Jibble

Author Topic: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11  (Read 50036 times)

Radiant

  • Return once more to the Two Kingdoms!
    • I can help with publishing
    • I can help with story design
    • Radiant worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Radiant worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #260 on: 29 Jun 2015, 17:05 »
I know it is more mysterious to just say he was murdered and leave out details, but a teenager panicked during a robbery attempt and shot him
...with a Death Ray?

monkey424

  • I'm a coffee achiever
    • monkey424 worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #261 on: 29 Jun 2015, 21:05 »
Crimson Wizard

The content in that link is just an example of the type of bullshit you find on the Internet that tries to muddy the waters. I do not care for the information in that article - I just picked it at random. Here's another link on Michael Zebuhr that doesn't go off on a tangent.

NickyNyce

Do you have any idea how ignorant and hypocritical you sound? Please read what I said in my last post again carefully. Then read it again. Then think about it. Then if you can tone down the mob mentality hysterics please respond in a more intellectual manner.
    

Scavenger

  • Cavefish
  • In Four Glorious Colours!
    • I can help with animation
    • I can help with backgrounds
    • I can help with characters
    • I can help with scripting
    • Scavenger worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Scavenger worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #262 on: 29 Jun 2015, 21:51 »
Okay, okay, so I'll turn my ""debunking brain"" off.

Please list all the effects of the death ray, so we can get the death ray's capabilities out on the table here. I'm hearing dustification, weird heatless fires, paint peeling and also rusting, but all of these are different phenomena.

So once and for all: What does the death ray do, exactly? How does it work?

NickyNyce

  • ready...FIRE...aim
    • NickyNyce worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • NickyNyce worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #263 on: 30 Jun 2015, 00:15 »
Forgive me monkey. My main focus is on Judy and not her followers. Your previous post didn't come off so clean either.

You are not looking at ALL of the evidence. The stuff that Judy claimed is 100% evidence is being picked apart and debunked. The fact that Judy led all of you down this path of lies should tell you something. As you can see, not everything she says is true, and she is fluffing her so called evidence. All of the witnesses that discredit Judy are not getting paid, but Judy is charging people to tell her story. All of the conspiracy theorists are selling something. The true witnesses to 911 are not asking for money. This should also tell you something.

The fact that Judy has been caught pushing so called evidence that can't be proven and has been debunked, should make you feel a bit differently about her. Apparently not. I guess even people that are selling so called evidence make mistakes.

I Apologize again if I came off wrong. I'm not trying to put you down, but I am trying to make you realize that the book you purchased is not the golden bible of 911. I think everyone here has done a great job of showing you that everything she says has holes in it.

Nothing that anyone here says or proves will ever change your mind, so all of this is pointless. I think you can agree. It was fun while it lasted. You are very dedicated to this and I respect that. I wish you luck with hunting down this death ray that nobody has ever seen. But be careful, because if you do get too close to the truth, I'm afraid that something might happen to you. It's much safer to be on our side of the mob.

Mandle

  • NO PIXEL LEFT BEHIND!!!
    • Mandle worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Mandle worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #264 on: 30 Jun 2015, 00:32 »
From the article Nicky linked:

Quote
“What happened to the Firetrucks Engine?”

IMAGE HERE:
Spoiler: ShowHide


If Judy did some research on fire trucks she would know that the engine is not under the driver seat but under the middle cab. So, it’s not missing. It’s right here.
http://www.westshorefire.com/images/equipment_repair/firetrucks_up600.jpg
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/imgs/media.images/11664/art2026381.widea.jpg

Dr. Wood claims that the fire-truck's engine was mysteriously vapourized, when in fact the fire-truck's engine is located in a different area of the truck. How could she NOT check this simple fact before making such a huge claim???

Another clear example of Dr.Wood just either making stuff up or not researching her claims to even the level of an elementary-school homework assignment. Either way: This is NOT the scientific method in any way, shape, or form.

How can anyone be expected to believe a single thing she says when so much of it can be disproved with 5 minutes of research by your average non-scientist?

And yes Monkey, I know you are going to say that it's the parts of her theory that are right that matter, not the parts she got wrong. What I'm asking is how to distinguish between the right and the wrong, when so much is just wrong and fatally flawed at the most basic level?

