9/11, 10 years on and Dr. Judy Wood

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Could the design of the core support itself for 110 stories without the lateral support of the floors and exterior?
My internal gut says no because it's too small compared to its height. But if an expert comes here and says otherwise I'll accept it.

fortunately physics does not work on your gut.

It was the core that gave the building its rigidity against the wind. It supported 53% of the weight. It would be more stable without the rest. But it would serve no purpose since it provided the means to get to all of those floors.

I already provided a python program indicating the building came down too fast. It takes 12 secons with constant mass and no supports to be destroyed. But Dr. Sunder of the NIST said the north tower came down in 11 seconds. Some sources estimate less than 9 based on the seismograph.

breakfornews.com...

This "gut" bull# keeps this dragging on.

psik

Judy Wood's efforts at unravelling the mysteries of the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 have been reviewed over and over again on ATS, as Bonez and others have pointed out.

Personally, I don't buy her directed energy weapons theory, but I think a lot of her other observations and findings are important and actually bolster the idea that active dust was floating in the air that day, causing such things as the toasted cars and the melted soles of construction boots, etc.

Her stuff needs to be looked at with care.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Her stuff needs to be looked at with care.

That's for sure, she has a good collection of evidences. But till the point when she brings the Hutchison effect, a known fraud.

I wrote to Ms. Wood a few days ago the following. I got a violently worded abusive letter in response. I should think that if her reply to my e-mail was an indicator of her attitude generally, I would suspect that would put people off communicating with her. She is very proud of her 40 years experience as a 'forensic engineer' - whatever that means. I get the sense she's an expert witness that the big companies call in to dismantle opposing engineering analysis. She hasn't really done anything to help anyone, discover anything, or contribute anything of note.

This is sad, because I do think her table of evidence pointing to a 'cold' directed energy weapon is spot on. I don't buy the 'free energy' aspect, and its not really needed. I'm not saying there's not free energy devices around, I'm saying you don't NEED it. Now on this reasonable people can disagree. However, unreasonable people won't listen to reasonable argument, and I believe Ms. Wood falls into that category from my brief and unfortunate interaction with her.

She is right that if you're going to pull 1.25 million tons of stuff into dust, it takes a lot of energy. If you don't believe that, take a sludge to a piece of brick, and when you have it all broken down, then take a pistle and mortar and grind that pieces into powder, and then continue grinding until the powder blows away into a cloud of the type you saw on 9/11. In technical terms you need something like 40 MJ to turn every kilogram into plasma. (down to the atom) That's 50 quadrillion joules of energy! That's about 12 megatons TNT yield - a little smaller than the largest hydrogen bomb in the US arsenal! That would put out a helluva flash! And while there's plenty of evidence there was thermite, there's no evidence that there was 12 MT of the stuff (10x the weight of the building). So, the conclusion that you somehow made molecular bonds disappear is a sound one given the evidence that things did indeed 'dustify'.

But 'free energy' however that's defined, is off-putting to most serious scientific types. Its akin to Alex Jones saying David Icke was a turd in the punch bowl about the elite by saying they're reptiles. Its hard to swallow - no matter how good the evidence.

So, after looking at Judy's videos, which I recommend, I started wondering how 'they' coulda done it? It occurred to me that all you've got to do is make little critters (micro-robots, or genetically engineered mites) that are about the size of microfractures in steel and concrete and get them to widen those fractures while recovering the elastic energy in some coherent fashion. That way you could cause the big parts to fall apart with a lot less energy. Since domains in steel glass and concrete have specific shapes and sizes, it may also be that they fall apart in ready-to-use fashion, so tiny robots could make copies of themselves readily. That would let a few grams of these robots hop on to the building, be powered by microwaves from the E4B circling above, and consume it in 8.4 seconds. It also explains where the plane went where the bodies went, why the wing tip of the plane made a nice neat hole in steel backed aluminum cladding, etc.

That was the idea. NO need for Free Energy (though not saying there wasn't any, just saying you don't need it with this scenario)

Well, Ms. Wood would have none of it - and was quite violently abusive of me on a personal level for suggesting it.

