Any thoughts? Very interesting anomaly to have cars cooking off and spontaneously combusting from a plane hit 80 stories into the air and not in the field of solid debris path.
There were also cars that were exploding over by South street sea port, across the island. And people reporting intense heat from as far away as the manhattan bridge.....
Then there is the anomoly of peoples clothing "catching fire" without any fire in the area....
Sio, I want to have a discussion about 9/11/2001; research writings of Dr. Judy Wood
Started by
TakeAStepBack
, Mar 12 2011 05:32 PM
87 replies to this topic
#55
-
- VibeTribe
- 7,581 posts
Posted 02 May 2011 - 08:14 PM
Sharks w/ Freakin' Lasers!!! 
I honestly don't have a good explanation. I kind of doubt that Judy Wood does either, but I'd be happy to look at her book if you want to let me borrow it sometime. I'm surely not inclined to buy it, based on what I've stated previously in this thread about some of the shoddy "evidence" presented on her website.
I'm not going to discount anybody's eye witness account. People are entitled to believe what they want and it's not my place to say their account is accurate or not. But I'm sure you're aware of the many studies that find that eyewitness accounts aren't always reliable - especially in situation of distress. We tend to process information into something that makes sense to us, whether accurate or not.
Everything with a grain or pile of salt I guess.
I honestly don't have a good explanation. I kind of doubt that Judy Wood does either, but I'd be happy to look at her book if you want to let me borrow it sometime. I'm surely not inclined to buy it, based on what I've stated previously in this thread about some of the shoddy "evidence" presented on her website.
I'm not going to discount anybody's eye witness account. People are entitled to believe what they want and it's not my place to say their account is accurate or not. But I'm sure you're aware of the many studies that find that eyewitness accounts aren't always reliable - especially in situation of distress. We tend to process information into something that makes sense to us, whether accurate or not.
Everything with a grain or pile of salt I guess.
#56
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,795 posts
Posted 02 May 2011 - 09:16 PM
Dr. Judy Wood does not have the answer to the question either, no. And she makes no claim to know something beyond the knowledge we have. But what she clearly and succinctly manages to do is tear the official report apart by showing in great detail the anomalies of that day.
Then forms a hypothesis of the kind of technology that could have been deployed that day.
I've got a lot more, so since I'm gonna have to be the "conspiracy guy", I may as well show people just how much research has gone into my conspiracy facts.
Then forms a hypothesis of the kind of technology that could have been deployed that day.
I've got a lot more, so since I'm gonna have to be the "conspiracy guy", I may as well show people just how much research has gone into my conspiracy facts.
#57
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,795 posts
Posted 02 May 2011 - 09:19 PM
There are an awful lot of first responders and firefighters that saw vehicles burst into flames that day. 1 or 2 people I would hold them with a lot less creedence over the 15-20 that reported very similar information from very separate locations.
and no one but seany will touch this thread.
and no one but seany will touch this thread.
#60
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,795 posts
Posted 03 May 2011 - 12:31 PM
OK, so no one can or wants to explain the car anomaly. Let's move right along then to another very interesting anomaly surrounding 9/11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Erin_(2001)
Hurricane Erin.
Hurricane Erin was the longest-lived hurricane in the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season. The sixth tropical depression, fifth tropical storm, and first hurricane, Erin developed from a tropical wave on September 1. After strengthening to a 60 mph (95 km/h) tropical storm as it moved to the west-northwest, wind shear weakened Erin and caused it to dissipate on September 5. The remnants re-organized into a tropical depression the next day, and Erin strengthened into a hurricane on September 9 while moving northwestward. This was the latest date for the first hurricane of the season since Hurricane Diana on September 10, 1984.[1] Erin quickly intensified and reached peak winds of 120 mph (195 km/h) later on September 9. At its closest approach, Erin passed 105 miles (170 km) east-northeast of Bermuda near peak intensity, and subsequently weakened as it turned to the east. A trough turned Erin to the northeast, and after passing just east of Cape Race, Newfoundland it became extratropical on September 15. The extratropical remnant continued northeastward and lost its identity near Greenland on September 17.
Although on 9/11/2001 hurricane Erin was on track to smash into the east coast in direct line of NYC, she was not reported by any major news outlet except for brief mention by Fox news. There was a eastward bound cold front moving from the west that could have helped change her direction, but from a meteorology stand point, she should still have been of concern based on the timing.
In fact, the weather reports all stated that the day would be calm and clear throughout. You can view the weather reports on archive.org.
Yet JFK, Laguardia and Newark airports all reported rain and thunder.
