SanityGap
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 346
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Inhale
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D, Materials Science, 9/11, & Directed Energy Weapons
- Thread starter PookztA
- Start date
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Inhale
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Rhetoric. You have failed to make, let alone substantiate a claim. You have merely dropped a hint and let it go at that.
Do better
SanityGap
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 346
Rhetoric, facts, data, stone tablets from the gods, burning messages a mile high from beings from Tau Ceti, it makes no difference, Jammy's waving hands removes all trace.
A W Smith
Philosopher
jammy ignores that,
Also ignoring that the buildings were shells to accommodate people. Being 95 % air, Even if the towers collapsed into their own building footprint, which they didn't, 5% of 1365 feet is 68.25 feet which can be seen in the photos as the approximate height of some of the piles.
Because, as a courtesy, I cropped it severely. This version is still heavily cropped and low-res, but is less courteous. And, naturally, it can't show what's below the surface.
See, therein lies the danger of allowing untested assumptions into the fray. There you go, off and running, as if it has been proven that there was debris beneath the street level. That claim has not been substantiated, AW, surely you will acknowledge that much.
sheesh
Now you seek to build upon your untested, unconfirmed assumption by incorporating it into your next bit of incomplete, insipid analysis.
First of all, AW, it's absolutely not 1365 feet. You have purposefully, willfully and blatantly understated the proper height calculation. Standing in close proximity, one to the other, were not one building of 1365feet; rather there were two such buildings, meaning the proper height calculation, even assuming for the moment that 5% is a proper percentage, that percentage must, of necessity be applied to a height of 2733feet, not 1365 (one of the towers was 1365, the other 1368feet). Plus, added to that must be the additional height of the 22 story Marriott Hotel, WTC 3, that likewise disappeared from the face of the earth, to such an extreme degree that it, a 22 story building, is almost never mentioned, especially in the 'official' investigations. A 22 story building would be the tallest building in most medium size cities and some large ones; Washington DC, for instance.
Yet, that building is ignored to almost the same degree that your calculation ignored the fact that there were two 110 story buildings that disappeared.
Look, I'm not going to use the admonition "do better" anymore. I am, henceforth, going to post from the perspective that all of you are doing the best you can.
It is very difficult to overcome the effects of the PSYOP perpetrated against us.
It would be nice if a few more posters, lurkers, of whatever type, would try to post up on a more congenial basis. There is nothing to be won or lost here. We've already lost too much in allowing 9/11 to go unexplained by officials we trust for far too long.
Come on posters and lurkers, let's work together on this.
This is where Judy proves she can't analyze a photograph. I believe we're talking about the spire that stands a few seconds and then collapses. To listen to Judy and her fellow travelers, the steel just, 'dustified'. Anyone with half a brain can see the spire's steel standing. Then, it starts to collapse and clearly falls 'inside' the dust surrounding it. The steel clearly collapses. Dustificatation, please. If we could do that, we would be the baddest superpower period.
Problems with Iran's nukes? Hey, dustify them hahahahah.
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
There you go again, Stacking building on top of building on top of building on top of building. I took 1365 feet as the aggregate height of the two towers, one 1362 the other 1368. You are ignoring the fact that the buildings were surrounded by open space (Austin Tobin Plaza) and wide streets, You can clearly see in many photos the extent of debris dispersal across these streets and open space.
Hey GlennB,
Permit me to suggest you go to drjudywood.com. The photo you posted, abive, is also used by Dr.Wood, placed in its proper perspective, linked to others and analyzed for purposes of providing information about what it actually shows.
I still say you can count the number of beams contained in that photo. There are far too few left to account for not one, but two 100 story buildings, pluse WTC 3, a 22 story building that is seldom mentioned, let alone having its disappearance from the face of the earth accounted for.
Thank you for your post; and
all the best
A W Smith
Philosopher
Come on posters and lurkers, let's work together on this.
How much is she paying you to perpetuate her claims? If it's in the seven figures, I'm willing to "work together on this" with you.
OK, fair enough. I knew one of them was 1368; I didn't realize you had aggregated.
Come on, AW, please consider using photo documentation, especially when you use the descriptor "clearly see". In point of fact, one cannot clearly see what you are claiming because you link us to no proof of your claim.
What I will say, however, is that we do embark upon the right path when we endeavor to assess the visible remains of the destruction of the WTC complex.
One more time: Dr. Judy Wood has done that job, in spades, to a faretheewell, accurately and thoroughly.
Take a look.
A W Smith
Philosopher
look how small the actual footprints of the buildings are compared to the entire site
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
You act as if nobody here has "taken a look". They have, and they laugh. Dude. She's CRAZY. No self-respecting expert will have anything to do with her "theories".
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were taking her word as gospel only because she's telling you what you want to hear, regardless of what any real expert has to say.
But that can't be true, can it jamm?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Last edited:
Dr. Wood is a materials engineering scientist. As such, and by the traditional means of assessing one's capacity to offer an intepretive opinion, she has the right credentials to do so.
Interestingly enough, the lead investgator for ARA, for the NIST project, one Steven Kirkpatrick, is also a materials engineering scientist, with credentials nearly identical to those of Dr. Wood. Unfortunately, he participated in the fraud and did the discipline a disservice.
The spire discussion is almost certainly unresolvable. By and large, one's perspective determines what one sees. I acknowledge there are those who look at what follows and see a 'collapse.' Do you acknowledge that there are those who look at what follows and see disintegration?
