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

Ok just in general...Ae911 has nothing to fear from all theories out there...their premise is that the building should not have come down as they did, in the manner they did.
I also love when people use debunking sites for reference....debunking something is to dismiss something that has been supposedly proven....so really nothing to debunk is there...since nothing has been proven...it is ALL conjecture, since to this day we don't have ANY facts....other than theoretical mumbo jumbo.
The fact is we all saw what the media wanted us to see....and the things we are not to see are diligently being kept from us.
When there are actual facts being presented then we might get there...until that time....IT IS ALL theoretical.
The one fact that holds true.....steel structures do not collapse symetrically....unless all support is removed simultaneously.......FACT.

originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: waypastvne


yet it seems I am the only one quoting the 10,000+ page report.....

I noticed you have the word NIST attached to your quote, yet you leave off the ADDRESS where it comes from within the report....I include ALL nomenclatures so all you duhbunkers can go look.....WHERE is your address?

You first. You claimed that the NIST report says:

originally posted by: hgfbob

towers fell in 10 and 12 seconds.

Without giving us the ADDRESS where it comes from within the report. You also claim:

I include ALL nomenclatures so all you duhbunkers can go look

So please show us duhdunkers where exactly in the report it says the towers fell in10 and 12 seconds, then i'll give you the NIST source for my quote.


GOOD LUCK !

the so-called high temp WTC steel that DID fail????

The only one calling it high temp steel is you. Hi temp steel contains Molybdenum or Vanadium. The steels commonly used in the WTC construction were :

ASTM A 36
ASTM A 242
ASTM A 441

The A 441 does have some Vanadium in it but it's only 0.02 % . Typical high temp steel has a Vanadium content of around 0.35 %. In the future could you refer to the steel by its proper name, Mild Steel.

originally posted by: hellobruce
Where is your evidence it was "dustified" - please explain the process to "dustify" steel - also explain where the 200k tons of dust went!

see below, the LACK of the rubblepiles, wich only leaves vaporization(wich can be rules out, i allready explained why) or "dustification"(wich would resemble a process we, the public, doesent know about).

You clearly didnt watch the presentation...

??? what makes you think there should be 2 x 100-120m piles of rubble?

the FACT that a demolished building leaves a pile of ~12% the original hight.
I only see rubble 2-3 stories high on pictures taken on sep. 11(so they couldnt have brought the rubble away in the meantime)...

Again, you clearly didnt watch the presentation....

no proof it turned to dust either...

Satelite photos of the tremendous, and strange behavig, cloud of dust arent any viable? Oo

Dude, you clearly didnt watch the presentation....

Well, WTC 1 & 2 did not fall at free fall velocity - simply watching video's of them falling clearly shows that!

Ms Woods material contains more than enough footage, with a stopwatch running, to proove that.

Zomg, you clearly didnt watch the presentation...
Whom are you still trying to fool? yourself?

I have watched her nonsense, why don't you watch

Which totally destroys Wood'd claims...

funny that you keep riding that video, but dont loose a word about this one.
Being somewhat selective in what you take into account?

I have, and there is zero evidence of engine blocks melting.... where is the pool of melted engine block for starters!

You clearly didnt watch the presentation....
Thus "I have" is an undeniable lie, wich leads me to the question, WHAT kind of "truthseeker" you actually are?
Or "pretend to be" would really fit alot better, looking at "how" you select or ignore available data.
The only thing ive seen from you thus far is pushing "your" theory, blatantly and ignorantly denying anything that doesent "fit your case".

whatevers the case, one thing became apparent: YOU have no interest in what was really going on.
If anything its the complete opposite!

Since you apparently put alot of effort into rediculing everything contradicting your own believes, without looking at stuff thats actually providing info wich renders ALL of the common theories unaplicable, tells one all he/she needs to know, in order to answer the above question for him-/herself...

you clearly never watched the presentation but argue against it.
I just thank EVERY god ANY human is praying to, that YOUR not part of science or any investigative grp, coz its behaviour like yours, that held us prisoner in the middleages for centuries!

a reply to: waypastvne

Without giving us the ADDRESS where it comes from within the report.

for one, I never said those numbers are from the report....we can SEE and count ourselves.....so your first attack is a FAIL!

In the future could you refer to the steel

and could you be MORE distracting and WRONG....lol.

the "high temp" is in reference to the FAILED WTC steel from THESE fires present that is NO WHERE to be seen within the 10,000+ page official report from NIST.

NOT the structural aspect.....

that is what I ask....WHERE is all this high temp WTC steel that failed from THESE fires present to allow collapse to occur x3?????


strike two....one more try

a reply to: plube

I also love when people use debunking sites for reference

I can never get over that......10,000+ pages from the 2005 NIST and they can't even quote the official report for support...

the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew totally ignores their own initial 2005 scientific investigation to claim brand new never before seen science they refuse to prove through science...


don't people of science get awards for discovering NEW physics??????