After finding this fire-truck example I now think that Dr. Wood honestly doesn't care how easy her claims are to debunk. She knows that as long as she keeps piling them up her believers will keep eating them up. This is closer to what politicians, extremist groups, and cult-leaders do to sway their flocks than what a scientist does. They know that they have gained a secure foothold to the point where the evidence becomes incidental to what they just say out of their mouths.

But...critical thinking!

For example: I'm going to tell you three "facts":

(A) The sky is purple
(B) Gravity makes things fall up
(C) Abraham Lincoln was born in Wisconsin

Two of these "facts" are easily debunked. One of them is plausible. But doesn't the fact that two are blantant falsehoods sway you to seriously doubt the third? Then, when you look more closely at the third and research it on your own (without listening to any input from me) you discover quickly that it is also not true...

Critical thinking!!!



monkey424

  • I'm a coffee achiever
    • monkey424 worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Alternative Knowledge: Dr Judy Wood is back!
« Reply #267 on: 20 Jan 2016, 08:46 »
As you may know, I started an infamous thread on the forums last year which centered on the research of Dr Judy Wood in relation to the events of 9/11. I also highlighted the work of UK researcher Andrew Johnson who, working closely with Dr Wood, actively documented and analysed encounters with fellow “researchers” to reveal an obvious cover-up attempt. Some good audio files on the subject are listed below. They are available to download and/or listen to at your convenience.

01 - Dr Judy Wood with Regina Meredith on CMN - Where Did the Towers Go.mp3
02 - Ambrose Lane with Dr Wood _ Andrew Johnson - The Hutchison Effect - Jan 2008 (1 of 2).mp3
03 - Ambrose Lane with Dr Wood _ Andrew Johnson - The Hutchison Effect - Jan 2008 (2 of 2).mp3
04 - Presentation by attorney Jerry Leaphart - NIST, Data Quality Act - Aug 2007.mp3
05 - Dr Judy Wood _ Andrew Johnson - Cold Fusion and Information Management - Feb 2014.mp3

Brief Bios

Dr Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers and journal publications in her areas of expertise.
Andrew Johnson earned a degree in Computer Science (with a minor module of Physics) from Lancaster University in 1986. He has worked as a software engineer and a lecturer and is currently a part time tutor for the Open University. He began actively campaigning about 9/11 in 2004.

As tedious as it may be for some, I want to revisit this topic. But before I launch into this thread please note that I don't intend for the subsequent discussions to be solely about 9/11. However I want to first establish some background / context for the following reasons:

a) Past contributors will hopefully approach the material with a fresh mind and eyes.
b) People new to this information will hopefully find the following post comprehensive and insightful.

Below is a list of some of the key evidence of 9/11. I've tried to be thorough and introduce some new information that perhaps got overlooked in the previous thread, but as you can appreciate the list and level of detail is by no means exhaustive. A 500 page book called Where Did the Towers Go has been written on the subject for those who want more detail. Nevertheless there is quite a bit to read here so please bear with me. I've added some pictures too so hopefully it helps to paint the scene.


Key Evidence

1. There was a lack of any appreciable debris pile and seismic signal. Photographs such as the ambulance parked in front of WTC1 and even the well-known flag photo (from a different viewpoint) clearly show a lack of material.

   

Regarding the seismic signal, one thing that perhaps got overlooked in the previous thread was the fact that the signal didn't travel through the earth (rock) on which the buildings were founded. To be technical, no primary and secondary (“P” and “S”) waves were recorded; rather only a "surface wave" was present, which is like how a mattress responds when you remove a weight from its surface. Prominent people in the "truth movement" like architect Richard Gage of AE911Truth don't want to talk about the seismic data. Richard Gage instead wants to promote the theory that thermite was somehow involved in the towers’ destruction.




2. Pieces of falling debris literally disintegrated into dust before our very eyes. The remaining core columns also turned to dust just a few seconds after the main part of the building had disappeared into dust.

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZMjVXtNUec[/embed]   


3. It was not just two (or three) buildings destroyed that day, but several. In fact, virtually all buildings with a WTC prefix were totally or nearly-totally destroyed. Almost all of WTC3 and WTC4 disappeared completely, again without any appreciable debris pile. Curious vertical holes appeared in WTC5 and WTC6, where the latter appeared to be "cored out" in the middle with its edges remaining. Shockingly, firefighters present at ground level in WTC6, specifically those standing directly in that void, went missing - gone without a trace - while others standing just outside of this affected zone survived.

