Honouring the real truth of ground Zero

[Keith Mothersson]

I was recently pleased to get the following accepted by the up-and-coming progressive ('tough-liberal' or left-liberal) American website, OpEdNews, which over the last couple of years has begun to carry many articles on 911 - from a variety of perspectives - as well as terrific coverage of votetheft scams. and much besides.

PLEA to our esteemed editor: please let us have an end to the practice (hitherto) of this site of relegating this sort of article to 'Controversial theories' , thus effectively taking sides with Prof Jones (highly controversial) thermite hypothesis against Dr Wood's alternative hypotheses and detailed observations of the entire WTC site (not just WTC1,2 and 7).

Honouring The Real Truth Of Ground Zero

Where did those towers go? And why are they still hauling topsoil in and out every week? Recent developments at the cutting edge of 911 research promise an exciting paradigm switch full of promise for a 'great awakening'.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_keith_mo_080220_honouring_the_ real_t.htm

September 11th 2001 was so shocking that most people didn't notice how the Manhattan murders were instantly framed as an 'attack on America', i.e. something from outside requiring a military response, not good domestic policework.



However thanks to the 911 truth movement more and more people have wised up to another sort of 'framing' that day as well, the framing up of Muslims from Oil-land as so-called 'hijackers', despite a complete lack of evidence (except from entirely unreliable sources: "Ye who are conscious of God - If a fasiq comes with alarming news, make sure to verify their word, lest you afflict people out of your ignorance, and regret your action." Holy Qur'an, Surah 49:6)



In October 2006 a CBS/New York Times poll found that only 16 percent of Americans continue to believe that their government has told the truth. Unfortunately the mainstream media blockade continues, so the official mythology is just about holding up, ocasionally bolstered by fake 'Bin Laden' videotapes and occasional show trials based on 'confessions' extracted under torture.



Avoiding the swamp of 'fasiq' allegations about a supposed entity called 'Al-Qaeda', most 9/11 truth activists have increasingly homed in on unarguable physical phenomena from the day in question, such as the absence of any plane-sized hole at the Pentagon.



Of all the 911 events, few have spoken more powerfully than the neat 'collapse' (controlled demolition) in free-fall time of the 47 storey steel-framed World Trade Centre Building 7 at 5.20 in the afternoon, unhit by any alleged plane and pre-announced by the BBC twenty five minutes early (oops!).



If one, why not the twin towers also?, which were also destroyed in the time equivalent to that which the top floor of these towers would have taken to reach the ground if they had been falling through air, and not through 109 other stories of steel-framed building!

For those whose heads begin to swim, at this point, let me just add: None of us need worry about our lack of degrees in Physics and Engineering! By the age of ten we had already figured out that apples dropped through a pile of apples would take longer to reach the floor than when dropped through air, likewise sticks through a pile of sticks, books through a pile of books, etc.

So demolition it is then - but have we looked carefully enough?

After two years when most truth-activists accepted the Prof Steven Jones theory of the towers being demolished using thermate-enhanced military explosives, many of us are now realizing just how many weird physical phenomena can't be captured in Jones' hypothesis, not just in the towers but across the whole World Trade Centre site as a whole and even up to seven blocks away!



Mechanical and materials engineer Dr Judy Wood has assembled an impressive website with extraordinary pictures of hundreds of

- 'toasted' or overturned cars,
- huge vertical 'pastry cut-outs' which hollowed out Building 6,
- beams shredding, turning to jelly or with snakelike contortions,
- 'meteorites' of fused steel and concrete,
- flickering fires which didn't burn paper,
- cold dust clouds, etc.

Many of these phenomena correlate closely with experimental effects created in directed energy experiments of Canadian inventor John Hutchison, whose work came to the attention of the Pentagon in the 1980's.



It has been shown in photographs Dr Wood has collected that the rubble pile from WTC 1 & 2 was very small - less than 3 stories high. A "cover story" says that the steel was all quickly shipped to China or Asia, but the pictures, taken before WTC 7 was destroyed, tell the truth. Videos,when examined closely, show steel and concrete from the towers turning to dust as the material fell. What technology can do that?



It looks so obvious now, but it seems that for six years we were so spell-bound by the WHO and the WHY and the HOW of 911 that we have mostly omitted to begin by a close forensic examination of WHAT happened! Building 7 fell down, but the bulk of the material in the twin towers turned to fine dust and was spewed out upwards, which is why Dr Wood has launched a formidable legal case against the National Institutes for Science and Technology for fraudulently speaking of building 'collapse'.



One huge implication is that once people realise that the Military-industrial complex and Big Oil have been hiding such amazing energy technology in so-called "Black Projects", what pressure might not build for enforcing accountability over these and over those secret fraternities, so that innumerable secret or bought-up discoveries concerning ecological alternatives to petrol engines might be brought into play at this time of accelarating climate havoc?



