I have recently read Where did the towers go by dr.judy wood if anyone is familiar with her work and would like to have a conversation about it feel free to reply
Printable View
I have recently read Where did the towers go by dr.judy wood if anyone is familiar with her work and would like to have a conversation about it feel free to reply
You already started a thread about this.
I hadn't read her book at the time I made that post. Recently read it if you wanted to discuss anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solicit
Not making any other comment or assertions etc, but when you see the interview and the guy says something along the lines of 'then they said I think it's better if we just pull it, and then seconds later it comes down' etc.
'Ok lets pull it' is common police slang to say 'Alright lets end this job/operation (pull it), get out of there and regroup'. In Australia anyway.
Listening to the guy that says that in the interview and having used that slang of 'let's pull it' myself, I see it as hearing the he's talking about decision being made to 'pull it' meaning 'let's get our men out of there' as opposed to 'pull it' meaning 'bring the building down'.
Just my 2cents.
Larry silversteins comment does not have anything to do with Dr.Judy Wood and her work. She presents evidence of what occured on 9/11 and proves with that evidence that the official NIST report doesnt not explain the destructive mechanism of the towers.Nor conventional controlled demolition. Her book is fascinating I highly recommend it.
The views keep goin up but no comments. Strange and discouraging...if no one wants to have a casual conversation about her work there is little hope bringing this topic up on a podcast.
Neil Tyson interview with rogan speaking on earthquakes, seismic vibrations and the WTC seismic event. 1:07:35 - 1:08:35
https://youtu.be/ZpHh_TU2kcI
Don't you figure that's because not many people, who happen to browse the forum, have read the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJZrj0leylc
I am aware of that but if there is intrest and no comments it makes me wonder. I have seen the interview please post it in full if you are going to use it as some type of reference. NDT even speaks how the seismic impact being low energy, equates it to "about the a train going 30mph" joe says you would feel the train and tyson says yes but you would ignore it because its the 》》normal vibrations of life. The size of those building slamming to the ground, gone within seconds turning massive amounts into dust is equal seismically to the normal vibrations of life?? He didnt give the actual data recorded North Tower-2.3 and South Tower 2.1 of which Mr.Tyson said you wouldnt even feel those. Tower 7 I believe was just a .06 recorded. Steel/Iron turned to dust low seismic recording, the bathtub that the towers were built into wasnt destroyed it stayed in tact kept out the hudsom river surley the collapse of two 250,000 ton building would of produces a significant seismic signal and the bathtub wall would of been destroyed. These are points of evidence most are unaware of and its understandable. Again i dont know the point of postin part of an interview was, i do recall by the end of the interview Dr.Jenkins seemed flustered by her answers. Also something curious to remember as they say never forget, the massive amounts of dust that the building turned into, remember the massive amounts of paper everywhere as well. Its an important fact as well. If you are interested in having a conversation about this I welcome it and open to others opinions I have questioned her motives but I feel shes presenting evidence of what occured on 9/11.
https://youtu.be/_Qkv3bAFy7s
Video of Dr.Wood Discussing the seismic data
Also curious to note only surface waves were recorded not primary or secondary waves the type of vibration that travels through the earth. This is why I would like Dr.Wood interviewed by Eddie or Joe, looking back I wish Joe asked NDT more about the seismic impact of the towers.
Why does it make you wonder? Can't comment much without reading the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
What kind of comments are you expecting?
The other parts of the interview are on the same playlist, Im sure most people can figure that out.
Can you link to the portion of NDT/Joe Rogan podcast where they discuss this?
Is it at all abnormal for item like a bathtub or paper to be present after an explosion?
How much dust was there?
Was it an abnormal amount?
What amount of dust would not have been suspicious?
What directed energy weapon does she claim was used?
Where does she claim the weapon was located?
What form of energy was it, light, heat, microwave?
Maybe you could give people the basic info.
