Where did the towers go - directed free energy

Juicee

Jonny7 wrote: »

Uh it's right here on her page

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

No it's not. Or perhaps you can quote where she uses the term 'particle beam weapon'

Juicee

14sep12 wrote: »

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.

If that's the case then how is the ambulance still parked outside at ground level?

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

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

Again, it's relevent.
She is making the claim that directed energy weapons (or whatever technobabble she wishes to use) were involved.
However she cannot show that such things actually exist let alone show any support for the claims she makes about the properties of such weapons.

And again you are ignoring the other questions I've been asking.
Why? Are you unable to answer them?

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.

And please stop pretending to quote me as the post your are linking to does not have any relevance in this discussion.

Jonny7

Juicee wrote: »

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.

Highlight this sentence please?

14sep12

Juicee wrote: »

If that's the case then how is the ambulance still parked outside at ground level?

The ambulance was parked on the street, outside the buildings, the basement floors were under the actual building not the street therefore the area where the ambulance is parked was not affected by the collapse.

BorneTobyWilde

1000's and 1000's of tons of rubble turned to dust,
It rose up, Blown out to sea,
It was visible from space

Juicee

14sep12 wrote: »

The ambulance was parked on the street, outside the buildings, the basement floors were under the actual building not the street therefore the area where the ambulance is parked was not affected by the collapse.

Look into the bathtub, it will explain a few things for you.

Jonny7

Juicee wrote: »

No it's not. Or perhaps you can quote where she uses the term 'particle beam weapon'

This person?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJZrj0leylc

Juicee

Jonny7 wrote: »

Highlight this sentence please?

"The central claim of the WR thesis is that the phenomena observed during the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 are only consistent with the use of some type of directed energy weapon, either originating from outer space or reflected from outer space"

Juicee

King Mob wrote: »

Again, it's relevent.
She is making the claim that directed energy weapons (or whatever technobabble she wishes to use) were involved.
However she cannot show that such things actually exist let alone show any support for the claims she makes about the properties of such weapons.

And again you are ignoring the other questions I've been asking.
Why? Are you unable to answer them?


And please stop pretending to quote me as the post your are linking to does not have any relevance in this discussion.

It shows your double standards king mob. I have asked that we stick to the topic of the rubble pile but you have refused. This is hypocrisy, given your previous thread. Stick to topic and i'll gladly answer all of your questions

Juicee

Jonny7 wrote: »

This person?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJZrj0leylc

Where does she say "particle beam weapon"?

twowheelsonly

Juicee wrote: »

If that's the case then how is the ambulance still parked outside at ground level?

Which street was that ambulance parked on?
Was it directly outside the front door of one of the towers or was it outside one of the smaller buildings that collapsed?
If you don't know exactly where it was parked then it's impossible to make the assertions that you're making.


Here's a simple experiment for you.
Take 1 household cup.
Turn it upside down.
Take 1 sledge hammer.
Smash down on cup
Measure height of 'rubble' from cup remnants.

10% of it's original height?

Jonny7

Juicee wrote: »

"The central claim of the WR thesis is that the phenomena observed during the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 are only consistent with the use of some type of directed energy weapon, either originating from outer space or reflected from outer space"

Excuse me, I posted the wrong link, this is the correct one

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

"As Dr. James Fetzer suggests, Dr. Judy Wood may be unable to provide answers
to basic questions regarding her own speculative hypothesis. However, this paper does
quantitatively analyze those issues raised during the interview as well as address other
evidence advanced by Dr. Judy Wood and others that the WTC towers may have been
destroyed by directed energy weapons. The following arguments will prove that the
degree of implausibility places the hypothesis squarely in the realm of the impossible.
Dr. Wood’s hypothesis is predominantly based upon the premise that large
amounts of debris were ‘missing’ from the post-collapse rubble. A detailed analysis
clearly demonstrates that all the debris is accounted for if sublevel collapses are
considered. This paper addresses the massive energy requirements, issues involving the
use of directed energy weapons, and misinterpreted phenomena used to support the thesis
such as the Richter scale measurements, Bathtub damage, holes in adjacent buildings,
charred cars, etc. "

It's quite a long read.

14sep12

Juicee wrote: »

Look into the bathtub, it will explain a few things for you.

You really should try to refute peoples arguments properly instead of getting sarcastic and not offering any explanation why you don't believe their point has merit. As an engineer with vast experience who has researched this I was hoping to make a contribution to this thread, unfortunately you seem unwilling to debate this in a mature way so I'm out, reply if you want, i won't see it.

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

It shows your double standards king mob. I have asked that we stick to the topic of the rubble pile but you have refused. This is hypocrisy, given your previous thread. Stick to topic and i'll gladly answer all of your questions

So then for the fourth time:

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.