And 911 is still happening! - Not only in the sense that we all, Muslims especially, suffer the psychological strain and physical oppression of the aftermath of this global coup. But also in another sense which Dr Judy Wood attributes to the 'non-self-quenching' nature of 'Hutchison effect' type technology.



It seems that some switch was turned on at the deep molecular level which leads to continuing slow motion molecular dissociation in buildings 'infected' in 2001, such as the Bankers Trust building which after fruitless repairs is now being dismantled, supposedly because of a "mould infection". Photos from the site, however, indicate levels of rusting in the steel far beyond anything that is normal.

From Day One the sorcerers of 911 have been struggling to manage their wayward apprentice, with scores of huge trucks bringing in top soil in a vain attempt to quench this phenomenon. And still today they come and return at the end of the week to ship it all out again! [added now by KM : this reminds me of the compulsive hand-washing of Lady Macbeth, kind of a big clue!]



Now that we've noticed, how can they hide these trucks, and how on earth will they explain them?



Now that you've noticed, who will you tell?



Or, as the masthead of Judy Wood's website proclaims: 'A time comes when silence is betrayal' (Martin Luther King)

Further study:

google: Hunt The Rubble ;

and then graduate to www.drjudywoood.com/ ;

see also some of the essays promoted on the homepage of Andrew Johnson's fine site: www.checktheevidence.com

also see www.911scholars.org


There was then some discussion - which led to one person asking why is it necessary to bring in all this weird stuff? see my next post to this thread.

[Keith Mothersson]

The following are most of the comments after my article was published on OpEdNews: (numbers added)

1) Yeah. . . .

You go Girl!

aliens and space beams.

Mr. Big of the NWO says: "Judy Woods is the best disinfo plant we have."

by Roark (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 277 comments) on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 4:06:26 PM

2) Keith Mothersson

Reason and evidence

If you have evidence and reasoning to support your allegation about Judy Wood or the net effect of her work, then it would be good to hear it (and we'll be able to focus on it all the better, the less it comes bundled with abuse, unwarranted speculation, etc) .

If not, then it would be good to reflect on what you are really up to, what you are frightened of? Does it bug you a woman is daring to speak up aka 'speaking out of turn'?

Perhaps you have been oppressed when young about some belief you held, which the big people or big boys reckoned was silly, mad, bad, etc. But we don't need to continue this pattern of hostile dumping on each other.

In the coming months, so pregnant with r/evolutionary potential as well as the danger of fascist crack downs, the likelihood of destitution for many more millions, etc nothing is more important than that we the people learn to talk with each other empathically if possible, but at least using reason and evidence and no longer resorting to abuse, or allowing ourselves to be swayed by evidence-free abuse.

We create a new society by socialising differently. Please begin now.

by Greenham (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 comments) on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 7:09:08 AM

3) Andrew Johnson

Please keep looking

Thanks Keith for posting this important article and I think the thrust is "look at the evidence - we can see some new technology was involved here".

There may be even some kind of trail as to who has this technology - people like SAIC and maybe Lockheed Skunkworks too.

Perhaps we should be asking employees of those companies what they think not only of the official story of 9/11, but of the data Dr Wood has posted.

That's a far more interesting idea than making baseless disparaging remarks like those of Mr Howard. (I wonder if he's related to the David Howard who has posted on 9/11 researchers?)

by ADJohnson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 comments) on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 12:12:13 PM

4) gravity32

hard evidence

Can't we just stick with the absolutely proved use of explosives at the three buildings? Any attempt to bring in weird ideas can only weaken the case with the public. Those damaged cars by the way were obviously towed out of the way. [empahsis added by me: KM]

Absolute proof: See here

and here

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 83 comments) on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 11:22:16 PM

5)
CB Brooklyn

Explosives isn't guaranteed proof of inside job.

The perps will just blame it on Al Qaeda (as Bush does in this video.)

Besides, any "evidence" on Steven Jones' site is either misleading propaganda, or outright lies. It has already been pointed out dozens of times (here on OpEd) the truth about Jones. Who in their right mind would continue to promote him?

WTC Molten Metal: Fact or Fiction?

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

by CB_Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 282 comments) on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 1:06:28 AM

6) Andrew Johnson

Explosives don't explain all the evidence.

Gravity32,

Explosives may have been involved. However, we know that they cannot explain:

1) Beams bent into a loop

2) Upturned cars

3) Spontaneous car fires as photographed and witnessed by NYC 1st responders.

Are you just ignoring this evidence or deliberately trying to divert attention away from it, for example by mentioning Uri Geller in a previous comment?

Either way your "proof" is not sufficient to explain all the evidence and I think it is disingenuous to pretend to that it is.

The Hutchison effect is "unconventional", but we have shown the proof that the US and Canadian Military are aware of it and have analysed it, so it's foolish to pretend this is not true, or even that it is irrelevant.

by ADJohnson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 comments) on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 6:18:35 AM

7) Keith Mothersson

Truth is a process of awakening

Hi gravity 32.
Good question - I would say that the dynamics of a truth movement are different from a party line type organisation which agrees on some good-enough version of reality and then just settles down to disseminate and defend that at all cost.