I wasnt expexting any specific comment, I thought I would of recieved a response if there were intrest in the subject. I had linked it in the previous comments and gave the times during the tyson/rogan interview. It is abnormal to think two 250,000 building being destroyed and crashing to the ground being the explanation of why there is a lack of debris and dust everywhere but the seismic data not reflect that. Gravity collapse would be a kinetic explanation as you say explosions, matter crashing into each other at such a ferocious rate pulverizing massive amount of steel into dust but yet paper remained and large amounts of it. Not only the amount of dust was abnormal but the ultrafine particle size it turned into, smaller that human blood cells. There are many types of energy throught the electromagnetic spectrum visible light only represents one part of that. To my understanding its micro/radio waves introduced into an electric field of which she shows evidence was from hurricane erin outside NY sept 11th. You should also understand that she says the directed energy was a two part mechanism, a key that unlocked the dectructive mechanis or the tower. A switch if you will. Where the directed energy source was physically broadcasted from I cannot definitively say but I can say the dectructuve mechanism was inside those buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Gustaveson
So something to the effect of, “I’m not familiar with her book but that is interesting”?Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
Ok I see it. So I happen to live in a very earthquake prone area. We have minor quake frequently, the last one that everyone here felt was only weeks ago. In my experience, I would not personally notice a quake of the magnitudes that you are stating for the collapse of the towers. I think you may want to consider that you are comparing vibration caused by massive tectonic plates, to those produces by collapsing buildings. They are on entirely different scales. Nothing about this strikes me as surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
It’s not clear what exactly you are asking here. Seems like a loaded question if I’m understanding you correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
Ok, in either the case of an explosion or a collapse (or as it seems in this case both) I don’t find it at all surprising that lots of paper or even a bathtub would survive. In fact, I would expect things like that would survive, especially paper, which you would think is easily moved by air currents. That’s why I asked, “Is it at all abnormal for items like a bathtub or paper to be present after an explosion? “Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
So again I’ll ask, “How much dust was there? What amount of dust would not have been suspicious?” Are you an expert in this area? If not, where are you getting these claims?Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
Right, I think we all know this, that’s why I asked, “What form of energy was it, light, heat, microwave? “Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
I’m not sure I’m understanding this. What do you mean, “introduced into an electric field“?Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
Microwave radiation is part of an electric field itself, what sort of electric field are you talking about? How was it “introduced” and directed? How was this field generated?
Are you saying that the microwave energy was somehow harnessed from a hurricane, or that this electric field was generated using energy from the hurricane? In either case, how?
Ok, that’s does seem important. What are the two parts exactly? Maybe asking a question based on hypothetical can clarify this. Let’s say I have a pair of walky-talkies. On one of them, I disconnect the conductors that power the speaker and attach them to an explosive device. This way, when the other walkie-talkie is spoken into, energy in the form of radio waves will be generated and received by the walkie-talkie that is wired to the explosive device, resulting in an explosion. Would you consider that a two part directed energy weapon?Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
It seems very strange that Dr. Woods theory would not address the origin of the energy. What is the nature of this/these broadcasting and destructive mechanism(s)? What would they look like? What are they made of? How do they work?Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
What is the best evidence supporting her claims?
I was there that day and we were told to move from the area because the towers were going to come down...hours before they did
Again any type of response is fitting positive or negative, I find her work fascinating when all the evidence is considered. Im not surprised it doesnt seem odd or out of place at the surface level but analysis shows otherwise.The seismic data is very important cause if you are familiar with the design of how they were built into the bedrock 70ft below the water table a under a gravity pancaking collapse stated by the nist report the towers themselves would of acted like a tuning fork being built into the bedrock the vibration would have traveled through the earth thus providing a primary and secondary wave which was not recorded by seismometers only a surface wave was recorded. The hurricane would be generating the electric field and she provides eviden of thunder reported at surrounding air ports JFK, Laguardia and Newark all reported thunder on 9/11 the ion balance of the atmosphere is affected by approaching storm fronts and negatively charged cloud bases induce positive charges on the earths surface.For the amount of dust she provides an approximations and i will provide you with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Gustaveson
Volume of one tower=(208ft)x (208ft)x (1368ft)
Dust Volume (One tower)=(10%)xVolume tower (approx.)
Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.)=5,918,515ft
If spread over one square mile or (5,280ft) x (5280ft), 5,918,515ft/ (5,280)= 0.212 ft deep or (0.212 ft)x (12in/ft) = 2.55 inches deep over one square mile, or equivalent to one inch deep over 2.55 square miles for one tower (or one-inch deep over 5.10 square miles for both towers).There are curious elements to her work and certain questions I would like to ask her myself. This is why Im bringing this up on here, in hopes she gets interviewed by eddie or joe, eddie interviewed richard gage and ryan dawson already she has alot more credentials to speak on these types of things and she has interesting evidence to back up her claims. So figured I would try and put a spotlight on it. The destructive mechanism well honestly thats the most interesting part, being the dust samples show evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steele including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intertriangular melting.
Correction*^ at the very bottom the destructive mechanism Its a sample of steel from wtc7^ not a dust sample^** Limited Metallurigical Examination -FEMA report*^ Iron oxidation and sulfidation*^
Yeah, of course I didnt mean positive or negative. Im just trying to point out the obvious. Not many people have read the book, so there is very little that can be said. Asking questions or simply comment that it sounds intersting is about it.
Either event would produce both s and p waves. There is no need to evoke any sort of tuning fork effect in order to expect both wave types.
Why are you claiming that only primary waves were detected? Six separate stations report detecting both wave types.
http://https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf
If a hurricane was generating the electric field you have referred to, then you are simply saying the atmosphere was somewhat charged by a storm. So when you say that microwave or radiowave energy was "introduced to the field", youre simply saying the energy was emitted?
What do you mean by, “introduced into an electric field“?
Where do these equations come from? Are they for expected or observed values?
Dust Volume (One tower)=(10%)xVolume tower (approx.)
Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.)=5,918,515ft
Does her claim that there was more dust than expected come solely from her analysis of pictures? If not, what is its basis?
What are the two parts exactly? Maybe asking a question based on hypothetical can clarify this. Let’s say I have a pair of walky-talkies. On one of them, I disconnect the conductors that power the speaker and attach them to an explosive device. This way, when the other walkie-talkie is spoken into, energy in the form of radio waves will be generated and received by the walkie-talkie that is wired to the explosive device, resulting in an explosion. Would you consider that a two part directed energy weapon?
What is the nature of this/these broadcasting and destructive mechanism(s)?
What would they look like?
What are they made of?
How do they work?
What is the best evidence supporting her claims?
That link you provided says it all and no where was I saying only a primary wave was recorded I have been saying a surface wave was. I will quote you what you just linked " Surface waves were the largest seismic waves recorded at various stations. The presence of seismic body waves is questionable even at Palisades for the two largest collapses for they are not observed at other stations" Bottom of the first page. Seismic body waves travel through the earth of which as I said the towers were built into the bedrock. Its fair to use a tuning fork analogy cause its shows the vibration didnt travel down with the pancake collapse and disperse the energy through the earth providing the seismic data reflecting that. Say you were to hold a tuning fork in your hand wouldnt you feel it through your arm if I were to hit it with a hammer? Her equations come from the evidence provided by satellite imagery of the dust cloud rollout from the earthobservatory nasa.gov images, collection of sample locations reported by the usgs. The DELTA group at the University of California at Davis and Lawrence Berkelt Laboratory undertook studies of the particle size. She gives approximations of the exact amount because of wind and other factors the zone of dust isnt symmetrically arranged around where the towers stood. She provides satellite images showing the dust forms a circular boundary northeast of the wtc complex, estimating the centre of the arc she caculates the approximate area for this part of the dust zone. Then provided the equation I provided you. She also uses that very same seismic data you linked. I understand you have many questions and I will try and answer them as best as I can. You seem to have an intrest, if I may suggest listening to some of her interviews she stays consistent in them from my listening and again im hoping to bring a larger audience to this information, especially discussed on a platform such as the JRE. I have many questions myself that I think only she could answer considering her background.