So, I think Ms. Wood's her own worst enemy - and perhaps because I'm still reacting to her nasty violent abuse I wonder if she's a disinfo agent - a paid 'expert' to trot out evidence that cannot be hidden - and then cast a very dubious narrative around it so serious folks don't take it seriously, and attack those who do. That's the only thing I can think - but who knows? who cares?

The evidence is the interesting thing...

My comments below:

* * *
Dr. Wood,

A friend asked me to review a video of yours. I think your work is excellent, with only minor quibbles.

Thank you for your effort.

William Mook

* * *

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Dr. Judy Wood - Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference - YouTube
Date: 2014-04-18 04:28
From: [email protected]
To:

Bruce,

You asked me to comment on Dr. Judy Wood's summation of the evidence re: 9/11...

I don't see where she gets 'free energy' - but her systematic organizing of evidence is sound and her conclusion;

Somebody has the ability to direct energy to disrupt the molecular bonds of matter.

is as well.

So, I AGREE. (I do not agree that a 'free energy' system is needed - more below)

You have buildings massing 1.25e6 metric tons - that's 1.25e12 grams.

Imagine you have deposited a 1 gram package if iron eating self-replicating robots on to the roof of the World Trade Center towers, or in the drones that smacked into the building. How many doubling periods would it take for this package to consume the world trade center?

DP = LN(1.25e12)/LN(2) = 40.185

With a replication time of 200 milliseconds (0.2 second) the entire tower would be reduced to 'dust' in 8.4 seconds. A kilogram package reduces this to around 30.219 - increasing replication time to 0.277 seconds to achieve the same 8.4 second time interval.

How much energy will it take? That is determined by the size of the particles - the size of the dust - which is given by settling times. These were between 300 micrometers and 800 micrometers in size - judging by the velocity of the 'dust' in the videos. Also, the swarming behaviour looks similar to swarming behaviour in some robot based systems being studied (i.e. peeling behaviour).

William

* * *

So, this is my best guess - energy use scales inversely with size. So, a 12 MT blast (50 PJ) converts the tower to plasma - a 12 kT blast (50 TJ) converts the tower to pieces 1000 atoms across - a 12 tonne blast (50 GJ) converts the tower to pieces 1,000,000 atoms across. The covalent radius of an iron atom is 123 pm. So this is 123 pm = 12 megaton ; 123 nm = 12 kiloton; 123 um = 12 metric ton - so there is a convergence here.. in fact the 'mites' or whatever you want to call them, could have carried substantial energy with them aboard an airplane capable of carrying tonnes of payload - and then share them with their 'daughters' or whatever you want to call them. It explains all the evidence there is, and it is within technical feasibility, since Vik Oliver and Adrian Bowyer built the first self-replicating machine (publicly known) in 2005. So, maybe the military got a head start and weaponized it? Its far out, but more understandable than 'free energy' - again not saying 'free energy' doesn't exist. But with this tech it doesn't have to.

originally posted by: WilliamMook
So, after looking at Judy's videos, which I recommend, I started wondering how 'they' coulda done it? It occurred to me that all you've got to do is make little critters (micro-robots, or genetically engineered mites) that are about the size of microfractures in steel and concrete and get them to widen those fractures while recovering the elastic energy in some coherent fashion. That way you could cause the big parts to fall apart with a lot less energy. Since domains in steel glass and concrete have specific shapes and sizes, it may also be that they fall apart in ready-to-use fashion, so tiny robots could make copies of themselves readily. That would let a few grams of these robots hop on to the building, be powered by microwaves from the E4B circling above, and consume it in 8.4 seconds. It also explains where the plane went where the bodies went, why the wing tip of the plane made a nice neat hole in steel backed aluminum cladding, etc.

Posted by someone connected to the oil industry who is creating controversy and doubt so that the evidence is ignored and overlooked. Dr. Wood's research is being countered the same way they denigrated and covered up the research of Dr. Clair Patterson (accidentally discovered the pollution caused by tetraethyl lead in the environment while determining the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old)

Why didn't you post Dr. Wood’s "violently worded abusive" reply to your email Mr. Mook?

