Ahmadinejad : "Most people" believe US behind 9/11

Like all agendas, there are several aspects at work, I initially suspected that Bush was very aware of the impending bombings and made a plan of action with Bin Laden [the links are just tooooo obvious] and I was left feeling that Bush had been double or trebled crossed as the attacks went ahead anyway, instead of the glorious intervention and cooperation that Bush had planned.

Over time the very planes themselves seemed more and more at odds, I know don't believe the planes were real at all, small explosives on the top of the towers and the nuclear demolition thereafter is very plausible to me.

We are still left with questions, such as had Bush plans to demolish the towers, or was it a last minute decision based on new or misleading intelligence that the terrorist had in fact actually planted mini-nukes on top of the building and were preparing to air blast NY.

Either way, a plan, a deliberate plan to usurp a genuine terrorist plot and escalate it totally beyond the physical capabilities of such an attack, definitely existed and was carried out but was bungled soooo much, as to lead to a variety of conspiracy theories.

meglome wrote: »

Look at all the videos you can find of controlled demolition and all the nuclear tests and compare those with 911, they are simply not the same.

I am. Have come to no conclusion as of yet, some of his facts stand up but there are remaining questions.

Did I miss the part where he was going to explain away the EM Pulse?

alastair wrote: »

- once the steel structure had to bear a weight greater than the tolerances allowed, it was only going to collapse floor by floor.

I can agree with this, it is exactly what should have happened ~ but it did not, most of the building just pulverised. There should have been a catastrophic series of explosive compressions blowing out office furniture, equipment, and people.

Some evidence for this is has actually been found but only for the upper few stories, but there comes a point when the building disappears.

Making the building pulverise like that just defies physics for the official explanations.

alastair wrote: »

Nah - she's only claiming some unspecified space-based 'energy weapon'. It all makes sense now.

Funny you post such an outdated and horribly unscientific interview. Greg Jenkins conducted that interview at 12am, when he showed up to a conference that Dr. Wood was not even speaking at with a full camera and lighting crew, without ever contacting her first to get permission, just to put her on the spot and ask her to do the interview. Then, he goes on to discuss one black and white photo, instead of the thousands of full-color photos, graphs, videos, and documents, found at her website: http://drjudywood.com/wtc

Why not post a more recent interview which actually discusses some evidence? Like these:

Veritas Radio Show - Dr. Judy Wood - Where Did The Towers Go on 9/11? - 1/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXYvvwJ5IQg

Veritas Radio Show - Dr. Judy Wood - Where Did The Towers Go on 9/11? - 2/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWdaBLzZRZg

Veritas Radio Show - Dr. Judy Wood - Where Did The Towers Go on 9/11? - 3/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_4HpRTcOwA

Veritas Radio Show - Dr. Judy Wood - Where Did The Towers Go on 9/11? - 4/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP5o-eNaW40

Veritas Radio Show - Dr. Judy Wood - Where Did The Towers Go on 9/11? - 5/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390dYVIwaKc

Here are some important questions to ask ourselves when analyzing the attacks of 9/11:

• 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?

• Why did Dr. Jones ban Dr. Wood from his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group long ago, just because they had different conclusions about what destroyed the towers? Shouldn’t Dr. Jones and his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group be supporting the 9/11 investigation that Dr. Judy Wood has already demanded with her legal cases, even if he does not agree with her conclusions?

• Why was I silently removed from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) petition simply for asking Richard Gage if he would examine the research of Dr. Judy Wood? Why didn’t AE911Truth just reply to my well-intended email question, but instead, silently removed me from their petition? I have donated over $100 to AE911Truth, so why was I silently removed from the petition simply for asking Richard Gage a question? Why was I later contacted by Mark Graham of AE911Truth once they discovered I was telling people about what had happened? They could contact me and offer me a refund to try and stop me from telling people about how I was silently removed from their petition, but they couldn’t respond to my email which simply asked Richard Gage if he had looked into Dr. Judy Wood’s research?

