis carried out by Richard D Hall. Various videos showing the plane flight path and impact, many filmed by amateurs, were superimposed onto the 3D model and are all consistent with available positioning data from civilian radar. It appears that the videos were not faked, however since planes ultimately can't penetrate a building like Wile E. Coyote through a pavement, the only explanation is that the planes existed as an illusion.

I watched the video; just as I watched the original video you posted. And in my opinion it too has the same problem as Wood's video has.

For those who do not want to watch the video, to summarize: the presenter created a 3D model (to scale) and projected the official (3D) flight-path based on radar-data on it. He then shows that the civilian and military radar reports do not overlap (for both planes). Next, the videos are compared to the flight-paths, and he shows that they coincide with with the civilian - and not the military - flight-paths.

Based on this he states (around the 31:15 minutes mark) that: "if we consider the two official flight-paths it stands to reason that both sets of radar data cannot be correct. Either one or possibly both have to be fraudulent. Let's make an assumption that the military radar data is correct. This would mean that Daniel R. Bower's radar report is fraudulent and has been constructed to match the images that were witnessed on video. So we are saying that the military radar detected a real solid object and that object was not recorder by cameras and presumably not seen by witnesses. Is it not possible that this object was some kind of drone aircraft, with stealth capability - making it invisible to the naked eye - using a projection system to generate a visual image of a plane in the sky? - Meaning: the videos were real and the plane was fake."

Let's look at this conclusion.
1. The fact that both official flight-paths do not overlap does not mean that either is fraudulent. It can also mean that one is less accurate than the other, or that they use a (slightly) different point of origin. Fraudulent means that someone explicitly choose to alter the data (as they claim).
2. If you see that all video evidence matches the civilian radar data, while the military data does not, then the logical conclusion is, that the civilian data is more accurate. Making the assumption that the one one that does not match the evidence is correct is - again - working towards a goal not working from the evidence/data.
2.b Why would be military data be more accurate? - According to the remarks about 13 minutes in, it is, because the military data is presented in a table (with fewer time-points) while the civilian data is presented in graphs and images.
2.c If you assume that the flight-path data is fraudulent, then which one would have been easier for the government to alter? - The military data (that they have direct control over) or the civilian data?

An aircraft penetrating a building like a knife through butter defies the laws of physics...
...
It appears that the videos were not faked, however since planes ultimately can't penetrate a building like Wile E. Coyote through a pavement, the only explanation is that the planes existed as an illusion.

So we have empirical evidence based on video data that the planes penetrate a building in this way, and we have a claim that this is physically and ultimately impossible. Rather than correcting the (physics) model we remove data because it doesn't fit our preconceived ideas.

In short, I come to exactly the same conclusion as before: they are dismissing data - using very cumbersome and obfuscated reasoning - because it doesn't fit our hypothesis, rather than changing our hypothesis based on the evidence.

[Darth Mandarb]