To keep a cover up in place people are herded into making false choices. Thermite is the lie behind door #2 for those who didn't like the lie behind door #1 (19 bad guys with box cutters). And if too many folks start hearing about the evidence Dr. Judy Wood presents, they show you the lie behind door #3 (nukes). When that fails to work anymore they bring out the lie from door #4 (micro-robots). Sheeple are kept choosing which lie is best so that they don't turn around and see the wide open field of evidence behind them. Example: If you don't like the story of Lee Harvey Oswald, you have "the grassy knoll." If you don't like the story of Osama Bin Laden and 19 bad guys with box cutters, you have "thermite", "mini-nukes", or "micro-robots." Meanwhile, there are folks in the arena to start fights and create the image of "infighting" so that the "infighting" side show becomes the central focus.

SUGICO MOK ENERGY CORP.

In the development of these blocks, ExxonMobil works with Sugico Mok Energy Corp., which owns 51 percent stake in the working areas.

Exxon Evaluating CBM Blocks in Indonesia

The evidence leads to the only conclusion that a type of LENR was weaponized to destroy the WTC on 9/11. This is why the oil industry wants to keep a lid on this type of energy source.

RESEARCH TRIANGLE, N.C., Jan. 24, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Industrial Heat, LLC announced today that it has acquired the rights to Andrea Rossi's Italian low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology, the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat). A primary goal of the company is to make the technology widely available, because of its potential impact on air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and biomass.

Industrial Heat Has Acquired Andrea Rossi's E-Cat Technology

a reply to: BloodBrother

Exxon evaluating blocks in Indonesia. Blocks I control? Wow!

This is very interesting. Thank you for this.

Its news to me... and so, I'm wondering what's going on.

Actually, I was wondering what Yusef Merukh, owner of the coal fields mentioned, was doing these days. I'll have to give him a call to find out what's up with using my company in this way.

Basically, I signed a letter of intent, as Sugico Mok Energy, back in 2006 with Merukh Enterprises, owner of these fields, to make use of them as solar collector sites, to reclaim them along lines described here.

www.scribd.com...

I was selling oil futures on the Singapore exchange to fund a $16 billion project to make 600,000 barrels per day of crude oil from sunlight rainfall and coal waste at $8.57 per barrel. ASTM changed the rules for testing crude oil that the futures markets used world wide to independently determine merchantability. They excluded coal derived liquids from testing! This derailed the deal since there was no accepted test. However, Merukh and Sugico in Sumatra, still used my plans to convert coal fields into solar collector sites as a way to reclaim old surface mines. I gave them that for their support through this process.

I'm still sitting on the rights, waiting for the markets to accept coal derived liquids again, so I can move forward with 100 GW per year solar panel plant;

www.scribd.com...

I did the Indonesian deal after an attempt to do a similar deal in the USA in 2004 was derailed by - guess who? ExxonMobil!

www.scribd.com...

Fact is, I'm a competitor of ExxonMobil and a real threat since making more oil from coal than conventional oil is left in the world at $8.57 per barrel would bankrupt ExxonMobil immediately because their cost of production is $70 per barrel and going up!

Damn! I just looked, Dr. Merukh died in 2011.

www.thejakartapost.com...

Yet is still listed as chairman of his company in 2014!!

investing.businessweek.com...

So, that's sad and weird. But par for the course in Indonesia, where anything goes!

I'll have to talk to Gustaff, his son about all of this. I'm certain he's still in control of the land and this will come as a surprise to him. haha - if not, it won't come as a surprise that Coal Bed Methane was not part of the deal - so, again, thank you for this bit of sleuthing!

BloodBrother wrote: "Posted by someone connected to the oil industry who is creating controversy and doubt so that the evidence is ignored and overlooked."

I guess I don't understand how you get that out of me saying, "So, after looking at Judy's videos, which I recommend, I started wondering how 'they' coulda done it?"

My only connection with the oil industry is to put them out of business by making oil so cheap, their reserves are worthless.