There are more interesting science based information regarding hurricane Erin, but I wont inundate this post with that as most aren't likely to get those parts...yet.
But, my question remains, why wasn't this potential threat shared with the public and how did this hurricane make a sudden and dramatic shift out to sea?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Erin_(2001)
Hurricane Erin.
Hurricane Erin was the longest-lived hurricane in the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season. The sixth tropical depression, fifth tropical storm, and first hurricane, Erin developed from a tropical wave on September 1. After strengthening to a 60 mph (95 km/h) tropical storm as it moved to the west-northwest, wind shear weakened Erin and caused it to dissipate on September 5. The remnants re-organized into a tropical depression the next day, and Erin strengthened into a hurricane on September 9 while moving northwestward. This was the latest date for the first hurricane of the season since Hurricane Diana on September 10, 1984.[1] Erin quickly intensified and reached peak winds of 120 mph (195 km/h) later on September 9. At its closest approach, Erin passed 105 miles (170 km) east-northeast of Bermuda near peak intensity, and subsequently weakened as it turned to the east. A trough turned Erin to the northeast, and after passing just east of Cape Race, Newfoundland it became extratropical on September 15. The extratropical remnant continued northeastward and lost its identity near Greenland on September 17.
Although on 9/11/2001 hurricane Erin was on track to smash into the east coast in direct line of NYC, she was not reported by any major news outlet except for brief mention by Fox news. There was a eastward bound cold front moving from the west that could have helped change her direction, but from a meteorology stand point, she should still have been of concern based on the timing.
In fact, the weather reports all stated that the day would be calm and clear throughout. You can view the weather reports on archive.org.
Yet JFK, Laguardia and Newark airports all reported rain and thunder.
There are more interesting science based information regarding hurricane Erin, but I wont inundate this post with that as most aren't likely to get those parts...yet.
But, my question remains, why wasn't this potential threat shared with the public and how did this hurricane make a sudden and dramatic shift out to sea?
#61
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,795 posts
Posted 03 May 2011 - 12:33 PM
Here is an image from nasa of Erin and her proximity to NYC.
Anyone interested in more data on Erin can find it here.
http://www.nhc.noaa....1erin.html#FIG1
#64
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,795 posts
Posted 03 May 2011 - 03:05 PM
OK, again presumably no one has a comment or rebuttal. So, we'll move along and jump to another strange anomaly that was talked about briefly at the beginning of this thread, but we'll dive in a little deeper this time.
Twisted, "jellified", shriveled, "dustified" and bent steel.
From the steel i-beams from teh wtc 1 and 2, to the Bankers Trust building (which I will get into later), there are many interesting observations of steel doing the below.
In the center of the above image, there is a white painted (presumably) steel I-beam that has been twisted, shriveled and pinch crimped. This photo was taken by FEMA, addressing the damage to the 15th floor of the Bankers Trust building sometime after 9/11/2001.
My question, how did this happen?
First, steel beams, to my knowledge and research, do not under-go this level of heat and force from being clobbered by a falling section of debris from WTC1. No where have a found a similar example. It's an astounding anomaly.
Take a look at the steel beam in the bottom right hand corner of this photo. It appears to have been split, twisted and somehow "eaten". At first I thought this was aluminum cladding. But of course that observation is false because aluminum doesn't rust. That is one rusty beam. What caused this?
This is a photo of a portion of the extorior "wheatchex" form WTC 1 or 2. The photo is from NIST, as this was a portion of the steel investigated by them and their "official report". The portion on the bottom is actually of the greatest interest. Notice how it is "rolled" up. Again, what caused this level of heat? The kerosene fires observed from the plane impact isn't sufficient to cause this. Not even close. So, what did it?
I find this photo almost comical. Take a look at that postal truck in the back ground. How on earth did this van "melt" or "jellify" and yet the paint job is uneffected?
In the forground there is a car that has a strange "burn" mark down the hood going to the front. As if someone took an incinerator device to it. Very odd...
Here is a photo of the only recovered filing cabinet. Ser. WTF?
I'll add more to this post soon'd.
Twisted, "jellified", shriveled, "dustified" and bent steel.
From the steel i-beams from teh wtc 1 and 2, to the Bankers Trust building (which I will get into later), there are many interesting observations of steel doing the below.
In the center of the above image, there is a white painted (presumably) steel I-beam that has been twisted, shriveled and pinch crimped. This photo was taken by FEMA, addressing the damage to the 15th floor of the Bankers Trust building sometime after 9/11/2001.
My question, how did this happen?
