Where did the towers go - directed free energy

Juicee

Hello there

I am surprised to see that there is no significant amount of discussion about dr judy wood's work this forum.

Anyone tempted to fall for the controlled demolition or micro nukes hoaxes (or indeed the ludicrous 'airplanes caused it' theory) should look into the work of dr judy wood. She irrefutably destroys these two theories in her book 'where did the towers go?'. 

Key evidence to rule out explosives and airplane driven collapse:

1 - lack of any significant or appropriately sized rubble pile
2 - lack of appropriate seismic signal
3 - no damage to bathtub/slurry wall.

There was no molten steel underneath wtc. Photos of large water puddles at the site on the day prove this. There would have been massive steam explosions. People were walking and climbing all over the rubble would have been cooked alive.

Iron and aluminium microspheres can be explained without the need for a thermite theory. The buildings had large quantities of iron and aluminium in their construction materials.

The fact that they were turned into fine dust in mid air is really something. 

Dr wood demonstrates in great detail the type of technology that was used to do this. No theories, just hard, scientific evidence.

Check out her websites drjudywood.com and wheredidthetowersgo.com. I also highly recommend andrew johnsons website checktheevidence.com.

please check out this video of a 70 story steel spire turning to dust

[link to m.youtube.com]

Discuss!

Jonny7

What's her actual theory as to what happened to the twin towers?

Star Wars energy weapons?...

bejasis123

There is a big dump in New York that has been closed for 3 Years and the governmount opened it back up for the rubble and dump is closed again

Juicee

Jonny7 wrote: »

What's her actual theory as to what happened to the twin towers?

Star Wars energy weapons?...

She does mention the reagan star wars Program on her website as a 'reminder tha energy weapons exist' but has never claimed or mentioned that the weapon(s) used on 911 is based in space..but yes..the full title of the book is 'where did the towers go - evidence of directed free energy on 911'

Having read it myself, I was really impressed by how she first completely debunked the 2 mainstream conspiracy theories (planes/gravity & explosives/demolition) and then got into the detail of the evidence for directed energy.

Jonny7

Juicee wrote: »

She does mention the reagan star wars Program on her website as a 'reminder tha energy weapons exist' but has never claimed or mentioned that the weapon(s) used on 911 is based in space..but yes..the full title of the book is 'where did the towers go - evidence of directed free energy on 911'

What's her theory.. it's that energy weapons destroyed the twin towers right?

Having read it myself, I was really impressed by how she first completely debunked the 2 mainstream conspiracy theories (planes/gravity & explosives/demolition) and then got into the detail of the evidence for directed energy.

Planes/gravity is hardly a conspiracy theory.

Juicee

Jonny7 wrote: »

What's her theory.. it's that energy weapons destroyed the twin towers right?



Planes/gravity is hardly a conspiracy theory.

Happy to discuss with you if you have a specific point or question

Jonny7

Juicee wrote: »

Happy to discuss with you if you have a specific point or question

Does she assert that the twin towers were not hit by planes but by an invisible energy weapon?

Juicee

Jonny7 wrote: »

Does she assert that the twin towers were not hit by planes but by an invisible energy weapon?

I don't think she has a definitive position on whether there were planes but she certainly proves that planes did not cause the collapse.

As for the weapon being invisible, it must at least be partially visible otherwise how would the controller find the trigger or go button?

It would seem that field created by it is invisible though, like a microwave oven or some types of laser. Or the wind.

Why are you continually asking the same question though?

Juicee

Juicee wrote: »

.. proves that planes did not cause the collapse.

Actually she steers away from using the word 'collapse' as a description of what happened as this implies the building should be on the ground below afterwards when most of it clearly is not..


Figure 2. The height of the towers is compared to the height of WTC6 and the "rubble pile" shown in Figure 17.





Figure 3. This photo was taken was take around noon on 9/11/01, showing the height of WTC6 compared to the "rubble pile" of WTC1 which is appears in the foreground. Where did the building go?

Source: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html#PATHplatform

whatstherush

Juicee wrote: »

Figure 3. This photo was taken was take around noon on 9/11/01, showing the height of WTC6 compared to the "rubble pile" of WTC1 which is appears in the foreground. Where did the building go?

The comparison in those pictures fails to take account of a thing called the third dimension. The height and width don't match between pictures because the rubble has spread out along the Z axis. This image might help to visualize it

who_me

whatstherush wrote: »

The comparison in those pictures fails to take account of a thing called the third dimension. The height and width don't match between pictures because the rubble has spread out along the Z axis. This image might help to visualize it

Exactly. We all saw videos of clouds of debris fanning out over several city blocks, yet in the previous graphic it's represented by a tiny pile even smaller than the base of the building.

Juicee

who_me wrote: »

Exactly. We all saw videos of clouds of debris fanning out over several city blocks, yet in the previous graphic it's represented by a tiny pile even smaller than the base of the building.