   




4. People disappeared virtually without a trace. The total number of bodies identified by DNA analysis was about equal to the number of people who left the building ("jumpers") plus those in the building in the lower levels. All others just disappeared. This was even evident in a BBC documentary broadcast on the recent anniversary of 9/11 where the recovery efforts were eventually reduced to scavenging for mere bone fragments.


5. "Toasted cars".
About 1400 vehicles spontaneously combusted. The "fires" seemed to target the metal on the cars (not typically combustible) while organic materials like paper and trees were spared. But not everything made of metal was affected, such as street signs and traffic lights, and this gives us a hint as to the phenomenon at play here. Things like street signs and traffic lights are connected to the ground, while cars on rubber tyres are insulated from the ground. Also consider that ambulances may have a grounding feature as a safeguard against electrostatic hazards, which might explain why the ambulance pictured above was spared a “toasting”. Furthermore, vehicles that weren't toasted were typically flipped upside-down.




6. Hurricane Erin. The category 3 hurricane was closest to NYC on the day and then moved away as if being controlled. The fact that it received virtually no media attention is suspicious (it wasn't mentioned or even inserted on the weather map on the evening news). Hurricanes produce a static field, like a Tesla coil, and this directly links to the Hutchison Effect phenomenon which utilises the same sort of technology on a small scale.



The Hutchison Effect is a range of anomalous effects to materials (typically metal) including bending, twisting, peeling, instant rusting, levitation, fusion of dissimilar materials and spontaneous fires. All of these effects were seen on 9/11, so the destructive mechanism appears to share similarities with the Hutchison Effect. John Hutchison, the Canadian experimenter after which the phenomenon is named, was attempting to reproduce the work of Nikola Tesla. He creates a static field with a Tesla coil or Van de Graaff generator and using other equipment such as radar introduces different EM waves that interfere to cause an effect. There is a bit of trial and error to this and at first it was just accidentally discovered. He continued to experiment throughout the 1980’s and although initially had difficulty replicating an effect can now guarantee one on demand (listen to audio file no. 3 about this). His work attracted attention from military personnel and a report about it was subsequently classified by the Canadian government.

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03UkSRqKs5o[/embed]   

It is interesting to note that Hutchison's samples tend to experience an ongoing effect (continued degradation) which was also evident at the 9/11 site that took an unreasonably long time to "clean up" involving dirt brought in, dumped on site and then hauled away. The nearby Bankers Trust building is another example of ongoing effects (it appears to have been "infected") as it was initially repaired but then had to be completely dismantled and rebuilt. A fire broke out during the repairs in 2007. Compare this and other “fires” seen on 9/11 to Hutchison’s boat experiment.





Once Judy Wood cottoned on to the presence of the hurricane and its connection with the Hutchison Effect, she had reached a pivotal point in her research, effectively opening Pandora's Box which in turn sent debunking efforts into overdrive. Grand Poobah of the "truth movement" Jim Fetzer, an apparent supporter of Wood initially, suddenly became hostile at this point in time and was at the helm of this new debunking campaign. Fetzer interviewed video specialist Ace Baker about fake videos Baker had made which appeared to mimic some of the effects seen in Hutchison’s videos. This appeared to be an attempt to discredit Hutchison's work.

   

It is important to understand that the totality and nature of the destruction seen on 9/11 is not consistent with conventional destructive mechanisms. A weapon was deployed on the day that literally tore the towers apart and left behind an abundance of evidence reminiscent of the Hutchison Effect. The hurricane could be considered to be one component of the weapon, and although we don’t know the specifics of the other components we at least know the effects that they caused. The weapon can be classed as directed energy. We should all be familiar with directed energy – a microwave oven is an everyday domestic example. A laser is another example – however lasers produce heat, and the building didn’t burn up or melt (i.e. the destructive mechanism wasn’t thermal energy), so we can rule this out as the weapon. Terminology such as "space lasers" or “space beams” has been used to describe Dr Wood's research (partly due to earlier research which considered that advanced weapons technology may have been developed in the Strategic Defence Initiative programme). One of the first people to use the deceptive term "space beams" to describe Dr Wood's research was Steven E Jones, another prominent figure in the so-called "truth movement." Jones has connections to Los Alamos National Laboratory and statements and actions by him between 1989 and 1991 had a seriously detrimental effect on the field of "cold fusion" research (listen to audio file no. 5).




