Why are AE911Truth & Wikipedia Censoring Information about Dr. Judy Wood?

originally posted by: lambros56
I think Judy Woods theory is plausible but i would like to know why so many people
brush her aside, some call her wacky etc.

Judy wood is credible and her question is where did the towers go, which is what exactly crossed my mind as I watched the whole episode live.

I emailed Wikipedia about Dr Judy Wood and John Hutchinson and this is what they said, they did not have much information to say about John Hutchinson though.

a reply to: hgfbob

Again, thermal expansion is not a "new phenomenon". You are quoting Dr. Sunder out of context. Thermal expansion, at Low Temps or not, is not new.

Why is it everyone knows this but you?

As NIST presented no "new science", you're presenting a false dilemma.

What you might try doing is presenting your argument against what NIST actually DOES say caused the collapses and tell me, specifically, what you find erroneous with their conclusions.

But again, that might be better suited for the "What about building 7" thread as this one is about Judy Woods.

a reply to: Nochzwei

Woods' credibility is not at issue. Her theories are based on no known science nor any reality of the day.

a reply to: cantonear1968

Woods' credibility is not at issue. Her theories are based on no known science nor any reality of the day.

ROTFLMAO!!!.....and THIS IS????????

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

oh please do tell me ALL about the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew's OFFICIALLY CLAIMED new physics that ONLY occurred on 9-11 where LOW TEMP WTC steel, created NEW physics where 105 vertical feet of structural mass DISAPPEARS before 1.74 seconds to allow the SYMMETRICAL unified collapse EQUAL to g. occur found by the 2005 NIST.


that is what ALL science DEMANDS occurred.....ZERO resistance to attain the rate of CONSTANT acceleration seen in those 2.3 seconds..9.8m/s^2.

which BEFORE 9-11, we only seen it in science books....open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

tell me how this NEW physics of low temp thermal expansion works....but do it on the other thread....'K'!

a reply to: hgfbob

and THIS IS

Yes it is. With 25 years if Structural Engineering experience, Dr. Sunder's credibility is not in question, nor are his [NIST's] findings.

new physics

Thermal expansion is not "new physics". You are literally the only CTer who is claiming it to be .

LOW TEMP

It has been explained that bridges can become damages at far LOWER TEMPS than what was experienced in WTC 7. You continually avoid addressing this.

where 105 vertical feet of structural mass DISAPPEARS

This didn't happen. The progressive failure and buckling of perimeter columns has been explained to you numerous times. I do not argue straw mans.

And what you also continually avoid is how the facade collapsed at GREATER than FFA. I await your explanation on this.

The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph....

Shows points above the FFA line. Please explain this.

And take this explanation to the "What about Building 7?" thread. This is about Judy Woods. You're off topic.

a reply to: cantonear1968

It has been explained.

NOT by the AUTHORS of the official claim...

they refuse to.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

Shyam Sunder and the hypothesis crew at 2008 NIST technical briefing


NIST 2005 scientific investigation NOT finding a scientific reason for collapse, x3.

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

It has been explained that bridges can become damages at far LOWER TEMPS than what was experienced in WTC 7. You continually avoid addressing this.

.....and free fall ACCELERATION EQUAL to g. can ONLY occur with a 'CLEAR PATH'!

tell me HOW this low temp thermal expansion, [fire at one end of the building], completely REMOVES the 105 vertical feet of structural mass to attain ZERO resistance below?????....all BEFORE 1.74 seconds.

...105 vertical feet of continuous support columns throughout
...8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams
...lateral, diagonal, and cross bracing throughout
...tens of thousands of bolts and welds
....interior partitions
....utilities
....office contents

all must either GO all at once or at the very least, globally and unified AHEAD of the collapse wave for the 105 vertical foot ZERO resistance collapse we all see

oh please do tell me HOW your 'bridge' analogy removes structural resistance in a building.

a reply to: hgfbob

All of this is better suited for the "What about Building 7?" or "Revisiting World Trade Center 7" thread. If you have something to add to the thread about Judy Woods please do so.

Unless you surmise that 560 perimeter/core columns were severed simultaneously with thermite. That sort of fantasy theory is well suited for a Judy Woods thread.

a reply to: cantonear1968


so, which NEW phenomenon do you support.....Judy Woods never before seen phenomenon, or the OFFICIAL story's never before seen physics phenomenon?

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Judy Wood is a Zionist mis-info agent, there to muddy the waters. Focus on the robust scientific evidence, as verified by thousands of engineers and architects.

originally posted by: greywizard
Judy Wood is a Zionist mis-info agent, there to muddy the waters. Focus on the robust scientific evidence, as verified by thousands of engineers and architects.

What "robust scientific evidence"? All scientific evidence I've read is incomplete. They cherry pick this and that, but don't explain the entirety of the event. Most all of the evidence that NIST discusses is only the initiation of collapse at the damaged site and explains nothing of what caused it to continue.

To me, one of the biggest clues that the thing was a controlled event was Hurricane Erin (www.nhc.noaa.gov...). The fact that zero coverage of this hurricane in the days before and after 9/11/01 show how total the control of media is.

a reply to: cantonear1968

Unless you surmise that 560 perimeter/core columns were severed simultaneously with thermite. That sort of fantasy theory is well suited for a Judy Woods thread.