Please address my points and stop feigning indignation. It only serves to make it look like you can't address them.
My points about your utter failure to show anything to support the notion of energy weapons where an aside to the points I repeatedly made about the rubble pile I included in every post, which you ignored entirely.
Probably best not to talk about hypocrisy and double standards.

Juicee

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Which street was that ambulance parked on?
Was it directly outside the front door of one of the towers or was it outside one of the smaller buildings that collapsed?
If you don't know exactly where it was parked then it's impossible to make the assertions that you're making.


Here's a simple experiment for you.
Take 1 household cup.
Turn it upside down.
Take 1 sledge hammer.
Smash down on cup
Measure height of 'rubble' from cup remnants.

10% of it's original height?

Outside north tower. See caption from source:
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON001B.htm

"Covered in dust, a solitary ambulance lies abandoned in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, September 15, 2001. In the background, the shattered remains of the North Tower's façade form a jagged silhouette against the smoke-clouded sky. Beyond that lies a relatively-unscathed 90 Church Street."

The sledgehammer analogy makes no sense.

Jonny7

Juicee wrote: »

Where does she say "particle beam weapon"?

Semantics, whatever she calls them on her website, "directed energy weapons".

Juicee

14sep12 wrote: »

You really should try to refute peoples arguments properly instead of getting sarcastic and not offering any explanation why you don't believe their point has merit. As an engineer with vast experience who has researched this I was hoping to make a contribution to this thread, unfortunately you seem unwilling to debate this in a mature way so I'm out, reply if you want, i won't see it.

If you had fully researched this you would know that the basement of the wtc extends well beyond the footprints of wtc 1 & 2.



I meant you no offence and would like to hear more from you on this thread.

humanji

So knowing how wide the basement levels were, and that there were 6 basement levels (and possibly an underground station, not sure if anyone can confirm that or not), that's roughly 10 storeys of debris. Of a 116 floors, that's close to 10% the height of the building, which would match up to what you say you'd expect to see. Add to this all the debris spread around the area, you've kind of disproved Dr Woods' theory.

Juicee

humanji wrote: »

So knowing how wide the basement levels were, and that there were 6 basement levels (and possibly an underground station, not sure if anyone can confirm that or not), that's roughly 10 storeys of debris. Of a 116 floors, that's close to 10% the height of the building, which would match up to what you say you'd expect to see. Add to this all the debris spread around the area, you've kind of disproved Dr Woods' theory.

As I indicated in an earlier post, if the basement is collapsed, how is the ambulance still parked at ground level on top of the basement outside north tower? Remember that the basement is the entire bathtub.

Here's some pictures of the basement after the event:





"Figure 24 shows store contents from the Warner Bros. store in the WTC shopping mall at the concourse level (first subbasement). Figure 25 shows figures recovered from the Warner Bros. store at the World Trade Center mall kept at hangar 17 at JFK international airport. Roadrunner does not have a scratch on him despite surviving destruction of WTC 2 above him. As shown in the cross section Figure 12 above, the shopping mall is the first floor to be impacted at the base of WTC 2."
Source: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html#Bathtub

weisses

Interesting theory ... Looking at the links my point of building 7 pretty much imploding into its own footprint is a valid one ... In fact looking at the three buildings debris field it looks like a damn good demolition job

Jonny7

weisses wrote: »

Interesting theory ... Looking at the links my point of building 7 pretty much imploding into its own footprint is a valid one ... In fact looking at the three buildings debris field it looks like a damn good demolition job

Doesn't this theory completely contradict a demolition theory?

weisses

Jonny7 wrote: »

Doesn't this theory completely contradict a demolition theory?

your right .... My point is ot ... It just amazed me how small the debris field was from 1,2 and wtc 7

humanji

As I indicated in an earlier post, if the basement is collapsed, how is the ambulance still parked at ground level on top of the basement outside north tower?

The whole area of the basement didn't collapse. It's designed that way. But the area under the actual towers did. It would be very suspicious if the entire 9 block radius of basement collapsed.

And with regards to those photos, so what if some things weren't damaged? Other things were completely destroyed. That proves nothing either way. The point I'm trying to get across is if you take into account the rubble that fell into the basement, all the rubble at ground zero and all the rubble in the blast zone, there's enough to for the two towers.

Here's a photo of WTC6 which I believe is about 8 stories from the ground (i got the photo from Wood's site):
and you can clearly see that the rubble on the right hand side is much more than 3 storeys high.

Remember that the basement is the entire bathtub.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. The slurry wall buckled slightly, but held together, as it was designed to do. I don't see how this is proof of anything. How does Wood believe this is important? And why would there be molton steel? Surely if a ray was able to evaporate steel and concrete, then it would have melted those areas just outside the main target zone, and we'd see evidence of this?

Then we come to the rather important question: where was the weapon based? Surely for something to be able to fire out an energy beam that could destroy a building, it'd have to have a huge energy source. Unless those that created an unbelievable weapon also created an unbelievable power source to go with it.