When it is considered that the spire is approximately 60 stories in height, one can then look at say, the photo that GlennB is fond of posting and ask, where is the 60 story spire? It is nowhere to be found.
The point of all this is that one benefits greatly by looking at the painstaking,thorough and accurate analysis done by Dr. Wood.
Consider, just by way of example, the following page:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html
I have no problem with you seeing what you claim you see. However, Dr. Wood asserts that the steel is dustified and has posted up a lot of proof, not merely the proof that I have here posted.
Separate and apart from the fact that you're off topic, what nukes are you talking about?
As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium, produce nuclear fuel and generate nuclear energy via nuclear power plants.
You agree?
I'm not sure what point you are making. I thought the issue was that of accounting for 242 stories of building and the distance relationship between them?
It is upon that basis that I assert that GZ was flat in comparison with what should have remained from the combined disappearance of 242 stories of building.
Here's a photo courtesy of the youtube video posted up for us by DGM. This is what I mean by collaborative posting.
Needless to say, posters can draw their own conclusions from this visual information. I draw the conclusion that Dr. Wood is quite correct: Unconventional weaponry, in the form of DEW, destroyed that complex, rendering the above 3 buildings less than 1 story in the average and general height of the rubble, with a few exceptions amounting to no more than about 2 stories, after episodes of destruction that lasted a mere 10 +/- seconds.
Last edited:
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Question Jammy...
You wanna believe this "Orbital Space Beam DEW" crap...consider this:
Firstly, this "orbital" unit cannot be in a geostationary orbit, as this is only achievable with satellites cruising the equator:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
Seeing that Judy’s Death Ray is effective only if directly over the WTC, and the fact that NYC is nowhere near the equator, this alone vaporizes Judy’s theory.
But let’s dig a little further anyway, shall we? This means the only other available orbital option is a standard variable orbit. One of which has satellites cruising between 17,000 and 22,000 mph. Let’s take the low end for S&G’s.
Let’s pretend for a second that the WTC complex was one square mile…nowhere near that, I know, but it makes the math a bit easier. At 17,000 mph, a satellite is cruising at about 283 miles per minute, or 4.7 miles per second. So, in other words, it covers one mile of surface area in an (very generous) approximation of 1/5th of a second. 1/5th of a second! That’s faster than most people can click start and then immediately stop a stopwatch...or double-click a mouse.
So you’re telling me that some beam weapon, from space, could “dustify” two steel buildings in (again, a very generous) 1/5th of a second? Two buildings that collapsed 29 minutes apart? Two buildings that collapsed for 18 seconds and 22 seconds?
Orbital Space Beam = Fantasy. Nothing more, nothing less.
You wanna believe this "Orbital Space Beam DEW" crap...consider this:
Firstly, this "orbital" unit cannot be in a geostationary orbit, as this is only achievable with satellites cruising the equator:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
wikipedia said:
Seeing that Judy’s Death Ray is effective only if directly over the WTC, and the fact that NYC is nowhere near the equator, this alone vaporizes Judy’s theory.
But let’s dig a little further anyway, shall we? This means the only other available orbital option is a standard variable orbit. One of which has satellites cruising between 17,000 and 22,000 mph. Let’s take the low end for S&G’s.
Let’s pretend for a second that the WTC complex was one square mile…nowhere near that, I know, but it makes the math a bit easier. At 17,000 mph, a satellite is cruising at about 283 miles per minute, or 4.7 miles per second. So, in other words, it covers one mile of surface area in an (very generous) approximation of 1/5th of a second. 1/5th of a second! That’s faster than most people can click start and then immediately stop a stopwatch...or double-click a mouse.
So you’re telling me that some beam weapon, from space, could “dustify” two steel buildings in (again, a very generous) 1/5th of a second? Two buildings that collapsed 29 minutes apart? Two buildings that collapsed for 18 seconds and 22 seconds?
Orbital Space Beam = Fantasy. Nothing more, nothing less.
Last edited:
DGM,
No viable claim results from the posting of lazy rhetoric. I am not seeking to be critical here, consistent with my call for collaboration. Indeed, posting of the video was helpful, as previously demonstrated. But, in posting as you have done and quoted above, DGM, you simply do not say what point or claim you are seeking to advance.
I looked at the video. I've already shown that it yields a very helpful visual showing the distance relationship between WTC 1,2,3, as well as some notion of the sheer massiveness of buildings that disappeared. That photo (post # 477) alone is sufficient to confirm destruction by DEW and certainly no mere 'collapse' because too much material went missing and there was insufficient height in the rubble pile to account for all that material that should have resulted in a much higher compilation of comingled rubble of 242 stories of building that were right next to each other, as shown.
Other than that of Dr. Wood, there has been NO analysis of what remained posted to a governmental website. As such, the proof put forward by Dr. Wood is all we have to go on that can be said to have been analyzed. No other entity has published an analysis of what happened, DGM.
Further, much of the remainder of the video is merely a NO PLANE video, with the exception of the very end where a claim that people were showered with jet fuel is made. The video stops right at that point. So, maybe the next in the series should be posted in a NO PLANE thread, I don't know.
Meanwhile, the actual witnesses say NOT ONE WORD, BETWEEN THEM, ABOUT ANY PLANE AT ALL:
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I take it you have not watched the whole thing. (all 5 parts).
BTW This is not a "No-plane" thread. We all know you can derive "no-plane" out of every conceivable phrase. We got that!