It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
• How come most of the Twin Towers’ steel and concrete was transformed into a fine dust, while large quantities of aluminum exhibited strange electrical burns, yet paper was unharmed? Extreme heat from jet fuel (or explosives) does not selectively damage certain materials, so how come some materials turned to dust, while other materials were bent or burnt, and yet other materials were completely unharmed?
• Why was Hurricane Erin at its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, yet it was not reported on by the major corporate media stations?
• How come there were statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 Alaskan magnetomer stations detecting normal readings until the 9/11 attacks commenced, when there was suddenly a huge surge in electromagnetic activity?
• How come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero just as the attacks commenced?
• How were the Twin Towers turned to dust so fine, that the dust floated high up into our atmosphere. The satellite photos show a clear distinction between the black smoke and the whitish-grey dust, so what turned such a large portion of these buildings to dust so fine that it floated high into our atmosphere?
• How come 1,400+ vehicles located several blocks away (some up to ¼ a mile away) from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? If you think the building debris caused these things, then how come that same debris did not burn the clothing or skin of the nearby pedestrians it covered?
• How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side, next to trees which still had all of their leaves on them?
• How come several steel beams were observed to be bent and/or shriveled up in very unusual ways, ways which have only been observed during The Hutchison Effect experiments?
• How come spontaneous rusting of materials occurred all around ground zero? In some instances, entire front-halves of cars were rusted, while the back-halves appeared to be virtually untouched?
• How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?
• How come circular holes were observed in the windows of virtually all the buildings near ground zero, when holes like these are known only to be caused by longitudinal waves of energy? If building debris smashed the windows, they would have shattered in a predictable way, so how come these countless windows did not shatter, but instead, developed circular holes characteristic of the effect of longitudinal waves of energy on glass?
• How was the ‘bathtub’, the area directly beneath the Twin Towers, left virtually unharmed? How could thousands of tons of falling building debris not damage the ‘bathtub’ beneath the WTC buildings?
• How was the ‘Looney Toons’ gift shop in the basement of the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed, so dramatically that the ‘Bugs Bunny’ statue and other statues were not even scratched or dented? How could these figurines survive thousands of tons of falling building debris?
• How was the unharmed PATH Train beneath the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t falling building debris have crushed that train, or at the very least, knocked it off the tracks?
• How could thousands of tons of rapidly falling steel and concrete building debris leave the ‘Bath Tub’, the basement gift shops, and the PATH train, virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete cause significant damage to at least one of these?
• How come Dr. Wood has already filed evidence-based legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies based on their conflict-of-interest relationship with N.I.S.T., yet other 9/11 “truth” researchers have not? How come Dr. Steven Jones has not officially filed his scientific ‘peer-reviewed’ nano-thermite evidence with Congress or the U.S. Courts?
• Why are groups like AE911Truth and PilotsFor911Truth just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which was successfully appealed to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009?
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by PookztA
Your "evidence" is not evidence, it is fantasy. Consider mechanisms that convert metals to dust with energy beams. There aren't any that don't involve heating the metal above it's boiling point and having the vapor condense. In open air, this woud be a spectacle that would not be able to be hidden.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
I haven't seen any evidence. All I have seen is video used to try to lend credability to a theory and a lot of conjecture.
Originally posted by PookztA
Originally posted by JIMC5499
I haven't seen any evidence. All I have seen is video used to try to lend credability to a theory and a lot of conjecture.
you must have your eyes closed, haha
thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained, and have been successfully explained by the scientific conclusion of Dr. Judy Wood.
and don't forget the U.S. Supreme Court case of October 2009, because that's evidence too
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What killed her is that the whole lawsuit was goofy to begin with. She sued that NIST defrauded the gov't on the grounds they submitted falsified data, with the "correct" data being of course her on "lasers from outer space" claims.
Fascinating research has also been brought to us courtesy of Dr. Wood involving Hurricane Erin. Traveling up the Atlantic coast since September 1, 2001 and becoming closest to New York City's twin towers on September 11, 2001, Erin was tracked in an experiment conducted by NOAA (National Oceanic and Administrative Administration) and a NASA satellite "spacecraft"- outside the awareness of the American public.
Perhaps equally as fascinating? The Langley Research Center recorded Hurricane Erin taking a sharp turn away from the Big Apple, according to their experts at NASA's spy facility. Some may call this an amazing coincidence. Others may want to read about the various roles played by satellites. Hint: They can do more than track storms.
Someone please tell me this. Since when do the weather people ever fail to tell us when a hurricane is headed for the US coast? And when in the world have they ever failed to tell us when a hurricane is heading straight for the Big Apple, particularly since New York City is not exactly a place where hurricanes normally strike? And why is it that Dr. Judy Wood, an unpaid independent researcher, picked up on Erin - and the space experiment taking place that day in a satellite over the Atlantic off the NYC coast when no one on the morning TV news stations did?
One time, a 9/11 "Truth" group leader became more than a bit distressed when I kept trying to chat about other plausible (i.e., non-thermite) ideas at one of our meetings. I can still recall the pained expression on his face when he tried his best to be patient and diplomatically agree with one of my points: "Yes, all that talk about missiles at the World Trade Center is a really interesting theory, sure, and I tend to personally believe it might be true. But..." (and then he moved towards me, and whispered, as if about to share some top secret insider knowledge) "if we talk about these things, we will lose credibility and hurt The Movement. So let's just try at first to stick to safe things - things people will understand."
I wish I had a dollar for every Truth agent who admonished us not to “hurt the Movement”. This slippery agent out of Miami brought condescension to a whole new level of low by implying that preserving “the Movement” is more important than discovering exactly what went down.
Originally posted by PookztA
Asktheanimals,
The King Dome is a great comparison because the kingdome was virtually empty, as it was a DOME. How could a virtually empty DOME, taken down via controlled demolition, result in a SMALLER relative rubble pile than the World Trade Center towers? Amazing...
Furthermore, you ignored virtually all the other evidence which I mentioned, not to mention all the evidence at Dr. Wood's website, but thanks for contributing your opinion anyway.
I appreciate the kind words, but Dr. Wood is far more deserving of your thanks than I am. She has lost everything just for gathering evidence and attempting to explain it.
...this is why so many 9/11 "Truth" groups and Wikipedia censor discussion about Dr. Wood, the same reason why there is an organized campaign to discredit Dr. Wood and divert people away from the evidence she has gathered, and the same reason Dr. Wood's graduate student, Michael Zebuhr, was murdered in 2006. See here: www.iamthewitness.com...
We owe Dr. Wood an enormous amount of gratitude for the amazing amount of effort she has put forth. She is fighting for us all, whether you realize it or not.
Cheers,
-Abe
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology
edit on 17-9-2010 by PookztA because: typo
Originally posted by PookztA
interesting analysis you put forth, very scientific.
There are many problems with the DEW idea... it shouldn't actually be called a scientific hypothesis or theory. You have to be able to TEST a scientific hypothesis or theory, but you cannot test a system that you cannot even properly identify.
STJ does not support theories of exotic weaponry or similar (DEW, nukes, TV Fakery, no planes at the WTC) and will remove from it's membership any who make public assertions about such theories. That is not a personal decision but a scientific, strategic and common sense one -- those theories have no scientific evidence to support them and serve to undermine what our own published researchers are moving forward with by making us appear nonsensical, and cannot be supported by STJ.
Google Video Link |