In what follows I want to turn the 'weirdness' argument back on your side of the net, but first I want to mention some of the real problems with Steven Jones' work, which defenders of the official conspiracy theory will doubtless try to exploit.

It was out of this concern and after conducting an experiment (with a research associate who was subsequently murdered in a mysterious no money mugging) which many believe disproved one weak link in Steven's argument that Judy began to break with Steven and the many people (me too for ages!) who were a little too desperate to have an authority-figure Physics Prof on board (though it seemed to serve us well for many months)

(It may or may not be relevant, (or anything to do with Steve personally if so), that subsequently Judy was perhaps further threatened by proxy? when friends/mentors of hers at Virginia Tech were slaughtered by a 'lone nut rampage' - around premises she frequented. - see CB's second link above) [google it: KM]

Subsequently questions have arisen about

a) where Steven had come from (e.g. previous work unfairly denigrated suppressed cold fusion; work with Los Alamos on exotic weapon physics) okay - anyone can have a change of heart;

b) why he hadn't come in much earlier, but only when it seemed inevitable that the truth movement was going to move into MIHOP - okay, anyone can catch on slowly! ;

c) why he has used photos which have been touched up - knowingly or unknowingly, but then removed them when this is pointed out but without explanation;

d) the poor (unclear) chain of custody of samples of molten metal said to have come from Ground Zero - okay, anyone can make mistakes;

e) why he presents himself as just a Physics prof but then allowed himself to slip in comments about 'the hijackers' etc, when he ought not to repeat racist rumours lacking evidential foundation from an academic podium. Okay, lots of other high-profile figures in the truth movement continue to validate stories of hijackers - but some would say that is how/why they have been allowed to become dominant in a truth movement which at all times is having to renew itself against infiltration/co-option. [As one person came out of a talk by William Rodriguez [who also validates the hijacker nonsense] she asked her neighbour - 'I wonder how Al-Qaeda managed to get access to the buildings to plant those explosives?' ]

Anyway, some of Jones' work can still be useful, as you point out, but to my mind Judy Wood's falling billiard balls demonstration is sweeter, easier to understand. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

Common ground may exist between the two theories in so far as thermate could have been used for the lowest fifth or sixth of the central columns, and even surrounding ones - but no sign of columns being blown outwards above that height, merely cladding.

OK so we agree on inside job destruction, but not 'controlled explosions' exactly

a) because the experimental phenomenon set off was partly uncontrolled - witness the need to keep hosing and or shuffling topsoil; and
b) because what happened was 97 percent instant dustification or powderisation in mid air, quite unlike a normal demolition.

What are the campaigning and sociological differences of this difference?

I believe that subconsciously the public can appreciate that difference, indeed through the shock and awe of 9/11, have been traumatised and then reassured with expert framing of the event and have been constantly fed images of planes going in and buildings 'falling down' in such as way as to reinforce what amounts to hypnotism. Thus they have been

a) told somethng visually, and

b) also told NOT TO KNOW that,

but this contradiction means that they also 'know' some other things:

c) that they'd be safer not thinking too hard about it,

d) for to do so would risk the wrath of the powerful (who can zap anyone to dust at any time).

We can't free up the sources of critical thinking and skilful action about 911 (to wit compassion and indignation), we can't heal this trumatic wound in the public psyche - unless we go back to the original source of the hypnotic implant and address the fact that unlike WTC7 the twin towers destruction was utterly 'weird', to reflect your word back at your side of the net.

In fact the weird stuff has already happened to them/us and only by going back and facing that moment can we help deprogramme people out of being captured by a founding Myth of the National Security/Global Paranoia Cult aka War on Terror.

This links to another whole line of argument about 'paradigm shifts' and what helps capture/de-capture the public imagination. As Thomas Kuhn showed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions it sometimes takes a period of 'weird stuff' for new models to catch on (paradigm switch). I would say that the new paradigm (Directed Energy Weapons) has more potential than Contolled Demolition to capture the imagination of 'the public' and engender enthusiasm for action, than any amount of snapping at the heels of the old model without being able to really say what did happen in a way that takes account of the scale of the wierdness that day.

In fact not to address that weirdness is in a way to model to people that 'Yes it is too scary to look at the full extent of the weirdness of what we all saw'.

Personally, although the arguments about DEW should be assessed on their own merits, I am persuaded also that Video-fakery provides a simpler (Ockham's razor) explanation of what we think we saw at the WTC in terms of 'plane crashes' than the many contradictions which we fall into if we start believing one set of statements from the Military-Industrial-Media-Intel complex and disbelieving another set,

e.g. if we credit USA Today's squiggly pictures of the hijacked planes flightpaths;

or if we as so keen to prove Cheney is a villain that we forget to beware that the man who dobbed Cheny in about being in the control room bunker at a certain time and snapping to the young man about 'the orders still stand' as the 'planes' [ = DOTS remember!] drew ever nearer to Washington - was none other than Transport Secretary, Norman Mineta, the then-recent Vice-President of the biggest arms manufacturer in the world (by volume), Lockheed Martin, who is now a partner in Hill and Knowlton, the 'public relations' firm responsible for the psyop about Iraqi troops invading Kuwait hospital and hauling babies out of incubators ....