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

why has not Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing not been nominated for that new discovery that fell globally WTC7 unified for 105 vertical feet equal to gravity within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse....

"low temp thermal expansion".....never seen before or after 9-11.

If we had this great weapon why didn't dustify Osama in his house in Pakistan?
Why didn't we dustify all those Taliban bases in the middle on the night? Whose going to blame the US for piles of dust and rocks in the desert?

I remember plastic models of the F111 on the shelves of stores long before it was announced.
And yet not a peep about this weapon that could save us from asteroids.

Funny how conspiracy theories always leave out details like that.

don't people of science get awards for discovering NEW physics??????

thats only true if it doesent contradict established believes...
if it does, you can expect beeing kicked out of the faculty.
(mind that Podkletnow's work is investigated by NASA atm, so he definetly was up to something. didnt save his career tho.)

If we had this great weapon why didn't dustify Osama in his house in Pakistan?
Why didn't we dustify all those Taliban bases in the middle on the night? Whose going to blame the US for piles of dust and rocks in the desert?

coz high tech bombs are more profitable...

And yet not a peep about this weapon that could save us from asteroids.

and what makes you so sure they cant?
i havent seen any devestating impacts lately...

only taking serious what you can see and grasp is a major mistake, alot of our science is based on assumption.

a reply to: PookztA

Because she is a lying fact twisting moron!!

She is a blight on anything that resembles the truth. She has twisted countless facts to suit her "academic" theories and suppositions.

She has her theories and sculpts science to fit them one way or another!

She is a useless waste of space!!

a reply to: samkent

Funny how conspiracy theories always leave out details like that.

seems to me, most of those so called-conspiracy theorists" are just people here to distract, making others think 9-11 truth is all nonsense.

real 'truthers' have no theories/claims....they demand the supporting evidence of the already in-place claims pushed as truth.

and that seems to scare official story pushers more than anything else.

at this point it is irrelevant whether or not the claim of J Wood is valid or not......it is the OS that must prove itself....why have most forgotten about his fact.

So, Ms. Woods claims a beam from space fell the towers.....well, the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew claims a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon fell WTC7 equal to gravity for 105 vertical feet in a unified descent, symmetrically, within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.

before 1.74 seconds, they claim fire at one end of the building, [guess that is where the "low temp" part comes in], globally removed 105 vertical feet of continuous vertical support columns; 8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams; lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout; utilities, interior partitions, tens of thousands of bolts and welds; office contents;

....all must be continually removed ahead of the collapse wave.....all taught science says this to attain zero resistance.

however......the new invalidated, unverified non peer reviewed science they refuse to show.....says different....

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

Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing


...go figure.....so who sounds more believable?

real 'truthers' have no theories/claims....they demand the supporting evidence of the already in-place claims pushed as truth.

that actually says they are convinced of certain theory they intend to push, weather its logically unbearable or not, as observed here in the 911 subforums...

So, Ms. Woods claims a beam from space fell the towers.....well, the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew claims a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon fell WTC7 equal to gravity for 105 vertical feet in a unified descent, symmetrically, within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.

the question should be why this conclusion wasnt investigated beyond that point...
Whats funny about this is the "trolls" or "disinformants" doing whatever they can do divert attention from the fact that the collapse CAN NOT be explained the way any official report tries to.

I sayd this before: If you can rule out everything else, whats left must be the case.

Fire? nope
Explosives? nope
Thermite? nope
Planes? nope
Nukes? unlikely but not impossible

well... the range of possible answers isnt all that large anymore, so whats at all unbelievable about an em-weapon developed in secrecy?

a reply to: Dolour

Whats funny about this is the "trolls" or "disinformants" doing whatever they can do divert attention from the fact that the collapse CAN NOT be explained the way any official report tries to.

And you are an expert in any one of the fields that pertain to the collapse?
Why would anyone in court of law or scientific community believe you?

a reply to: samkent

And you are an expert in any one of the fields that pertain to the collapse?
Why would anyone in court of law or scientific community believe you?

Metal processing(and steel was the main material the towers were built of) was part of my education.
I am well aware of how much punishment such a steelframe can take, and what will definetly NOT make it collapse.
Anyone with metallurgic knowledge will tell you that jetfuel does crap to steel, that thermite would have caused a HUGE sparkler going on for quite some time, and so on...

The "current" stories can only be sold to people with no real knowledge in this realm.

oh and btw, WHERE DID THE BUILDINGS GO?
still unanswered, even carefully avoided.

just to say that again, boiling point of iron is ~3000°C.
W-H-E-R-E did the STEEL FRAME go?

Thank you PookztA for the interesting link.

a reply to: Dolour

he question should be why this conclusion wasnt investigated beyond that point

simple...they outright refuse to.