And it'd have to be a huge power source. It would be noticed. Does Wood explain this?

There's just too much reliance on her belief that this technology must have been used, therefore she's no need to explain the how's or why's of the matter.

Jimmy444

I think the real conspiracy theory here is how did that distinctly unimpressive woman ever get to be Associate Professor of anything.

Monty Burnz

Juicee wrote: »

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

I'd say you have more than one copy of that book...

Monty Burnz

Juicee wrote: »

Look into the bathtub, it will explain a few things for you.

The World Trade Center was built on terra firma protected by an underground "bathtub" or foundation ring down to bedrock seven stories below the surface of lower Manhattan.

So there is also a seven story giant tub that could hold rubble, in addition to the thousands of tonnes spread around the immediate area and the thousands of tonnes turned to dust?

Is it more likely that the debris from the building is accounted for by these, or that there is a secret space weapon unknown to science that was used by the US government against its own citizens in a manner that would see the hundreds or thousands of people involved in the conspiracy executed for treason should the truth ever get out?

Tough one.

Juicee

humanji wrote: »

The whole area of the basement didn't collapse. It's designed that way. But the area under the actual towers did. It would be very suspicious if the entire 9 block radius of basement collapsed.

And with regards to those photos, so what if some things weren't damaged? Other things were completely destroyed. That proves nothing either way. The point I'm trying to get across is if you take into account the rubble that fell into the basement, all the rubble at ground zero and all the rubble in the blast zone, there's enough to for the two towers.

Here's a photo of WTC6 which I believe is about 8 stories from the ground (i got the photo from Wood's site):
and you can clearly see that the rubble on the right hand side is much more than 3 storeys high.



I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. The slurry wall buckled slightly, but held together, as it was designed to do. I don't see how this is proof of anything. How does Wood believe this is important? And why would there be molton steel? Surely if a ray was able to evaporate steel and concrete, then it would have melted those areas just outside the main target zone, and we'd see evidence of this?

Then we come to the rather important question: where was the weapon based? Surely for something to be able to fire out an energy beam that could destroy a building, it'd have to have a huge energy source. Unless those that created an unbelievable weapon also created an unbelievable power source to go with it.

And it'd have to be a huge power source. It would be noticed. Does Wood explain this?

There's just too much reliance on her belief that this technology must have been used, therefore she's no need to explain the how's or why's of the matter.

Actually this photo perfectly illustrates another massive problem...where did wtc6 go???

Re: claims about the bathtub's ability to withstand the force of 2 qtr mile high buildings weighing somewhere in the region of 1 million tonnes crashing down on it, consider the following:

"As heavy equipment (e.g., 1,000-ton cranes) began to arrive at the site, it became apparent that ground rules had to be established for the safe use of the equipment outside the confines of the basement, over major utilities, over access stairs to the PATH tubes and ramps, in the streets, and over structural platforms spanning open water. The use of this heavy equipment adjacent to the slurry walls or over the basement structure itself could cause the collapse of the slurry walls or any remaining basement structures. A collapse of the slurry wall would mean inundation from the nearby Hudson River"

The question is, if a 1000 tonne crane working nearby can rupture the bathtub causing water inundation of the site (and consequently the new York subway system which runs under the site) how is it that 1 million tonnes of concrete, steel and building contents dropping from a quarter of a mile high did not?

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

The question is, if a 1000 tonne crane working nearby can rupture the bathtub causing water inundation of the site (and consequently the new York subway system which runs under the site) how is it that 1 million tonnes of concrete, steel and building contents dropping from a quarter of a mile high did not?

The report you linked to specifically says that the basement and bathtub had been damaged.
They were worried that the large machinery would cause more damage to the all ready weakened structures.

Can you please address the points I made that you said you would address?

Juicee

King Mob wrote: »

The report you linked to specifically says that the basement and bathtub had been damaged.
They were worried that the large machinery would cause more damage to the all ready weakened structures.

kind of like dropping a block on something and then worrying about dropping a pebble on it afterwards...In this analogy, I don't doubt the damage potential of the pebble it's the refusal to acknowledge the devastating effect of the block that I find bemusing

King Mob wrote: »

Can you please address the points I made that you said you would address?

As I said earlier, the picture with the ambulance in the foreground (parked outside the wtc1 remains and amazingly unscathed) gives a good indication of the height of the rubble behind it;

As the ambulance picture is taken from close up and the one of the intact towers (fig 2) is taken from far way, (cue ted) the outline of the rubble pile that is superimposed on fig 2 looks like a reasonable representation of the pile shown behind the ambulance. I didnt get the opportunity to go over there with a measuring tape and verify the 10% But looking at fig 2 and this photo of a collapsed building from a 2005 Indian earthquake (the indian building,intact, was obviously miniscule compared to an intact wtc tower[but somehow left a higher pile]) 10% still seems a reasonable and perhaps conservative estimate of the height the tower pile should have been