[there are also internal contradictions about Mineta's testimony: a) the young aide wouldn't have had time to come back and forth if the 'plane' was arriving so swiftly; and b ) in Griffin's Myth and Reality article in Fetzer's great compilation, The 9/11 Conspiracy - The Scamming of America Griffin quotes Mineta that the final exchange (ten miles out) occurred at 9.26, but the Pentagon wasn't hit until 9.38 - which seems too long a gap, even allowing for the [posited] famed circular descent of [posited] hijacker Hani Hanjour.]

We are aiming as a truth movement not just to get any old inquiry, one which hides the role of major players such as the constantly aggrandising secret research teams of the Military-industrial complex, or the dumbing-down Corporate Media with their links to the 'intelligence' fraternities and huge cross-links to the Military-Industrial complex.

Yes we want an Inquiry, but you will agree that we don't want another limited hang-out. We want for the dead of 911 not to have died in vain because we empower each other to use the tragedy as a vehicle for an awakening into the whole set of social forces and unaccountable fraternities which made such a tragedy possible or directly brought it about.

For that we need people to get used to being 'stretched' without resort to mental cut-offs, instant put downs. We need for people to get 'the taste of freedom', the taste for looking at things with open minds, not knowing the answers, with eyes unclouded by hatred, able to tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty at times; but also when appropriate able to conclude coherently on the basis of evidence and reason dispassionately assessed (not needing the next fact or theory to be 'good' or 'bad', to our liking or not to our liking; not prejudging - in short - not prejudiced).

So long as this 'weird stuff' seems to us to be true, I vote we explain it and help people accustom to the process of growing to fit their minds to the truth, not support them in shringking reality to fit, latching onto just part of the truth (but in so doing subtly telling them that they/we aren't mature/brave enough to handle the full truth they subconsiously know is being evaded by everyone in the mainstream).


by Greenham (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 comments) on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 7:18:56 AM

[added by KM now]

PLEASE FOLKS, I KNOW FROMMY OWN EXPERIENCE HOW LIHOP STUFF CAN HELP PEOPLE START TO EVOLVE TOWARDS MIHOP AND MIHOP-JONES VERSION CAN HELP PEOPLE EVOLVE FURTHER IN DUE COURSE;

I ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE HOW KEEN TONY AND MANY OTHERS ARE TO GET THE GUARDIAN JOURNALISTS TO TAKE US SERIOUSLY AND FOR US NOT TO BE SCORNED BY STOP THE WAR, HENCE OUR WORRIES ABOUT 'CREDIBILITY' ;

BUT PLEASE LET US KEEP EVOLVING AS THE EVIDENCE CONTINUES TO BECKON. Otherwise we risk becoming a mini-SWP party which settles on some good enough 'line' and we all sing from the same hymn sheet thereafter and apply double-statandards to those who in good conscience can no longer agree with this official line.

Jones is every bit as controversial a figure now as Wood is supposed to be - so no more double standard please, friends! Either banishs to Controversial theories any mention of Jones, or any mention of the unsubstantiated racist rumour about hijackers, as well as Wood's work, or else stop relegating DEW etc to 'Controversial Theories'

8 ) arlen custer


More Subterfuge

All this subterfuge. This is the stuff that helps the lies about 9/11 stay alive. Can't any of you just stay with the facts that can't be denied? The Buildings fell at free fall speed! THIS IS THE ONLY POINT OF RELIVANCE. Who and how should be left up to a real official investigation.

by arlen (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 48 comments) on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 9:38:33 AM

9) Keith Mothersson

Why call it subterfuge?

If you disagree, fine. You are also entitled to your view that we should only concentrate on the freefall speed destruction (not fall) of the buildings - two of them went 97 percent up! Or else you could say they took two days to come down.

You are also entitled to express concern that creating a STORY - a progressively truer story - about what happened is irrelevant to getting an 'official' ?!? inquiry - I would sooner use the word widely credible inquiry. Or even that somehow (not explained so far) countering their lying story with our own is somehow counterproductive for getting this inquiry and meanwhile we just allow the contradictions to pile up with no attempt to sort them out meanwhile.

All this is fine, we can agree to disagree.

But why call it subterfuge? Are you suggesting some underhand agenda, that I am secretly working for Mr Big?