Legal Aspects

With the help from attorney Jerry Leaphart, Dr Wood presented the evidence in court in attempt to prosecute contractors of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) who were tasked with producing the technical report to explain what happened on 9/11. Two legal avenues were pursued; a Request for Corrections (RFC) under the Data Quality Act, and a subsequent Qui Tam or "whistle-blower" case under the False Claims Act. The basis for this legal action was the fact that NIST did not accurately describe what happened to the towers. The report only dealt with the plane impacts and resulting fires up to the point where it looked like the towers would start to collapse, followed by vague wording along the lines of "everything after that was inevitable" to conclude the report. Again, it is important to understand that the totality and nature of the destruction seen on 9/11 is not consistent with conventional destructive mechanisms, so it is hardly surprising that NIST avoided this aspect completely. Considering that directed energy was actually at play on 9/11, how fascinating it is that the two biggest contractors of NIST actually specialise in the research / development of directed energy weapons and the execution of psychological operations (listen to audio file no. 4 about this).

   

The judges of the Qui Tam lawsuit dismissed the case but not legitimately – they effectively "ignored the law" and even stated so in their written decision. If the case had gone ahead, representatives from the two above-mentioned companies, ARA and SAIC, may have been put under oath to disclose more information about the technology that was used on 9/11 – possibly revealing who actually owned it.



Dr Morgan Reynolds, another researcher represented by Jerry Leaphart and former chief economist of the Bush Administration, also filed a case against NIST contractors which focused on the 9/11 planes. Dr Wood does not comment on the planes issue, other than stating that the totality and nature of destruction of the buildings could not have been caused by planes – whether they are real or fake, have passengers on them or not.


The Debunking Crowd

There were earlier efforts by certain forum members to dismiss and deny the evidence, but to date no one here or in the wider world has actually refuted the evidence. Detractors have only succeeded in misrepresenting the evidence and debunking their own propaganda.



One such individual is Myles Power, a science blogger from the UK who was snapped up by Google and trained to become something called an "EDU guru". He makes YouTube videos aiming to debunk “bad-science” which includes a video attempting to debunk Dr Judy Wood’s book. Power does not actually refute the evidence contained in the book; instead he largely ignores it, misrepresents information, and resorts to petty ridicule with the impression of sounding intelligent. He also focuses on the chapter in Dr Wood’s book which explores the peculiar evidence surrounding the “jumpers”. This is a subject that immediately triggers an emotional response, and where it should be approached in a serious and respectful way, Power instead treats it as a joke.



Another character who made his debut early in the debunking scene was Dr Greg Jenkins who conducted a hit-piece in the form of an ambush interview of Dr Wood at a conference she attended. Dr Wood was just an audience member in support of Jim Fetzer and had no idea she would be interviewed, much less filmed. In the video, Jenkins largely ignores or downplays the evidence and insists on focussing on a poor-quality black and white photograph of debris falling from the tower. He tries to dismiss the idea that the debris is predominantly dust, not large steel girders and slabs of concrete. Dr Wood points out the very fine nature of the dust, and Jenkins reacts by adopting a number of blank and confused and sheepish looks, and the discussion essentially goes nowhere.



People may be familiar with alternative media personality Alex Jones. He is well known for sensationalising conspiracy theories with his special blend of hysteria and salesman like rapid-fire speech. He will cover most conspiracy stuff, but will avoid Dr Wood's work like the plague! He won't acknowledge her work and becomes irritated when anyone tries to bring it up on his radio show. This audio clip is most revealing (here). And this one (here).


Free Energy

The full title of Dr Judy Wood’s book is “Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free Energy on 9/11.” And this is the silver lining – 9/11 was a disclosure of free energy.

For John Hutchison’s experiments, he draws a relatively small amount of power to produce substantial effects that would ordinarily require more energy. The Hutchison Effect is therefore, like 9/11, a display of free energy technology.

Free energy tends to gets a bad rap in the mainstream however it is a real phenomenon and has been demonstrated on multiple occasions by independent researchers. It is not considered seriously by mainstream science for various reasons – lobbyist propaganda in part – with the excuse that the phenomenon conflicts with established theory often argued.