I also said several times in my post, I'm not anti-free energy by any means. I am merely thinking about how it might be done without free energy, since I know more about nano-bots than free energy. Though I am aware of my friend Robert Forward's 1984 paper in Nature about tapping zero point energy - which has a lot of similarities to some stated free energy devices. I'm not saying this can work, I haven't done my homework on that. I'm only saying that there's more thing in heaven and Earth than dreamed of in physics class.

BloodBrother wrote: "In the development of these blocks, ExxonMobil works with Sugico Mok Energy Corp., which owns 51 percent stake in the working areas."

And provides this link:

www.naturalgasasia.com...

Well Sugico does have rights over these areas - as solar collector sites - if they are to be developed as coal bed methane, I would have to approve it.

Alright, Merukh, in my name, has sold 'exploration blocks'. Had they wanted to develop those blocks, they would have gotten serious money, and a deal, which they now claim they would have approached me about.

hmm..

As the article says, "Indonesia needs investment of $505 million to build CBM production facilities up to 2014." Well, they haven't gotten a dime afaict, since they're not developing anything on those sites.

The article also says, "The government is targeting CBM production to reach a minimum of 500 MMSCFD in 2015, the report said."

Well, sure, they're targeting that, but they're not putting in money, and neither is ExxonMobil afaict.

haha... I will tell you, if I were do a coal bed methane project across thousands of hectares in Borneo, I wouldn't be worrying about nanobots and dustification. I'm just saying. I have spare time because I'm doing substantially smaller projects these days - and have awakened to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job - and wanted to share my thoughts on the subject.

Actually, I've posted more about UFOs recently than this.

I need to talk to Gustaff to see how much money they got for the exploration rights... they might have written me, my address has changed since Sugico Mok was filed in Ohio in 2008.

That filing will expire this month. So that's interesting this came up now.

If you check the records in Ohio, the company hasn't filed any tax returns since it has been inactive following the ASTM ruling in 2006.

BloodBrother asks, "Why didn't you post Dr. Wood’s "violently worded abusive" reply to your email Mr. Mook?"

Because I felt it wouldn't benefit anyone and I was uncomfortable doing that. Besides, I wanted to discuss with someone the idea that self-replicating goo might have been weaponized for this purpose. Not bring up personal #. She said horrific things about me in very violent prose, and that didn't reflect well on her or me. Quite literally, I said thank you for the work you do. That was it. I included a copy of an e-mail I sent to a friend analyzing her video as an attachment.

In this venue I did however, want to explore this possibility of self-replicating nanobots as a possible method of 'dustification'.

I have said, and will continue to say, that Ms. Wood is spot on in her conclusion that a 'cold' directed energy weapon was used. No matter how it was done. Records show only 84% of the steel was recovered, and less than 20% of the concrete afaict, though I'm still toting up trucks of trash recovered.

It seems something was operating that caused that stuff to 'dustify'. The only reason I'm not talking about free energy devices and methods of reducing the energy requirement involving free energy is that I know nothing about that stuff. So, I'll leave it to others that do.

That doesn't preclude me from talking about the stuff I do know about.

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions could cause things to fall apart. Nanobots could use Low Energy Nuclear Reactions perhaps. However, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions will not cause a lightweight aluminium airliner to cut through steel cladding on the side of a skyscraper forming a perfect silhouette on the side of the building, even the wingtips cut through several inches of steel! Ms. Wood points this out in her talk and then asks, there are people standing around the opening, where's the plane? Nanobots ate it I figure!
The only reason

a reply to: downunderET

Fascinating how many equate the term debunk with false or not true.


Yawns.....

originally posted by: ipsedixitHer stuff needs to be looked at with care.

Yes I would say so, Dr. Judy Wood has a sound scientific approach.

I've read several J. Wood threads now and must say the J. Wood "debunkers" simply are ignorant of the basics of J. woods work.

The DEW stuff is secondary hypothesis/theory and is an attempt to explain the the observations that lay at the basis.

These basic observations are so simple to grasp that you have to try hard to not understand it (try to stay in a state of ignorance).