In fig 3 you can also see That the width of the highlighted rubble pile is less than the width of the base of the building.

Heres another view:


Baring in mind the clarification on what a third dimension is, the ambulance in the foreground which is parked at ground level in front of the building gives a good indication of the height of the rubble behind it.

Also baring in mind that figure 2 is taken from far away (as fr ted might point out :-) ) the height of the rubble pile shown in that image looks like an accurate representation. Remember that the towers were a quarter of a mile high.

who_me

Juicee wrote: »

In fig 3 you can also see That the width of the highlighted rubble pile is less than the width of the base of the building.

Heres another view:


Baring in mind the clarification on what a third dimension is, the ambulance in the foreground which is parked at ground level in front of the building gives a good indication of the height of the rubble behind it.

Also baring in mind that figure 2 is taken from far away (as fr ted might point out :-) ) the height of the rubble pile shown in that image looks like an accurate representation. Remember that the towers were a quarter of a mile high.

Sure, the rubble pile isn't particularly high, but the rubble travelled out a lot further than just around the base.

For instance, check out the image here (and apologies for linking to the Daily Mail). See how big that cloud is, how far out it stretches from where the building was?

Juicee

who_me wrote: »

Sure, the rubble pile isn't particularly high, but the rubble travelled out a lot further than just around the base.

For instance, check out the image here (and apologies for linking to the Daily Mail). See how big that cloud is, how far out it stretches from where the building was?

This image shows only dust, no rubble, which is consistent with judy wood's conclusion that the buildings turned to dust.

Jonny7

Juicee wrote: »

I don't think she has a definitive position on whether there were planes but she certainly proves that planes did not cause the collapse.

As for the weapon being invisible, it must at least be partially visible otherwise how would the controller find the trigger or go button?

It would seem that field created by it is invisible though, like a microwave oven or some types of laser. Or the wind.

Why are you continually asking the same question though?

To establish what her theory is.

Scientific paper debunking her claims (god knows why on earth someone would go to all this effort but anyway)

Let's start by asking some basic questions..

1. Who worked on this "weapon", researched, designed and developed it? when did it become operational?

2. Which administration decided to use it again the American people? which government individuals knew of this plan?

3. Where was the weapon deployed in New York? was it further away? which location was it used from? was it used on the Pentagon?

4. Presumably the planes hitting the building was just a cover? who planned all the planes? by this stage we are already talking a vast number of people involved an extraordinarily treasonous plot to kill thousands of US citizens.

Then I take a look at her website

http://www.drjudywood.com/

So she's selling her theory? $39...

Juicee

Jonny7 wrote: »

Scientific paper debunking her claims (god knows why on earth someone would go to all this effort but anyway)

The second sentence of this, where he tries to attribute an assertion that the weapon was space based to judy wood,sets the tone of dishonesty that is evident throughout the entire paper.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Let's start by asking some basic questions..

1. Who worked on this "weapon", researched, designed and developed it? when did it become operational?

2. Which administration decided to use it again the American people? which government individuals knew of this plan?

3. Where was the weapon deployed in New York? was it further away? which location was it used from? was it used on the Pentagon?

4. Presumably the planes hitting the building was just a cover? who planned all the planes? by this stage we are already talking a vast number of people involved an extraordinarily treasonous plot to kill thousands of US citizens.

Judy wood's book does not speculate as to who did it or why. It doesn't look at the planes / no planes argument to any significant degree. It doesn't speculate as to where the weapon(s) may have been located. It looks at the physical evidence at the site that shows:

1 - planes/gravity or demolition/explosives could not have caused the buildings to go away
2 - the use of directed energy technology on 911

Jonny7 wrote: »

Then I take a look at her website

http://www.drjudywood.com/

So she's selling her theory? $39...

I have this book and I can tell you I am surprised she can sell it that cheap given the quality of production. I would expect a book of this production quality to retail significantly higher in a high street store

Juicee

Juicee wrote: »

2 - the use of directed energy technology on 911

And by this I mean specifically, the effects on the materials at the site

Juicee

There is a plethora of different aspects of this that can be discussed but for now I suggest sticking to the issue of the lack of an appropriate rubble pile.

Fiery mutant

I think the lack of large piles of rubble is purely due to the huge weight of the towers in free fall. Drop a concrete block from that height and see just how much is left of it at the end.

It would literally turn to dust.

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

There is a plethora of different aspects of this that can be discussed but for now I suggest sticking to the issue of the lack of an appropriate rubble pile.

So how big should the rubble pile have been if the towers were collapsed by the impacts of the planes?

Juicee

King Mob wrote: »

So how big should the rubble pile have been if the towers were collapsed by the impacts of the planes?

Whether it was a gravity driven collapse caused by airplanes or a controlled demoltion, somewhere in the region of 10-12% of the original height.

Take a look again at the Picture in figure 2 (in my post at 1143 today). The rubble pile should be something like 1.5 to 2 times the height of the 8 story wtc6, which is seen dwarfed to the left of the towers.