A class of free energy experiments relate to low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Early LENR experiments were carried out by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in which they reported anomalous heat (excess heat) produced from their apparatus of a magnitude they attributed to a nuclear process. Their results have been replicated by others including Dr John Bockris, a pioneer of electrochemistry who was initially accused of fraud but later exonerated following three formal investigations. A short video about this (here). Also, an excellent survey article by Dr Edmund Storms gives references to at least 34 studies with positive results using the method of Pons and Fleishman (here).



Another figure that should be mentioned is Dr Eugene Mallove, who was an activist and leader for promoting awareness and encouraging research into alternative energy. This is a great interview with Mallove (here) and the last one he gave before being murdered in 2004.



The Hutchison Effect and the technology used on 9/11 appear to share similarities with LENR experiments in regards to the following:

1.  High energy output to input ratio (over unity)
2.  Absence of hazardous ionising radiation
3.  Absence of high heat during changes to materials which look like they've been caused by heat

It should be noted that LENR is not synonymous with "cold fusion" as a nuclear reaction does not necessarily mean fusion has taken place. Note that the human race has not yet mastered the technology to contain hot fusion – something that happens in the sun. The misleading term "cold fusion" was introduced by physicist Steven E Jones who was also involved in early experiments into the phenomenon. This is the same guy that introduced “space beams” to derail Judy Wood’s work. Just a coincidence?




Occam's Razor

The simplest explanation is often the best. Another way of saying this is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

Andrew Johnson expresses this in another way: "Any conclusion can be reached about anything - but the value of that conclusion will be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence ignored".

Here is a short video series made by Adam Dwyer which covers some of the evidence in detail. Adam is an engineer, like myself, and creator of the webpage www.debamboozled.com. I think you’ll agree that Adam has certainly captured the epic nature of the Dr Judy Wood saga in true Hollywood blockbuster style!

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2mg5ndzVgg&list=PL_cJ8k_C3XEWi9IrA7dKse0vo8SE6J1oJ[/embed]
    

Khris

  • partook in silencing a crtitc despite facts
    • Lifetime Achievement Award Winner
    • I can help with play testing
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with translating
    • Khris worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Alternative Knowledge
« Reply #268 on: 20 Jan 2016, 12:54 »
Oh boy.

Edit:
monkey424, I'm curious: what other "alternative knowledge" do you support?

Edit2:
Also, why doesn't it faze you in the least that you are checking every single box of "hallmarks of a conspiracy theory crackpot"?
Is there a conspiracy theory you don't believe? David Icke?

Edit3:
Also, I have a suggestion: how about we keep discussions of Judy Wood and 9/11 where they belong and use this thread to discuss why "alternative knowledge" is wrong instead? Just my 2 cents.
« Last Edit: 20 Jan 2016, 16:29 by Khris »
Fail at Floaty Rog' now!  still having to deal with what games are going through

Re: Alternative Knowledge
« Reply #269 on: 20 Jan 2016, 13:34 »
DELETED. On further thought I decided that I won't be replying to this.
I've already tried to explain before, that it is counter-productive when you keep throwing in more and more hard-to-be-checked facts, instead of taking single case and getting to the mutual agreement on that one before moving forward.
Secondly, you keep repeating things that were addressed and proved wrong or dubious before, while claiming that no one did. This is kinda... wrong.
« Last Edit: 20 Jan 2016, 14:05 by Crimson Wizard »

Snarky

  • Global Moderator
  • Private Insultant
    • Best Innovation Award Winner 2018, for his numerous additions to the AGS open source ecosystem including the new Awards Ceremony client and modules
    • Snarky worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Snarky worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #270 on: 20 Jan 2016, 22:16 »
Also, I have a suggestion: how about we keep discussions of Judy Wood and 9/11 where they belong and use this thread to discuss why "alternative knowledge" is wrong instead? Just my 2 cents.