If you are curious the destructive mechanism I can point you in the direction if you research thermal switches in bacteria. http://m.caltech.edu/news/biologists...controls-52968
You’re right I mixed up surface and secondary. I would not expect any more than the slightest of body waves, if any, because of what body waves are. You are not comprehending the difference in scale between plates moving and buildings falling down. I’m not understanding why you would imagine, even an enormous building collapse, as being capable of producing any significant body waves. What evidence suggest that body waves (if generated) would be anywhere near the magnitudes that are detectable by instruments?Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
Attachment 3589
Tuning forks are purpose built tools, designed to produce vibrations. What evidence is used to support the notion that any part of the building should be expected to produce a tuning fork-like effect? Even if parts of the buildings structure where literally giant tuning forks, it is not safe to assume that they would be struck in such a manner as to produce significant vibration, or be free to vibrate since they would be attached to other structure.
What do you mean “come from”, was she just looking at pictures? In what way where the images evidence for this assertion? How do these equations derive from the data? Are they for expected or observed values? What does the phrase, “collection of sample locations reported by the usgs.” mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
How is this related?Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
So she looked at pictures and estimated the size of an area she called “the dust zone”? How did she determine how much dust was actually present or how much should have been expected? How was the seismic data used to support her claim that there was more dust than should be expected?Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
I am interested in the specific devices claimed to have been used in this case. I see nothing in this link that is at all related to directed energy weapons. Are you claiming that traditional explosive devices were triggered by heat? Are you claiming that genetically engineered bacteria was used as part of this weapon?Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
What are the two parts exactly? Let’s say I have a pair of walky-talkies. On one of them, I disconnect the conductors that power the speaker and attach them to an explosive device. This way, when the other walkie-talkie is spoken into, energy in the form of radio waves will be generated and received by the walkie-talkie that is wired to the explosive device, resulting in an explosion. Would you consider that a two part directed energy weapon?
What is the nature of this/these broadcasting and destructive mechanism(s)?
What would they look like?
What are they made of?
How do they work?
What is the best evidence supporting her claims?
How was the energy generated?
Why is it relevant that a storm had charged the atmosphere?
I think you are more interested in trying to find an area of doubt than the answers I have given and continue to give you, you obviously tried to search the seismic data and you only proved what I was saying the whole time of why you should expect a primary wave secondary waves.The buildings built 70feet BELOW the watertable anchored into the bedrock. Traditional controlled demolitions produce primary waves recorded by the seattle kingdome demolition the evidence provided in her book since you will be inclined to ask what do I mean evidence provided and pick apart as much as you can... "What do I mean come from" I should have expected this from the internet. You already misquoted me saying I only said primary waves so Im quite aware of how you will keep distorting any answer I give and try to pick it apart to create doubt. Even in that link I put it shows the correlation of remote controlling bacteria and yes there are types of archaea that subsit on metals. Im sure you knew that. Ill await you to misquote and cherry pick what we are proving next you did indeed watch Dr.Jenkins interview lol.
In order for everyone in this thread to "get on the same page" regarding the physical evidence pertaining to the destruction of the WTC, I highly recommend finding around 2 1/2 hours to watch the following video. It's Dr Judy Wood giving a presentation at the Breakthrough Energy Conference 2012, and she covers a great deal (though her book goes into much greater detail). It's Paradigm Shifting!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bITl3lmbWb8
I am asking obvious questions that are necessary in order to understand what exactly her claims are. If you want to support Dr. Woods claims, someone looking for areas of doubt is the best thing you could hope for. It provides an opportunity for you to address the obvious background questions, and any weaknesses in the claims. Are you interested in objectively exporting her views, or do you just want people to agree with you? If it’s the latter, I’ll leave you to it.