I nor anyone else ASKING, has to prove a damn thing to anyone.....the ones PUSHING the official claims must.

since it is the OFFICIAL CLAIM fire did....PROVE IT through science...they authors refuse to.....hence, the ALTERNATIVES!

since their OWN 2005 science shows WTC7 accelerating EQUAL to g. for 1/3 of it's 6.5 seconds collapse starting at 1.75 seconds to 4.0s....PROVE FIRE is the entity to do ALL that work..as officially claimed by the 2008 NIST HYPOTHESIS crew, but REFUSED to be proved by their own authors.

Every detective utilizes their forensics team. To not do so would be unwise.

a reply to: PookztA

Dr. Judy Wood nailed it.
She presented a plethora of evidence that can not be debunked.

Many of the replies on this board are psychological ploys to try to
discredit her overwhelming mountain of evidence.

You must watch her video. She is a true HERO
It is a shame many people will not understand any of it.

This is a small list to get you started.
www.drjudywood.com...

1 The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed “collapse.”
2 They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.
3 The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.
4 The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any.
5 The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that “The Gap” was looted.
6 The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.
7 The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.
8 The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise.
9 The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
10 The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
11 One file cabinet with folder dividers survived.
12 No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one.
13 Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them.
14 In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage.
15 Fuzz balls, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer.
16 Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.
17 Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat.
18 Fuzzy blobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed.
19 The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass.
20 Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel.
21 Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating.
22 Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies.
23 Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis.
24 Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side cars that appeared to be burning.
25 Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust.
26 All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed.
27 Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.
28 The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings.
29 More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it.
30 Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix.
31 The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared.
32 For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume.
33 The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.
34 The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud.
35 Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by “unexplained” waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.
36 Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC.
37 There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage.
38 Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth’s magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11.
39 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, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map.
40 Silly string, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails.

I find toilets section very interesting. She say there are 25 000 toilets per building. My whole village have only 10% of that. There must be some toilets out there.

To naysayers, Nikola Tesla was called a mad man because he was speaking of WIFI and making a experiments that science don't know to replicate until today. He said he was speaking with aliens.

If we did listen to him, we would be living on mars already, but no, we need to listen to some profit making guy who sell us a bulbs that we need to replace every other day.

Judys evidence maybe sound weird but anything is possible, keep your mind open and try to live without timeline. Thats why we talk about Nikola Tesla who was living 100 years ago and hardly anyone remembers Edison? Was it Edison or Emilson?

originally posted by: damx13
a reply to: PookztA

Dr. Judy Wood nailed it.
She presented a plethora of evidence that can not be debunked.

Many of the replies on this board are psychological ploys to try to
discredit her overwhelming mountain of evidence.

You must watch her video. She is a true HERO
It is a shame many people will not understand any of it.

This is a small list to get you started.
www.drjudywood.com...

1 The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed “collapse.”
2 They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.
.

On the first 2 points what is number one supposed to mean ?
On the second point what turned to dust ?

I will be interested in your comments on those first 2 claims.

Dr. Judy Wood says a lot of interesting things especially in relation to the Pentagon. I watched a 3 hour video of hers and there were as usual some interesting anomalies raised. However, she didn't make me want to believe her because she kept throwing in condescending little digs about how the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 were already proven. She didn't seem to be presenting an option, she was shoving the "truth" down my throat. It's hard to have an open mind for someone that already has hers made up. I did look at some of what she said a little further, but for example one of her big points about the time of the pentagon collapse was that no significant seismic activity at 9:38, and she feels the accident happened 5 minutes earlier or something. She never mentions though whether there was any significant seismic activity recorded then. If she isn't thorough on a simple point like that, then it's hard to swallow a lot of her other stuff. She also loves to make sure, as some other major figures do, to let everyone know when she brings something up that she was the first one to propose this. The way she goes about it leads me to think she may have another agenda. She doesn't necessarily sound like her only goal is to find the truth.

a reply to: damx13

a reply to: TheBolt

The way she goes about it leads me to think she may have another agenda. She doesn't necessarily sound like her only goal is to find the truth.

911 is her job now that she is no longer a professor.
If the conspiracy goes away she hits the bread line.
Just like Gage their livelyhood rests on continuing the conspiracy. Not solving it.

She rattles on about a hurricane and some never heard before weapon.
Just what qualifies her to speak about hurricanes?

I personally believe Dr Judy Wood's theories are the most believable presented to date.

Though it does appear demolitions were used to bring down the towers, it was not demolitions alone that turned the concrete into dust. Nor did they melt and burn only one side of cars blocks away.

The claim that controlled demolition was the cause of everything that happened that day, is made by those that lack real analytical skills, and disinfo agents planted by the Govt to keep the public from the real truth.

originally posted by: Nonchalant
that turned the concrete into dust.

Why shouldn't some concrete turn to dust due to a tall building collapsing?

is made by those that lack real analytical skills, and disinfo agents planted by the Govt to keep the public from the real truth.

Exactly the same can be said about people pushing "magical beam weapons from space" causing the WTC collapses!