Threads have been rearranged. If anyone wants to take you up on that, they should go to this thread: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=53132.0

Mandle

  • NO PIXEL LEFT BEHIND!!!
    • Mandle worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Mandle worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #271 on: 21 Jan 2016, 10:10 »
Quote
5. "Toasted cars". About 1400 vehicles spontaneously combusted. The "fires" seemed to target the metal on the cars (not typically combustible) while organic materials like paper and trees were spared. But not everything made of metal was affected, such as street signs and traffic lights, and this gives us a hint as to the phenomenon at play here. Things like street signs and traffic lights are connected to the ground, while cars on rubber tyres are insulated from the ground. Also consider that ambulances may have a grounding feature as a safeguard against electrostatic hazards, which might explain why the ambulance pictured above was spared a “toasting”. Furthermore, vehicles that weren't toasted were typically flipped upside-down.

Wait...what?! So the energy beam doesn't affect things that are "grounded"?! You mean like skyscrapers? Isn't this directly self-contradicting?

Isn't the more obvious conclusion as to why cars burned and signs/lights/etc did not burn that cars typically contain gasoline and other flamable materials and signs/lights/etc do not? Also you state that the fires "seemed" to target the metal. Where is this coming from?! I see no evidence of this in any of the photos. In fact I see the complete opposite with the interiors of the car completed gutted by the fires and no flamable materials such as seats still remaining: In other words, exactly what a car which has caught fire and burned normally looks like.

Also, we already know why some cars were "flipped". It's because they were bulldozed out of the way to make access for emergency vehicles to get through.
« Last Edit: 21 Jan 2016, 22:23 by Mandle »

Jack

  • Think deviant
    • I can help with AGS tutoring
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with story design
    • Jack worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #272 on: 21 Jan 2016, 11:36 »
What happened on 9/11 is obviously very unusual, and the official story is a lie perpetrated on the entire planet.

But it's garbage like this and the "no planes theory" that prevents otherwise intelligent people from taking an objective look at what really happened.

The fact is that the collapse of WTC 7, and to a lesser extent the collapse of the towers, are the single most obvious piece of evidence that the official story of "fire" is absurd. It is also the only thing we can prove for sure with the evidence that wasn't destroyed.

Mandle

  • NO PIXEL LEFT BEHIND!!!
    • Mandle worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Mandle worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #273 on: 21 Jan 2016, 13:13 »
@ "IRREFUTABLE" video:


Khris

  • partook in silencing a crtitc despite facts
    • Lifetime Achievement Award Winner
    • I can help with play testing
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with translating
    • Khris worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #274 on: 21 Jan 2016, 14:07 »
[...]

Your post is actually worse than what monkey424 does.
Fail at Floaty Rog' now!  still having to deal with what games are going through

Jack

  • Think deviant
    • I can help with AGS tutoring
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with story design
    • Jack worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #275 on: 24 Jan 2016, 13:27 »
Your post is actually worse than what monkey424 does.

Your statement is dismissive and without qualification. Add a joke and you can be obama's speech writer.

Khris

  • partook in silencing a crtitc despite facts
    • Lifetime Achievement Award Winner
    • I can help with play testing
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with translating
    • Khris worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #276 on: 24 Jan 2016, 20:20 »
Your statement is dismissive and without qualification.
You do realize that the above exactly describes your own post, right...?
Fail at Floaty Rog' now!  still having to deal with what games are going through

Scavenger

  • Cavefish
  • In Four Glorious Colours!
    • I can help with animation
    • I can help with backgrounds
    • I can help with characters
    • I can help with scripting
    • Scavenger worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Scavenger worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #277 on: 24 Jan 2016, 21:08 »
I wonder why people fixate on 9/11 and mind controlling flourides in the water for reasons why the government is being bad to them.

Like, there are plenty of things that are wrong that you could be thinking about that don't involve expensive impossible death rays. Like, lack of proper water sanitation leading to dangerously high levels of lead in the water in Michigan. That kind of thing is real, you can see it, it's provable, and the reason is pretty clear: Negligence and trying to steal resources away from poor people (they didn't put proper water purification in to save $1200 a year, from what I've heard)

But no, we gotta have people trying to work out exactly what massive death ray the government used on a wealthy american business center. It was a tragedy, but the government doesn't stand to gain anything from doing it. Like, if they wanted to test out a death ray, they have places they can do that that wouldn't make Americans hate them. I mean, my god, motive is kind of important.


Jack

  • Think deviant
    • I can help with AGS tutoring
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with story design
    • Jack worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #278 on: 24 Jan 2016, 23:47 »
You do realize that the above exactly describes your own post, right...?
Being a little liberal with the word "exactly"?