I did search for the seismic data (not tried) and I did not prove what you were saying. You were claiming that it is suspicious that only surface waves were detected. The nature of the building’s foundations does not provide any obvious support for this claim.
The demolition of the kingdome used 4,461 Pounds of dynamite. Over 200 seismometers were placed in back yards and buildings in order to collect data. I expect the geology at each location may be very different as were the events themselves. IF primary waves were produced by the demolition of the kingdome, why should we take that to indicate that they should be expected to have been recorded during the events of 911? Where is the evidence that body waves were recorded from the demolition of the kingdome?
I did not misquote you. I made the very understandable mistake of mixing up s waves (secondary waves, or shear waves) and surface waves. I am not picking apart your words, I’m trying to understand your vague and poor writing. I’ll give you an example.
This sentence does not make any sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
I am forced to ask you question like this, unfortunately. It is clear why if you read it in context above. Maybe I should have asked, how are these equations derived? On what evidence or information are they based?
What do you mean “even the link . .” ? What are you using the word “even” to emphasis here? Correlation to what? I’m not sure you understand some of the words you are using.Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
I never asked that. Are you answering my question, ”Are you claiming that genetically engineered bacteria was used as part of this weapon?” ?Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
Again, this is nonsensical. Did you mean to make two, separate sentences here? What are you talking about? That is not an English sentence. Try to control your emotions and write clearly, please. Again, I did not misquote youQuote:
Originally Posted by SamSmith
Just to keep things clear (as possible) here is a list of the important question that for the most part remain unanswered.
How much dust was there?
Was it an abnormal amount?
Do these equations represent expected or observed values?
Dust Volume (One tower)=(10%)xVolume tower (approx.)
Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.)=5,918,515ft
What amount of dust would not have been suspicious?
What directed energy weapon does she claim was used?
Where does she claim the weapon was located?
What form of energy was it, light, heat, microwave?
A: To my understanding its micro/radio waves introduced into an electric field of which she shows evidence was from hurricane erin outside NY sept 11th.
Microwave radiation is part of an electric field itself, what sort of electric field are you talking about?
A: Charged atmosphere assorted with a storm system.
How was this field generated?
A: By a storm.
Maybe asking a question based on hypothetical can clarify this. Let’s say I have a pair of walky-talkies. On one of them, I disconnect the conductors that power the speaker and attach them to an explosive device. This way, when the other walkie-talkie is spoken into, energy in the form of radio waves will be generated and received by the walkie-talkie that is wired to the explosive device, resulting in an explosion. Would you consider that a two part directed energy weapon?
So when you say that microwave or radio wave energy was "introduced to the field", you’re simply saying the energy was emitted into the atmosphere, since the “field” you are referring to is the storm charged atmosphere?
By what methods and or devices was the energy introduced?
What is the nature of this/these broadcasting and destructive mechanism(s)?
What would they look like?
What are they made of?
How do they work?
What is the best evidence supporting her claims?
IF primary waves were produced by the demolition of the kingdome, why should we take that to indicate that they should be expected to have been recorded during the events of 911, especially given the difference in geology demolition and data collection?
Where is the evidence that body waves were recorded from the demolition of the kingdome?