First, steel beams, to my knowledge and research, do not under-go this level of heat and force from being clobbered by a falling section of debris from WTC1. No where have a found a similar example. It's an astounding anomaly.
Take a look at the steel beam in the bottom right hand corner of this photo. It appears to have been split, twisted and somehow "eaten". At first I thought this was aluminum cladding. But of course that observation is false because aluminum doesn't rust. That is one rusty beam. What caused this?
This is a photo of a portion of the extorior "wheatchex" form WTC 1 or 2. The photo is from NIST, as this was a portion of the steel investigated by them and their "official report". The portion on the bottom is actually of the greatest interest. Notice how it is "rolled" up. Again, what caused this level of heat? The kerosene fires observed from the plane impact isn't sufficient to cause this. Not even close. So, what did it?
I find this photo almost comical. Take a look at that postal truck in the back ground. How on earth did this van "melt" or "jellify" and yet the paint job is uneffected?
In the forground there is a car that has a strange "burn" mark down the hood going to the front. As if someone took an incinerator device to it. Very odd...
Here is a photo of the only recovered filing cabinet. Ser. WTF?
I'll add more to this post soon'd.
#66
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,795 posts
Posted 03 May 2011 - 05:37 PM
As far as TWC7 is concerned, the most recent amount of information that Ive seen, is best described by David Chandlier. I actually never needed to go after WTC7 as the smoking gun because there is clear scientific evidence that makes the official story bunk simply from the items I've posted here.
in the series provided, David Chandler calls out the leaders of the NIST report on WTC7 and their clear fraudulent science used to describe the global collapse.
The NIST report is fraudulent.
in the series provided, David Chandler calls out the leaders of the NIST report on WTC7 and their clear fraudulent science used to describe the global collapse.
The NIST report is fraudulent.
#67
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,795 posts
Posted 03 May 2011 - 05:52 PM
Whether or not controlled demolition was used to bring down WTC7, remains a mystery. I've read the reports and watched the videos of the collapse from just about every angle available. The one thing that still rings interesting regarding WTC7s global collapse, is the lack of significant audio that would indicate explosives.
#70
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,795 posts
Posted 03 May 2011 - 10:07 PM
If I set a fire in your living room using a torch do you:
A) Sit still and stare in amazement
Call the fire department to come and put it out while you finish watching Jersey Shore
C) Call the hotline and report a crazy guy that needs a taznin'
D) None of the above
A) Sit still and stare in amazement
Call the fire department to come and put it out while you finish watching Jersey ShoreC) Call the hotline and report a crazy guy that needs a taznin'
D) None of the above
#72
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,795 posts
Posted 04 May 2011 - 11:02 AM
Well, I'm simply putting the information into the thread. It is up to those that have the courage to look at the evidence and question the official story to step into the thread and either concur, add or rebuttal the evidence.
I will continue adding to this thread as I see fit.
I will continue adding to this thread as I see fit.
#73
-
- VibeTribe
- 4,384 posts
Posted 06 May 2011 - 12:46 AM
Here is an enlargement of the beam in the second picture for ya,
http://gatheringofth...&pictureid=2320
Found it in my album. Not sure if I downloaded it or I did it.
http://gatheringofth...&pictureid=2320
Found it in my album. Not sure if I downloaded it or I did it.
#77
-
- VibeTribe
- 4,384 posts
Posted 06 May 2011 - 06:41 AM
[quote name='TakeAStepBack']
i dont see it.....[/quote]
It is just the chunk cropped from the very bottom right of that second pic.of the oddly twisted end of the beam. I compared the two many times before posting.
I find these more interesting and are from the FEMA photos.
http://gatheringofth...&pictureid=2319
http://gatheringofth...&pictureid=2318
http://gatheringofth...&pictureid=2317
http://gatheringofth...&pictureid=2316
i dont see it.....[/quote]
It is just the chunk cropped from the very bottom right of that second pic.of the oddly twisted end of the beam. I compared the two many times before posting.
I find these more interesting and are from the FEMA photos.
http://gatheringofth...&pictureid=2319
http://gatheringofth...&pictureid=2318
http://gatheringofth...&pictureid=2317
http://gatheringofth...&pictureid=2316
#85
-
- VibeTribe
- 4,384 posts
Posted 06 May 2011 - 02:49 PM
The swiss cheese offers a lot of insight into the molecular disassociation going on. I tend to leave those out because most really can't grasp why those pieces of steel are of such intense interest. Thanks for adding.
Understandable. If you have never worked with heat (fire) and steel it is difficult to grasp how it will and will not behave.