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. At worst they will burn like giant torches for hours and stand as skeletons afterwards. WTC 7 did not burn like a giant torch for hours, and not only experienced complete collapse, it collapsed symmetrically into it's own core. You can bring a building down with explosives, but a complete and symmetrical collapse is only possible through a successful controlled demolition. That's what the "controlled" means. It means that every load bearing column (of which there are many) has to be severed with the correct timing to allow the building to collapse in on itself with no resistance from said columns. This is impossible with an uncoordinated fire, unless you want to get liberal with the word "fire" to include explosions or focused steel-cutting incendiaries, and additionally get liberal with the word "uncoordinated" so that it means "finely coordinated".

Yes, debris from the neighbouring demolitions did strike and damage WTC7, but from images available to us it's clearly superficial, and clearly did not do enough structural damage to affect the direction of the building's collapse. Even if the debris had taken out 60% of that level of the building, it would have collapsed to the side of the damage, with the upper part of the building remaining largely intact, like a failed controlled demolition. And yes, fire will cause steel beams to sag, after hours of focused heat, and still not enough to cause them to tear apart or magically jump from their surrounding structure, as NIST wishes to suggest.

NIST found no evidence of explosives. NIST admits they did not test for explosives, even though these three buildings were supposedly the only to ever experience complete collapse due to fire. The metal from these buildings were promptly sold as scrap and melted down, making future testing impossible. Look it up. NIST removed the critical component of shear studs from their later reports to make their magical synchronised jumping beams seem more plausible, though these were present on the plans, and the building, and previous NIST reports as a fly in their bull shit.

How do you keep it quiet? You simply don't report on it. You present it as cut and dry, case closed, with your government report that didn't even touch WTC7, and your government agency that to this day won't release their computer model which they generated and used as proof in a dark room somewhere. Anyone who comes forward is dismissed as a crank, because we all know the facts of this thing we dare not look at, right?

I mean, my god, motive is kind of important.

Yeah, it's not like the US was able to invade Iraq and Afghanistan again because of 9/11 and some equally fake "yellow cake" which was trumpeted far and wide by the media. It's not like military spending skyrocketed after 9/11, growing the industry by trillions each year. It's not like 9/11 has been used to invoke a permanent state of emergency in the us, and to revoke habeus corpus, directly opposing the US constitution.

Are you serious?

Scavenger

  • Cavefish
  • In Four Glorious Colours!
    • I can help with animation
    • I can help with backgrounds
    • I can help with characters
    • I can help with scripting
    • Scavenger worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Scavenger worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #279 on: 25 Jan 2016, 01:01 »
Yeah, it's not like the US was able to invade Iraq and Afghanistan again because of 9/11 and some equally fake "yellow cake" which was trumpeted far and wide by the media. It's not like military spending skyrocketed after 9/11, growing the industry by trillions each year. It's not like 9/11 has been used to invoke a permanent state of emergency in the us, and to revoke habeus corpus, directly opposing the US constitution.

Are you serious?

Yeah, I'm serious.

The government didn't need to orchestrate their own tragedy, they only needed to capitalize on one. Seizing on an opportunity doesn't necessarily mean that they created that opportunity*. You want to believe that someone is to blame, I know, it was a huge tragedy, but there's nothing to be gained from trying to grasp at straws. All the 9/11 truther shit I've ever read showed a huge lack of understanding of basic physics, metallurgy, chemistry, and history. I won't try to debunk that side of it, because it's already been done.

But seriously, the amount of people involved in an operation this big would be staggering, and the government would never be able to keep it quiet. Conspiracy theories rely on the enemy being simultaneously The Smartest, Most Flawless Beings Who Can Hide Everything From Everyone, and also stupid enough to do these elaborate plans that the average Truther can see through because they're so smart.

Nope, if history has taught us anything, it's that shit be messing up all over the place, and then people try to take advantage of it.

I mean, what's more likely:
- 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.

- A Plane crashed into the World Trade Center and the architects/engineers made a mistake, and didn't expect a massive aeroplane to actually hit it. You know, like architects can do, being human and not having their math right.



*Well, except by decades of imperialist action stirring tensions in the middle east. You could say that America created that.