But then, even Mr. Richard Gage seems to get emotionally involved when talking about Judy Woods work.

originally posted by: downunderET

G'Day All:

Aussies have gotta stop using this saluation, it means absolutely nothing to anyone one else but a few and makes us look like idiots. Most of the rest of the world are thinking to themselves whats gee day crap? who is this, what sort of idiot is this person.

Be warned mate, it makes us look silly, for sure, there some who know how to pronounce it but you'll turn far more people off than you turn on to what your going to say.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
Judy Wood's "work" has been thoroughly debunked at sources in my thread here

s**t canning Judy Woods work is not going to cut I'm afraid mate by claiming her threads are here there and everywhere, you'll have to come up with more than that mate.

Perhaps you might like to summarise the evidence that debunks her work so we can at least get some understanding of where you prove her wrong.

cheers

a reply to: learnatic

You should check out the ongoing arguments amongst the Wikipedia editors regarding whether or not Dr. Judy Wood is worthy of having her own entry. It seems to me that there is a knee-jerk reaction by some people who apparently have not even taken time to review her work to crucify her and resort to name-calling and insults.
Personally, while I may not have the brains to understand everything that happened that fateful morning in NYC, Dr. Judy Wood's theories seen to fit most accurately what appeared to me to occur. While she may not be the most polished or attractive presenter, this should not detract from the content of information that she provides.

As an aside...

Also, I find it absolutely ludicrous that one of the supposed terrorist's passports was discovered... How did it survive the impact, explosion, flames, heat, collapse, rubble, molten materials, etc. Did someone actually have time to sift through all of the millions of pieces of debris and tons of dust to find it, or was it neatly placed where it could be located easily? My suspicion is that it was never found, it was intentionally placed or manufactured to bolster support for the OS.

This, along with the many other head scratchers has me convinced that our government played an active role in the events that took place on 911.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Talk for yourself I learnt a lot from the women. Her ideas might seem outlandish but they do seem to be the only explantion. Where did the building go. why did they turn into dust and go into the air.

purp

thanks op

s/f purp

Dr Judy wood has been proven to be part of a concerted effort to confuse and distort 911 truth and facts. The group she is connected to are the same group like webfair and letroll911 who pushed missile pods, space weapons, holograms and other nonsensical theories that were created to distort the movement.

I will tell you truth seekers out there that this thread and the information being peddled is not supported by and truth seeker or investigator and have been found created as a distraction to cover up the 911 attacks.

THere are three kinds of 9/11 truth seekers: (i) Those who can connect the dots. (ii) Agents employed by the perpetrators to muddy the waters. (iii) Those who have been misled and misdirected by the latter group.

It has now emerged that Deborah Simon - a woman who married into a wealthy family of Zionist billionaires - is a common link between many of the phony truth seekers and Zionist real estate billionaires who are in regular contact with Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli State. Deborah Simon is linked to Phil Jayhan (who runs www.letsroll911.org), Tom Flocco, Karl Schwarz (aka Jon Carlson), John Kaminski, and is also believed to have financed the Loose Change video after a meeting with Dylan Avery.

For months, Daryl Bradford Smith and Eric Hufschmid have maintained that the 9/11 truth movement is dominated by Zionist disinformation agents working to protect the 9/11 perpetrators. Initially, this seemed somewhat exaggerated, and Hufschmid's treatment of the three lads who made Loose Change appeared less than fair.

The Simon family includes two Deborahs. Deborah J Simon is the daughter of Melvin Simon and Vice President of Simon Properties. The shills handler, Deborah S Simon, is the daughter of Gerald Cox, a former Captain of Naval Intelligence, and married Jeffrey who was one of the sons of the Simon family. Jeffrey died, evidently of a drug overdose, in the Eighties. Deborah S Simon is still in close contact with Diane Meyer Simon, who married Herbert Simon in 1981. Herbert, 71, is ranked 346= with $1.0 billion in the Forbes 400 (Richest Americans); Melvin, 78, is ranked 93= with $2.5 billion.