Sept. 02 2010
Dear Mr. Bob

This letter serves a the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Log#10-194) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in which you requested
in connection with its investigation for the technical cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center Tower and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 1,200I:

'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 .S.C552(b», provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be ...withheld."


The statute underlying the (b)(3) exemption in this case is the at National Construction Safety Team (1 C T) Act, 15 .S.. § 7301 et seq_ Section 12 of the CST Act (ISS_C § 7311) provides that it applies to the activities of 1ST in response to the attacks of September I ), 200 I. Section 7(d) of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C § 7306(d», exempts from disclosure. information received by 1ST in the course of investigations regarding building failures if the Director finds that the disclosure of the information might jeopardize public safety. On July 9 2009 the Director of NIST determined that release of the withheld information might' jeopardize public safety. Therefore, these records are being withheld.
NlST
You have the right to appeal this determination. Such an appeal must be made in writing and received within 30 calendar days of the date on this letter addressed to:

Assistant General Counsel for Administration (Office)
Room 5898-C
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230


Your appeal should include a copy of you original request,a copy of this determination,and a statement of the reason(s) you believe this determination to be in error and why these records should be made fully available 10 you. Both your letter and the envelope in which it is mailed should be prominently marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal.!!
Sincerely,
~:/_/~~A/
( Catherine S. Fletcher Freedom of Information Act Officer

hiding behind the guise of 9-11 terror....with a 2008 Presidential Executive Order stating they do not have to prove.

I sayd this before: If you can rule out everything else, whats left must be the case.

which is a premise designed for AFTER the facts are out in the open when the OS is pulled apart.....not before.....being shown the liars they are will put an end to this faster than a beam from space will......to many, that is unheard of fantasy. I believe it is much more damaging to show the 2008 NIST complicit in the cover-up of the mass murder of 3000 in an instant......we drag them in and watch the finger-pointing and deal-making start.



and all that evidence to do that is already available to anyone.

a reply to: samkent

Why would anyone in court of law or scientific community believe you?

uhm.....BECAUSE of science and facts.

In this Country, one entity was charged by Congress to scientifically find out how and why three buildings fell on 9-11....no one else.

the 2005 NIST scientific investigation found NO scientific reason for collapse x3 on 9-11.

so they stall for three years till the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew claims a "brand new never before seen physics phenomenon" fell WTC7 equal to g. for 105 vertical feet, symmetrically and unified within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.

After 10 years all they have are Youtube videos and speculation.

no one within the science community could do anything against the OS until the investigation was complete, and that ended in Nov. 2008.....and since then it's been RELENTLESS against NIST to prove their preposterous claims...they still refuse to prove the new physics that only occurred on 9-11.

a reply to: Dolour

Metal processing(and steel was the main material the towers were built of) was part of my education.

That doen't in any way qualify you to determine if or when a steel beam of a particular shape will fail.

Did you see the report by a testing facility where they built a floor section identical to WTC and subjected it to fire?
I think that trumps your 'part' of education that dealt with 'metal processing'.

Just another example of internet experts who do not know what they are talking about.

a reply to: hgfbob

uhm.....BECAUSE of science and facts.

In this Country, one entity was charged by Congress to scientifically find out how and why three buildings fell on 9-11....no one else.

That would be YOUR perception of what you BELIEVE to be the fact.

You are not an expert in any of the fields needed.
Nor have you examined the evidence first hand.
It wouldn't take a first year law student to get your testimony thrown out of court.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Dolour

Metal processing(and steel was the main material the towers were built of) was part of my education.

That doen't in any way qualify you to determine if or when a steel beam of a particular shape will fail.

Did you see the report by a testing facility where they built a floor section identical to WTC and subjected it to fire?
I think that trumps your 'part' of education that dealt with 'metal processing'.

Just another example of internet experts who do not know what they are talking about.

Whats your educational degree?
Anyone familiar with the properties of steel, will tell you that the results of your so called "Test" stinks worse than 3weeks old fish.
Why dont you look up the physical properties of steel on Wikipedia?
And when your done, come back here and explain the Source of energy needed.

In that context its Not suprising that you AGAIN dient loose a Word about the Core question, but instead attack ppls credibility.
WHERE DID THE STEELFRAME GO?

a reply to: samkent

That would be YOUR perception of what you BELIEVE to be the fact.

uhm....no.....100% fact.

NCSTAR 1-1 xxiii "Determine how and why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following initial impacts and why and how WTC 7 collapsed....The NIST WTC investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231)

they are the authors and the only ones whom can prove.

Nor have you examined the evidence first hand.

there is none, which is why you can't link to any!!!!

is there by now any statement regarding the violation of policiy on wikipedia?
no open discussion still?

one could argue that they want to keep any reference to judy wood out of the "official" 9/11 wiki entry,
but why doesent she get her own entry(even if it were one that states shes a nutcrack)?

/edit: maybe we can even get this thread directed back towards the original topic. :p