Is that the way to promote the evidence and reasons you have which you want others to consider and reflect on? Mightn't it rather close down discussion and divide us into mutually abusive camps? I don't think that is your intention, so I would appreciate it if you could accord me some goodwill or at least the benefit of the doubt - innocent until proven guilty. Thank you.

by Greenham (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 comments) on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 2:54:16 PM

10) Sha Llel

Only the truth is appropriate for a Truth Movement!

Great piece, Keith, and your comment is even better! Watering down the truth does not serve anyone. (They're still watering down Ground Zero, and that hasn't seemed to help either!) I just finished Gene Malove's "Fire from Ice" and this aspect of ENERGY won't go away (even if you KILL the messenger). I mean do we see a pattern here or what? Hutchison visited by the Pentagon and then "discredited", the cold fusion fiasco, Judy's student Michael Zebuhr, the microbiologists, "disclosure" of over unity energy devices, the UFO coverup.

I mean the TRILLIONS spent on black budget projects are mostly the plagiarized work of brilliant individuals who don't have the unlimited use of our tax money, and anything seen as empowering the individual to get off the teat of Big Oil is treated to a visit from the PsyOps department (who get even more of our tax dollars). Meanwhile Military contractors like ARA and SAIC, Boeing, GE, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Los Alamos and the rest of the lot perfect these technologies in the dark, and keep them from the public.

These technologies might even make it possible for the Earth to sustain 7 billion people.

Judy Wood has opened my eyes to what was there to see. She is an astounding intellect and though I don't know her, I believe she is a very Spiritual person. I cannot thank her enough for her perseverance and pray that she is protected by the Great Spirit and many Angels!



BTW, Mr. Big is Bud Good!

by Shallel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 comments) on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 8:05:34 PM

[John White]

You what? Let beam weapons be plastered all over the site?

And your still stuck in the simpleminded Wood vs Jones mentality?

For shame!

Go hang on Andrew Johnson's website: theres no changes needed here

[TonyGosling]

What one person sees as impressive another sees as extremely thin. I realise you're passionate about this stuff Keith but there's no way this piece moves us any closer to this stuff being proven enough to push.

As far as I'm concerned we push the proven... and the unproven can be discussed freely until it is proven.

[Snowygrouch]

Dear Keith et all,
I like alot of the people concerned here so I cannot make this personal.

I`ve said it before and I will again, if you dont have any engineering experience/qualifications/studies under your belt PLEASE don't try to lecture on the facts of how "odd" collapses etc were.

Its not that non-engineers have no right to discuss the world of science (far from it, many great breakthoughs in science were made by blokes in garages with not a pair of simultainious equations between them) BUT....

This issues is not about advancing learning or enjoying exploring science together...its about prosecuting mass murderers.

Its NOT a joke, its not for fun, its not a club , its not a hobby.

If you go up against anyone who is knowledgeable with this stuff you will get laughed out the room...and with good reasons. Its scientific bunk and nothing more than the result of a few dozen "armchair engineers" who think that a scientific breakthough consists of writing a report that says "ooo that looks odd".

Sorry! It really doesn`t work like that, keep it and this at arms length from me and anyone serious about actually DOING somthing with 9.11 not just hoping it will help expand whatever "NWO / crop circle" sphere (which is FINE just not here).

So if you enjoy ridicule and promoting armchair science go right ahead. Just leave me and the rest of the scientific/engineering world out of it.

BTW, anyone who was an Assistant Professor of Mechanical engineering who talks like Judy does is one of the following.

1: A Mole
2: Done far too much LSD
3: Making rubbish up for fun/attention

Dont take this personally Keith, this is just my opinion on the subject (you DID ask for my input via email!)

If anyone wants to know WHY I feel Woods stuff is so far off the mark
free to call me by phone where I will be happy to explain in engineering terms why its (i`m afraid) piffle....I HAVE looked at Judy`s stuff in quite some detail!

(Annie will give you my phone number)

Calum Douglas

[alwun]

Hi Calum,

tell us again how the wing tips of extremely fragile wings can slice through aluminium, steel and concrete without pausing - and leave a clean little gash just to prove that a 'wingtip was 'ere'.

Because this is vital knowledge which you would be wise to share with, of course, the engineering community, for only they are able to understand such phenomena.
The cash gains alone which will arise from dispensing with the bothersome diamond tipped powered drills and saws currently in use across the globe for cutting steel and concrete would make it worth your while should you lobby for a share.
Now, with your special insight and knowledge, one can simply employ a sweeping strike with a lightweight aluminium 'wand'. No more noisy, dusty, time-consuming and over-engineered nonsense for us, don't you think?

And remember also, your new method leaves NO 'swarf' or debris behind.
It's a sure fire winner!

You could retire tomorrow on that.


One last thing....please use simple, easy to understand terms, otherwise many of us will quite simply remain baffled(about the wingtip no-diamond cutters, that is).


Thanks in advance for sharing.

cheers Al

[Snowygrouch]

Certainly,
Although you have clearly already read my posts about that so I`m not really very sure why you are asking me to repeat the same thing. I will do so fairly breifly.