Melvin Simon is a business partner of Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy, who acquired the World Trade Center - and made sure the insurance did not exclude terrorism - a mere six weeks before the 9/11 attacks. Larry Silverstein had close ties to Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, and Benjamin Netanyahu. The latter used to call Silverstein every Sunday afternoon, New York time, without fail. Netanyahu is linked to both 9/11 and the London bombings.



she is a CONFIRMED HOAXER therefore this thread is propaganda and and a HOAX. THe people who support this theory I recommend keeping and eye on them, they usually play both sides of the fence and usually appear on threads like this to debunk the silliness of them easily claiming that truthers are nutters.

a reply to: learnatic

I love seeing G'Day, and I am a yank. Nothing derogatory about it.

If the building was 'vaporized', With all the debris that was hauled away, why do we see no partially vaporized debris. Like half a beam vaporized? I don't think a vaporizing weapon would leave a clean cut mark like a torch. There was much solid debris hauled away, why no evidence for this claim?

originally posted by: seattlerat
arguments amongst the Wikipedia editors regarding whether or not Dr. Judy Wood is worthy of having her own entry. It seems to me that there is a knee-jerk reaction by some people who apparently have not even taken time to review her work to crucify her and resort to name-calling and insults.

Yea it's only illusion really that we're supposed to have come past the dark ages.

Just wait till the the bread&circus is gone and the fires will burn again. And not necessarily only in the name of any gods this time. Scientism may as well join the dark forces.
Wickedpedia is feeding ignorance and a generation of mockingbirds.

May sites like ATS help stop the madness..

originally posted by: seattlerat
while I may not have the brains to understand everything that happened that fateful morning in NYC, Dr. Judy Wood's theories seen to fit most accurately what appeared to me to occur.

The good thing about Dr. Judy Woods work is that it's all based on what we know for fact.

The difficulties appear when the facts can't be explained within known parameters and you're being forced to look for the unknown. Judy Wood is looking for the unknown and is being attacked for that. The debunkers directly jump on Woods hypothesis, instead of looking at what the hypothesis is trying to explain.
I had expected more of people who like to believe science is the way out of darkness. It 's embarrassing.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Dr Judy wood has been proven to be part of a concerted effort to confuse and distort 911 truth and facts.
[...]
she is a CONFIRMED HOAXER therefore this thread is propaganda and and a HOAX. THe people who support this theory I recommend keeping and eye on them, they usually play both sides of the fence and usually appear on threads like this to debunk the silliness of them easily claiming that truthers are nutters.

While I perfectly understand the need for making trouble for those trying to expose 911 for what it is, I have not seen Judy Woods basic observations debunked.
Richard Gage tried, but failed. Btw I'm a subscriber at AE911truth and do respect Richard Gage and what he's achieved.

originally posted by: stosh64
If the building was 'vaporized', With all the debris that was hauled away, why do we see no partially vaporized debris. Like half a beam vaporized? I don't think a vaporizing weapon would leave a clean cut mark like a torch. There was much solid debris hauled away, why no evidence for this claim?

Good question. I think there is some evidence for what you're asking for. But need to look at the basic facts and go from there. These basic facts aren't hard to agree about. It's the explaining of them that is the problem.

But in the end we'll still all agree WTC 1, 2 & 7 were demolished.

I myself do not agree on everything Judy Wood suggests. But then, this all comes after the basic facts are been put in the fact-box. Theories come after and are not 100% facts, only an attempt to explain and understand what's been observed.

I myself am open to some sort of exotic weaponized physics, but do not rule out the use of explosives/thermite. The problem with explosives/thermite is that it simply does not explain all the basic observations. There must have been something else involved, at least in addition to "bombs".

a reply to: wotyathink

Richard Gage tried, but failed. Btw I'm a subscriber at AE911truth and do respect Richard Gage and what he's achieved.

All he has achieved is is a new job after his was terminated due to the crash in '07.
If 911 goes away so does his income stream.
Don't believe me? Look at the bottom of his website.
"We exist only through your support."

originally posted by: learnatic

originally posted by: downunderET

G'Day All:

Aussies have gotta stop using this saluation, it means absolutely nothing to anyone one else but a few and makes us look like idiots.

i disagree. it's an endearing form of salutation in my opinion. vive le difference and all that