• Why was I severely censored when I tried to add Dr. Judy Wood’s name and website to the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ Wikipedia page? How come David Ray Griffin and other less-qualified researchers are mentioned multiple times on the page, yet I was not even allowed to add one sentence about Dr. Judy Wood? When I tried to appeal the decision, a small group of moderators controlled the discussion and told me that if I appealed it again my account would be locked. According to Wikipedia policy, deletion-appeal discussions are to remain open for public comment and review for 5-7 days before a final decision is made, but my appeal was given a final decision by a small group of rude admins within 12 hours of the onset of my appeal, and the discussion was prematurely closed. After some research, I realized this was a violation of Wikipedia's policy, so I appealed it again, and my account was locked as a result.

• Why did United States Army Major Doug Rokke (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that explosives were the only things used on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any proof to back up his negative accusations against her?

• Why did Soviet Nuclear Intelligent Officer Dimitri Khalezov (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that underground nuclear explosives were what turned the buildings to fine particles of dust on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any significant proof to back up his negative accusations against her?

• Why did these high-ranking retired military officials randomly contact me, an insignificant medical student, when they should be contacting members of the U.S. Congress, and other high-ranking members of our government, with their concerns and the “evidence” they claim to have?

These are just a few pieces of evidence which explosives do not account for. Thousands more photos, graphs, videos, and documents can be viewed at Dr. Judy Wood's website, or a brief summary of the evidence can be seen at this 'cliff-notes' style page which presents some of the evidence Dr. Judy Wood has gathered: http://drjudywood.com/wtc

and here is an outline I compiled as well:

9/11 & Free Energy: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=393090521816

The extraordinary claim that "explosives and/or jet fuel" are what destroyed the towers is scientifically inaccurate. It is comparable to charging a murder suspect for 'stabbing the victim with a knife', despite the fact that numerous bullet casings had been found at the crime scene and the murder victim actually had several gunshot wounds. There is a thing called Double Jeopardy in our legal system, so we only get one shot at charging the true suspects, and thus, we better figure out exactly how they did it before we charge them.

We can accomplish this by looking at all the evidence from the attacks, and drawing one, cohesive, scientific conclusion from that evidence. This is what Dr. Wood has done, and that is why she filed this conclusive evidence in a court of law in the form of a Qui-Tam whistle-blower case. Her case was so strong that it made it to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009, when it was suddenly dismissed by a judge who labeled the case as a 'conspiracy theory' and dismissed the case before it went to trial. He was able to dismiss the case because very few people were aware of it.

You can see legal documents from her court case here: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml

You can see the RFC she filed with NIST (months before AE911Truth filed theirs) here: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html

In contrast, Dr. Steven Jones has not filed his 'conclusive' thermite-paper with a court of law, most likely because he would be penalized by the justice system for filing a frivolous law suit which barely accounts for any of the evidence. I am not afraid to admit that thermite could have played a very small role in the attacks, but because thermite-alone barely explains any of the evidence, it is important that we look for the true cause of the destruction of these buildings. In my honest and scientific opinion, anyone who claims explosives of any kind can explain all the evidence of 9/11 which Dr. Wood has gathered, is either severely mistaken, very unintelligent, or protecting the interests of the true suspects.

Chronology of significant efforts by Dr. Judy Wood and AE911Truth:

1. Dr. Wood filed her RFC with NIST on March 16, 2007.
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov...

2. The ae911truth site went up on April 6, 2007 (copy & paste entire link found between the quotations)
"http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.ae911truth.org"

3. ae911truth filed a thermite-free RFC with NIST April 12, 2007
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov...

4. Dr. Wood filed her federal qui tam case April 25, 2007
http://www.drjudywood.com...

5. No similar action has been taken by ae911truth.org or any other 911 "truth" group.


I hope this clarifies where I am coming from.

I know 'Directed Enery Weapons' sound far out there, but in reality they are not. This is why we must not let skepticism prevent us from viewing all the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered, because the evidence will show us exactly what happened on that day.

Here is a short documentary discussing the reality of DEWs:

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 1 of 3): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDoLPD3XfDU

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 2 of 3): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOUZgIObvCI

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 3 of 3): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOXdAuMFXxU

Thanks again for taking the time to look more into this, for those of you that do.

In Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

alastair wrote: »

She's a flake, nothing more.

Interesting how some people choose to call names rather than discuss the evidence. How ridiculously unscientific. Why call names when you could easily enlighten us by explaining why Dr. Wood is wrong, by showin us how explosives can account for the OVERWHELMING amount of evidence she has gathered?

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained. Explosives of any kind do not explain all the evidence, not even close. Here's a brief summary of the evidence which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc


Also, I have a question for you:

If Dr. Judy Wood was a "flake", then why is there an organized campaign to discredit her and to divert people away from her website? Here:

I recently tried to add Dr. Judy Wood's name to the list of 9/11 researchers on the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ Wikipedia page, but I was censored for simply trying to add her name, and when I tried to appeal the decision, a small group of moderators controlled the discussion and told me to stop appealing it or my account would be locked. According to Wikipedia policy, deletion-appeal discussions are to remain open for public comment and review for 5-7 days before a final decision is made, but my appeal was given a final decision by a small group of rude admins within 12 hours of the onset of my appeal, and the discussion was prematurely closed. After some research, I realized this was a violation of Wikipedia's policy, so I appealed it again, and my account was locked as a result, so that I could not contribute to any more Wikipedia pages or start any more discussions. Before my account got locked, I was also censored by the same small group of admins for trying to create a Wikipedia page in honor of Dr. Judy Wood's selfless 9/11 research and legal efforts, just like I have been censored by countless other 9/11 "Truth" organizations and forums all over the world simply for mentioning Dr. Judy Wood. These organizations are corrupt and are censoring information about Dr. Judy Wood, because they are not seeking the truth, and this small group of Wikipedia admins seem to be a part of this censorship. You can read all the details and see actual screen shots of my Wikipedia incident here: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=60

...I also recently messaged Richard Gage and AE911Truth to ask him if he knew about Dr. Judy Wood, and as a result, I have been removed from the Petition Signers list on AE911Truth.org, despite the fact that I have donated over $100 dollars to Richard Gage and his organization over the past several months. As of the morning of March 4th, my name was removed from the AE911Truth petition, so it appears that I have been removed from the petition simply for asking about Dr. Judy Wood. This is very concerning, because I have not done anything wrong by asking Richard Gage to talk to Dr. Judy Wood and consider her research, yet AE911Truth.org has removed me from their petition simply for asking about her once in a private email. In addition, Richard Gage has never replied to any of my emails over the past several months, not even one of them, but Dr. Judy Wood has responded to several of my emails in just the last week. Oddly enough, Dr. Wood predicted that Richard Gage and Dr. Jones would ‘blacklist’ me for mentioning her, and she was right. Furthermore, after I began posting in blogs and forums about what AE911Truth had done to me, it was then that AE911Truth finally contacted me! They were not replying to my original email, rather, they were emailing me to offer me a refund because they noticed I was telling people what had happened to me. They offered me a refund in an attempt to convince me to stop talking. Why could they contact me to offer me a refund, but they could not reply to my simple email question which was intended to help AE911Truth? Why did they not simply respond to my email and say “thanks” or “no thanks”? Why did they only contact me after I began telling people about what had happened to me, to offer me a refund and encourage me to stop talking about the incident?

here is an article which does a great job answering these questions by describing the corrupt 9/11 "Truth" Movement which has put forth a well-orchestrated and well-documented effort of trying to divert people away from Dr. Wood's website:

Truth and the Twin Towers - Both Bite the Dust | Sept. 14th, 2010: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_61147.shtml

In conclusion, it is rumor-spreading "truth" seekers like yourself which make the 9/11 "Truth" movement look as ridiculous as it often does. Please stop spreading rumors about Dr. Wood, and please start discussing the evidence. If you have a concern with the thousands of photos, graphs, video, and documents she has gathered for us all to review, or if you can show us how explosives of any kind could somehow account for the overwhelming amount of evidence she has gathered, then please enlighten us all.

Thanks,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

alastair wrote: »

If you'd like enlightenment, just read the NIST reports. There's no evidence of explosions, but ample evidence of rather large, fuel filled planes impacting buildings and starting fires. There's equal evidence of patently 'undustified' building debris and rubble. And all without the use of notional space weapons.