1: The very tips of the wings DIDNT go through
2: There is a very visible cloud of "swarf" after the impact
3: A cleanup worker in the states posted dozens of pictures he took
of plane parts everywhere at the scene (want a link, search this forum for my posts and you`ll find it).
4: What material something is has NOTHING to do with how it behaves when travelling at 500mph. A CARROT travelling at 500mph will probably pass clean through your head.
5: The reason MOST of the wings went through is that almost ALL of the fuel tanks are in the WINGS. So it wasnt the aluminium empty box that hit the wall but many, many tonnes of liquid all restrained in a slim container if you will. (for an analogy try this)....

A: Get an EMPTY plastic bottle, get a friend to chuck it at your head..it will hurt a bit but cause no harm....

B: Fill said bottle with water and try it again....(make sure you are close to your local A&E when you do this). You may notice a fairly dramatic difference in the force that the flimsy plastic bottle imparts on your head when filled with incompressible liquid.

Kinetic energy (the 'power' if you like) that a moving object has is:

0.5 times mass of object times its speed SQUARED. So if you get anything going at 500mph its going to have SERIOUS energy.

When you HIT anything Newtons laws of motion (equal and opposite reaction and all that, remember the bottle and you`re head?) state that in order for the object to remain standing it must impart an equal force back into the object thats moving so as to remain still.

So if you hit the WTC it will PUSH back with the same level of force.

When you get energy like that things are going to break!

The plane weighs about 100 tons (100,000kg) and 500mph is about 220meters per second.

Energy = 0.5 * 100,000 * 220 squared
= 2,420,000,000 Joules (2.4 Giga Joules)

When a plane HITS that energy MUST go somewhere (unless you dont believe in Physics in which case belive anything you like)

To put that figure into perspective....if you dropped the USS Nimitz (an aircraft carrier) from the first storey of a building (just under 4 meters) the total force generated would be the same...amazing eh?

= 0.5 * 64 000 000 * 8.66 squared
=2,390,000,000 Joules (2.39 Giga Joules)

Its a strange fact that the way nature ACTUALLY behaves can be counter intuitive....

Why do you think people like Rolls Royce and Pratt & Witney spend MILLIONS of pounds every year destroying jet engines by firing small birds into running turbofan engines?

Because a BIRD (not a frozen one smart ass) made of blubber, feathers and tiny bones can DESTROY a jet turbine made of titanium, steel & nickel alloys....that would -according to such logic as you stand by- be impossible.

Just google video "bird jet test" if you want to see how SOFT things can destroy HARD things when they are moving fast enough

So are you going to tell me that if you turned the WTC on its side and dropped a fully loaded Aircraft carrier onto it, you still think it wouldnt break?....the FORCES are exactly the same you know!

Annoying being wrong isnt it? (I wouldnt know but I`ve been told its very upsetting).

Calum

[sam]

[alwun]

whatever

cheers Al..

[chek]

The funniest bit is, Al thinks he's being 'clever'.

Tee hee. Chortle. Etc.

[astro3]

DID THE TOWERS NOT FALL?

Now that 4.6 Euro-billions have been paid up to Lucky Larry Silverstein, it seemed that the glitzy new WTC reconstruction was all set to go ahead. But, according to the new video which Andrew Johnson made this January when visiting Ground Zero with Judy Wood, there is a kind of strange problem which may not have been anticipated. White fumes seem still to be evaporating out of the ground. Loads of topsoil is being shovelled in and then removed again later on, to – it would seem – try and stop, what?

I proposed a visit by JW to the London group and they wouldn’t have it, and maybe they were right: Andrew would be there, as her best-known UK advocate, and he would be liable (he has explained to me) to start advocating the no-planes theory. For that reason, I would not at present favour inviting her over, a public meeting with this theme liable to come into it could backfire rather badly.

In the meantime, permit me to favour the following empirical approach. I differ from AJ in not believing that what JW is discovering needs an explanation or a theory. Yes it is weird. In fact I can more or less guarantee that the following will be the strangest thing you have ever heard. I’m going to roughly suggest three categories of issues to study and mull over.

1. We recognise maybe as many as 1400 cars in blocks around Ground Zero that got ‘toasted,’ i.e. suffered from spontaneous combustion – with especially their electrical parts burning up - preferably with a map of their distribution; we evaluate the JW claim that most of these had the white dust emanating from the ‘igniting’ Towers roll over them. Did something in the dust clouds tend to frazzle them? Loads of paper is blowing around Ground Zero, and did that somehow not ignite?

2. The process of material disintegration which palpably happened to the Towers: here we come to the crux of JW’s hypothesis/insight. This is a woman’s view, remember. Has she made the key insight? Loads of people must have samples of that dust, and according to JW it contains steel particles as well as concrete. That is a testable proposition. The steel framework did not remain. All the times we watched the pictures of the Towers burning, we saw the huge steel girders (looking so tiny on the huge scale) flying outwards, and maybe assumed they crashed down all around? Well maybe they didn’t, if they too ‘dustified’ – a dire new verb from JW we may have to get used too! JW shows pictures of Ground Zero on the afternoon of 9/11, and it did not show loads of twisted steel that needed to be shipped off to China. Where could it all have gone?