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

Whether it was a gravity driven collapse caused by airplanes or a controlled demoltion, somewhere in the region of 10-12% of the original height.

And what is this assertion based on?

Juicee wrote: »

Take a look again at the Picture in figure 2 (in my post at 1143 today). The rubble pile should be something like 1.5 to 2 times the height of the 8 story wtc6, which is seen dwarfed to the left of the towers.

But that picture seems to be slanted and as such could be making it seem shorter than it is.
Can you provide an actual figure for the height of the rubble pile?

And can you provide any details for this particle beam weapon? How do you know that one exists and that if it did would be able to turn buildings into dust?

Juicee

Fiery mutant wrote: »

I think the lack of large piles of rubble is purely due to the huge weight of the towers in free fall. Drop a concrete block from that height and see just how much is left of it at the end.

It would literally turn to dust.

What about all the steel?

Juicee

King Mob wrote: »

And what is this assertion based on?


But that picture seems to be slanted and as such could be making it seem shorter than it is.
Can you provide an actual figure for the height of the rubble pile?

And can you provide any details for this particle beam weapon? How do you know that one exists and that if it did would be able to turn buildings into dust?

I can't provide an specific figure but from the other photos I posted, it would be be generous to say 3 stories of rubble.

I never referred to it as a 'particle beam weapon' nor has judy wood I have no idea where you got that term from, but it reminds me a bit of people trying to falsely attribute assertions (eg space beams) to wood as mentioned earlier, which is a bit dishonest, i hope you are not going there. Either way, perhaps you could take a leaf from your own book and stick to the one topic for now..?

beeno67

Juicee wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

So how big should the rubble pile have been if the towers were collapsed by the impacts of the planes?

Whether it was a gravity driven collapse caused by airplanes or a controlled demoltion, somewhere in the region of 10-12% of the original height.

Take a look again at the Picture in figure 2 (in my post at 1143 today). The rubble pile should be something like 1.5 to 2 times the height of the 8 story wtc6, which is seen dwarfed to the left of the towers.

So you/she believes that if you demolish a ten storey building, you will get a pile of rubble 1 storey high but obviously over a larger area. Sounds like some people have no experience of demolition

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

I can't provide an specific figure but from the other photos I posted, it would be be generous to say 3 stories of rubble.

But the photos you are posting are not an accurate method of determining how tall the pile of rubble is.
How do you know that the rubble pile is too small when you can't actually say how tall it is in the first place.

And again, how do you know that the pile would be "10% of the original height" in the first place? What is this assertion based on.

Juicee wrote: »

I never referred to it as a 'particle beam weapon' nor has judy wood I have no idea where you got that term from, but it reminds me a bit of people trying to falsely attribute assertions (eg space beams) to wood as mentioned earlier, which is a bit dishonest, i hope you are not going there.

She specifically refers to "The Star Wars Beam Weapons".
Please show that these weapons exist, are capable to turning a skyscraper to dust and that the twin towers exhibits the effects of such a weapon.

Otherwise we will continue to treat that theory for what it appears to be: completely ridiculous.

14sep12

I dunno but wasn't there many floors of basement under the towers, surely the buildings collapsed down into the basement, I remember been at ground zero in sept 2002 and looking into the hole that was left after the rubble was taken away and thinking some of the nearby buildings would fit entirely into it.

The rubble pile in the picture extends for many stories underground into what were the below ground levels of the towers I would think, as such the photo provides no evidence for the buildings disappearing as suggested.

Juicee

beeno67 wrote: »

So you/she believes that if you demolish a ten storey building, you will get a pile of rubble 1 storey high but obviously over a larger area. Sounds like some people have no experience of demolition

How many stories of rubble do you believe should be left from the gravity driven collapse of a 110 story building?

How does this


Become this

Jonny7

Juicee wrote: »

I never referred to it as a 'particle beam weapon' nor has judy wood I have no idea where you got that term from, but it reminds me a bit of people trying to falsely attribute assertions (eg space beams) to wood as mentioned earlier, which is a bit dishonest, i hope you are not going there. Either way, perhaps you could take a leaf from your own book and stick to the one topic for now..?

Uh it's right here on her page

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html

Juicee

King Mob wrote: »

Please show that these weapons exist, are capable to turning a skyscraper to dust and that the twin towers exhibits the effects of such a weapon.

Otherwise we will continue to treat that theory for what it appears to be: completely ridiculous.

Please practice what you preach or you will continue to look guilty of hypocrisy :-)

beeno67

Juicee wrote: »

beeno67 wrote: »

So you/she believes that if you demolish a ten storey building, you will get a pile of rubble 1 storey high but obviously over a larger area. Sounds like some people have no experience of demolition

How many stories of rubble do you believe should be left from the gravity driven collapse of a 110 story building?

How does this


Become this

Because it didn't