Dear Alastair,

I am sorry to hear that you think that airliners and jet-fuel can answer the following evidence-based questions:

· 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 was travelling straight for NYC from September 3rd – 11th 2001, yet it was not reported on by any major media broadcast in that area? Hurricane Erin was slightly larger than Hurricane Katrina, and hurricanes rarely head straight for NYC, so why wasn’t it reported on by any major corporate media station? Furthermore, why was Hurricane Erin still not reported on when it reached its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, just before it diverted from its straight-line trajectory by suddenly turning and heading out to sea?

· 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?

· Why do official seismograph readings around ground zero show smaller ground vibrations in comparison to the controlled demolition of the King Dome, which is a smaller building? Shouldn’t the smaller building have generated a smaller seismographic reading than the WTC buildings? Or perhaps the smaller reading of the WTC buildings came about because they were turned to fine particles of dust, as the evidence shows?

· How come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero just as the attacks commenced?

· Why were numerous first responders’ Scott packs (oxygen tanks) spontaneously exploding around ground zero?

· 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?

· Why were no toilets recovered from the small WTC rubble pile? Thousands of toilets, yet not a single one was found in the rubble?

· Why was only one file cabinet found in the small WTC rubble pile? Thousands of metal file cabinets, yet only one was found? The metal from the cabinet showed severe warping and distortion, similar to that seen in The Hutchison Effect, so how did this happen? Furthermore, how were their non-burnt pieces of paper found fused to the metal remnants of the single file cabinet?

· How did countless pieces of paper money survive the WTC attacks? Toilets and metal file cabinets do not survive, but countless intact paper bills survived?

· How did countless plastic photo IDs survive the WTC attacks? Toilets and metal file cabinets do not survive, but countless plastic ID cards survived?

· 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?

Unfortunately, you are wrong, because unlike NIST, Dr. Judy Wood is the only scientist who has explained all the evidence.

Perhaps you should start here:

What turned the Twin Towers to DUST on 9/11?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGXDmNZCeKo

Relics from the Dust | Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) & 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrY_PRji34g

cliff-notes style summart of the thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents Dr. Wood has gathered which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc

Best wishes,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

alastair wrote: »

Dear Abe,

Is this dust?

Alistair,

Thanks for posting that image.

That is the 2-3 story miniature debris pile with fumes coming out of it after the other 90-95% of the building was turned to dust. There should have been 12+ stories of debris based on what we know of previous building collapses and controlled demolitions, and taking into account the height of the Twin Towers. If you weren't such a closed-minded person, you would look into this more, and if you had, you would have realized that you just posted a piece of evidence which supports what I have been saying.

The lack of debris is clearly due to the fact that the building was turned to dust, and thus, it is a matter of figuring out WHAT turned the buildings to dust that is most important right now. This is what Dr. Wood has done, by gathering and analyzing as much evidence as possible, which leaves only one possible conclusion. This video does a great job demonstrating the incredibly small rubble pile left by the Twin Towers, which resulted from the fact that the buildings were primarily turned to fine particles of dust:

What Turned the Twin Towers to DUST on 9/11? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGXDmNZCeKo

and one more neat video compilation which shows just a few, yet striking bits of evidence which helps to shed light on what really happened on that day:

Relics from the Dust | Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) & 9/11: [url][/url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrY_PRji34g[/url]

And some videos showing the dustification of the WTC ‘spire’:

CNN Spire Dustifies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY

NBC Spire Dustifies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sv0My2zfFA

More Spire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm_v4RXvywA

Slow motion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpKgffFQmFs&

and a few more pictures:

1. 'Dustification' process in action: http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/Image38.jpg
2. 'Dustification' process in action: http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/poof_1539.jpg
3. 'the 'Bubbler': http://drjudywood.com/articles/short/faqpics/bubbler.jpg

Lots more at http://drjudywood.com/wtc

Have fun discussing it everyone...

Thank you for looking more into this topic, for those of you that do.

In Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

http://facebook.com/abrahamhafizrodriguez
http://youtube.com/pookzta