3. The pools of molten steel that lasted for a hundred days at Ground Zero, which had to be continually sprayed with water – that was always so credulity-straining! Frankly it is quite a relief not to have to believe that story any more. What you have instead is a good deal weirder. That was an officially-generated cover-story, whereas in fact Ground Zero was all rather cool … but fumes of that white powdery dust kept arising, despite being continually watered and having earth shovelled on top of it! Her hypothesis is, that that process of the dust arising, which is still going on today, is a continuation of whatever it was that demolished the towers in the first place. For a start, this gives us the first clear explanation as to why photography at ground Zero was forbidden after 9/11: the Towers had not, in fact, collapsed. There were not thousands of bodies in the wreckage, they were not there as they should have been: where had they gone? Let’s mull over whether to believe these things, without reaching for a half-baked or improbable-sounding explanation. JW has said, concerning ‘dustification,’ that this may be something happening at a molecular level, and let’s just leave it at that for God’s sake.

That’s enough! Cast your memory back to Roderiguez’ account of how he emerged from the North Tower and looked up to see it collapsing, and dived under a van and survived… was that a miracle? Here is a similar story from someone who was there:

[chek]

The curious thing about Ms Wood is her assertion that the steel 'disappeared' into dust, when it is plainly obvious that it was almost everything else that did so.

The myth of the 'missing steel' was cursorily examined in this thread
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13077
and, at least in my opinion, is the product of a highly selective choice of photos from the edge of the debris field - like the footbridge one.

Ground Zero was called 'the pile' for a very good reason. There was a mountain of steel debris there.

[outsider]

I'm no engineer, but from the pictures and videos I've seen and books I've read, I believe that the 'TV' footage we all saw was fake, and that although something may well have hit the Towers, it wasn't the 'planes' we were shown. I further believe it is disingenuous to make the simile with a bird flying into an aircraft engine; those turbine blades are travelling at tremendous speed (far more than a mere 500 mph) and are thin and finely balanced, unlike the girders surrounding the Twins. From the slowed-down 'TV footage' in various DVD's, including Jimmy Walter's 'Confronting the Evidence', it's clear to me the 'plane' melts into the building (just like the simulated Boeing in 'Loose Change 2').
Wouldn't it be nice if the Naudet Bros. kindly allowed us to have a copy of their 'original film footage'? But of course, like the Pentagon strike, and the airport videos, and the gas station and hotel videos, and the 7/7 tube videos, we can't get to see them. I wonder why? I'm sure it's all to do with National Security (Lol). Another way of settling the question would be to slam an old Boeing into a girder-surrounded skyscraper (not as stupid or expensive as it might at first seem; Venezuela could afford it, and it would be worth it's weight in plutonium in discrediting the Bushco NWO, and making it less likely the US would attack Venezuela).
Re Judy Wood, I cannot understand how we are getting in this mess; controlled demolition with thermate and explosives can create all the phnomena of the Towers collapsing, and giant steel beam (or perhaps I should say girder!!) structures weighing up to 300 tons being thrown 390 ft. and embedding themselves into other buildings; we don't need to go for 'weird and wonderful' explanations (perhaps 'explanations' is too strong a word - http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-558096240694803017 ). From what I have seen and read, and my intuition, I plump for Steven Jones, controlled demolition with high explosives and thermite, and fake film footage of the 'planes'.
I know that there are honest 'Truthers' out there who believe in Judy and her beams, and in 100% pucka real-time film of real Boeings; we are a broad church, but I really believe beams will do us no good whatsoever. That's my opinion.

[TonyGosling]

I'm still looking for the solid evidence and much more consensus before running with this. What's the point when we already have so much firm evidence for explosives.

I looked back to see Judy Wood's performance under questioning but didn't find this very convincing.

Link

[alwun]

Calum

have a have a careful read of this excerpt from here

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/printerfriendly.php?storyid=5538

in particular this section where a simple measurement of the plane should put paid to your nonsense. I cannot allow your superior attitude to flourish in the manner you are adopting.

calum likes to say

[chek]

[alwun]

see on apologies

[alwun]

color went - sorry

[alwun]

1 too many

[alwun]

There are some who are 'not sure' about the planes.

this might help

This again from

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/printerfriendly.php?storyid=5538