Let us review your data gathering and processing ability. Initially you miss the interview link between NDT and Joe rogan I provided on THE FIRST PAGE (8th comment down) to which you are the 9th comment sharing part of an interview between Dr.Judy Wood and Dr.Greg Jenkins, how did you not see the link in my comment if you were indeed reading the comments and processing the information? The conversation moved foward from that point discussing seismic data, dust, hurricane erin and energy. Next you comment saying either event WOULD produce both types of waves, asking why I claimed only PRIMARY waves were recorded ( I never did) and that both p and s waves were recorded at six stations and provide a link to Columbia University's Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impact and Building Collapses at World Trade Centre,New York City pdf. In this pdf at the bottom of the FIRST PAGE it says "Surface waves were the largest seismic waves observed at various stations. The presence of seismic body waves is questionable even at Palisades for the two largest collapses; they are not observed at other stations" But according to you "Either event would produce both s and p waves theres no need to evoke any sort of tuning fork effect in order to EXPECT both wave types. Why are you claiming only primary waves were detected? Six seperate stations detected both types of waves". I point out your mistake and you reply "You're right I mixed up surface and secondary. I WOULD NOT EXPECT any more than the slightest of body waves, if any, being what body waves are"... But wait you just said either event would produce both waves and I didnt need to evoke a tuning fork effect to expect both waves types and that both p and s waves were recorded at six stations and used the Columbia University link to dispute me. Not only did you flip flop on your view of expecting both waves types in one comment then when your logic fails you get say you werent expecting them, you mix up surface waves and secondary waves, also you said I claimed only PRIMARY waves were recorded and tried to dispute it with a link that reinforced what I was saying the whole time! How does mixing up surface waves and secondary waves translate to you saying I said only primary waves were recorded and both types being recorded at six stations of which you provide a link that you obviously didnt read, you would of noticed this if you were indeed processing this data instead of trying to find an area of dispute. Based on this confusion 1.You missing the interview link I provided on the FIRST PAGE 2. Flip flopping on your expextations of wave types, disputing and confusing the different wave types and providing a link that you obviously didnt read being the bottom of the FIRST PAGE CONTRADICTS what you were using it for. 3 You did not proof read your comment before or after posting it cause if you did you should of made the necessary correction. Conclusion I do not believe you are taking the time when reading to process the data I present, or the data you present in a link you tried to use for an area of disput. Any further discussion of such complex information with the ignorant and easily confused will result in the repeat of this pattern you have displayed. Especially the topics of archaea, gene expression and the types of signals that switch on the up-regulation. Good day sir.
I see your confusion (talk about easily confused). Expecting a wave to be produced is not at all the same as expecting it to be detected. The magnitude of a wave and the placement of instruments used for detection are important factors in this. That should clear up most of what your are bitching about here.
You are claiming that because I missed one link, that you posted, and confused s and surface waves, I am ignorant and easily confused, and it is therefore not worth your time addressing the questions I provided. This is a ridiculous and baseless ad hominem fallacy.
I missed your link the the NDT and Rogan podcast because I wasn't paying much attention to the thread, at the time.
Confusing s and surface waves is very understandable imo.
You're obviously clutching at straws, looking for a way to justify slinking out of the conversation, because you are massively ignorant as to the basics of claims you are trying to support and being exposed as such.
You could have summarized this with a few, clear sentences.
If you want to support your claims, simply answer the basic questions I provided.
If we are looking for patterns in this exchange, the most prevalent would be, me posing a basic question and you ignoring it.
I lived at Stanton Street, Bowery at the time...it was about a mile and a half away...for days afterwards we had dust all over the floor of our apartment that came through the screens
Thats horrible. Hope you're all healthy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrismasonic
Have you been around any other giant building collapses that you could compare the amount of dust to?
My condolences, what a tragic experience that must have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrismasonic
I would reiterate that people reading this thread will benefit from viewing the 2 1/2 video which I posted in comment #23 - doing so would answer most of the questions which have been asked.
Also, the following 4 minute video provides a clear example of just one of the physical anomalies which manifested at the WTC on 9/11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnXnzrlGEH0
some points never addressed in 9-11 videos...
within minutes of the second plane hitting the buildings emergency provisions were being dropped off on downtown street corners, (dust masks, hundreds of bottles of water & gatorade.)
large wooden blockades/barriers were put in place to cordon off all streets below Houston.
the speed of these disaster management actions was miraculous...