With respect to the south tower, it was amazing that the 9/11 maestros reproduced their wide-body magic within 16 ½ minutes in the same city block. If anything, more of the vaunted 767 should have been visible in the south tower because it was only 37 feet to the core, barely more than a 1st down and 10. UA 175 supposedly hit the south tower at 543 mph or higher, although air resistance makes this is a suspect speed for a 767 at sea level in the absence of a dive. The NIST report (pdf p. 92) asserts a nearly flat approach with a descent angle of only 6 degrees below horizontal. UA 175 allegedly sliced through a hole two-thirds the wingspan of a 767, dumped abundant fuel in a spectacular fireball out the east side, and kept wings and tail section intact, disappearing completely inside the tower. After silent entry into the tower, UA 175’s remaining kinetic energy dissipated within a quarter second and proved insufficient to penetrate the east or north wall. A crashing jetliner would decelerate because of the resistance of the steel wall, six steel/concrete floors and the dense core within 37 feet of the south tower wall, impacted within .05 seconds. No deceleration and no visible plane wreckage means we have situation in progress because these alleged facts are physically impossible. A jetliner cannot be invincible and then flimsy the next instant.

A minor eyebrow-raiser was the 38-degree banking angle implied by the south tower hole. Such a banking angle ordinarily would imply a left-hand turn north in the last few seconds but it would take a skilled pilot at the controls of a cumbersome jetliner, to say the least, to hit the 207’ span at the alleged 543 mph.

The basic problem with any alleged trajectory, oblique or otherwise, remains how such a long and wide jetliner could vanish without decelerating in such limited floor space with nary a trace. With a fuselage 155 feet long, an intact 767 would have been visible out the south tower hole, the east side or both. The fuselage could not neatly fold up, accordion style, to conceal itself after demonstrating strength enough to silently rip through the south wall, six steel/concrete floors and penetrate so far into the core to vanish. In sum,

There is no convincing physics for how two wide-body aluminum jetliners flying at high speed could penetrate steel walls, floors and core via undersized gashes, exhibit no deceleration in videos, decelerate to zero within a quarter second, and conceal themselves entirely within each tower.

What about the plane parts government found? Engines and landing gear could have flown out of either tower, although we seem to lack solid eyewitness testimony and video evidence of major parts flying out. Spencer suspects that a canister was propelled from the NE corner of the South Tower with "debris" to support the passenger plane hoax. Some photos and videos show unidentified objects shooting out, for example, p. 39 in Hufschmid’s Painful Questions. The FBI and FEMA—a black ops agency with virtually no investigative expertise then headed by Bush campaign manager and family loyalist Joe Allbaugh—displayed a few parts during their felonious mission to destroy crime-scene evidence. None of the parts are consistent with 767 crashes (substantial sections of unburned fuselage, a 737 engine part, a piece of unburned landing gear) nor have they been independently verified and matched by serial number against the maintenance logs of the specified aircraft.

and so on..

cheers Al

[chek]

Going into repeat mode with one fallacy after another doesn't make any of it believable in the slightest.

Generally speaking, engineering doesn't respond well to rhetoric.

[outsider]

Another point I forgot - I have seen at least two pictures of other air crashes into buildings, and both had black burn-marks from the fuel down most of the otherwise undamaged floors below the strike. I have seen NO MARKS WHATSOEVER on pics of the Twins; odd, isn't it, with so much fuel supposedly onboard the 'planes'?

[chek]

[Keith Mothersson]

This is what i replied and then that person suggested I post it:

If you go to her website www.drjudywood.com you will see

a) tightly argued challenge to NIST - Request for Correction procedure

b ) very clear Billiard Ball example about speed of 'collapse'/destruction

c) many startling photographs, hundreds of them, which suggest something very weird happened, which existing paradigms of controlled demolition , with or without thermite, cannot begin to explain; unlike all previous researchers (Hoffman, Jones) she has a big background in materials science and materials engineering as well as physics and mechanical and civil engineering.

She believes the WHAT should come before who, why or even how, and is in a position to notice how the material remains look and behaved. (She has also exposed Jones in using manipulated photos on more than one occasion)

d) a hypothesis (which is how science advances by successive approximating hypotheses) concerning Hutchison effect directed energy modulation technology having been picked up by part of the huge and secretive Star Wars programme, developed, and trialed successfully on that day.

e) no one eles has spotted the significance of the non-self-quenching nature of this event - still transmitting 'infection' of molecular dissociation/weird rusting effects to new steel pillars brought in to repair the Bankers trust building, which now is being pulled down as a hopeless case. Huge trucks bringing topsoil into and out of Ground Zero. Like the handwashing of Lady MacBeth - it may not be proof, but a pretty good clue, which has great campaging potential if people take the time to observe her website with an open mind.

f) This may not be proof either, but the fact that her research student and her mentor/acquaintances at Virginian Tech have been killed in two separate instances, along with the death of Mallove (who exposed Jones over Cold Fusion suppression) and of the cameraman from one of the helicopters shortly after Ace Baker started asking for further info about the 'live shooting' that morning - suggests that the PTB could be keen to discourage development beyond the present Jones-Griffin plateau, (though I am hopeful Griffin will yet rejoin the ascent, which will first involve climbing down from a few assumptions, reconsidering the Mineta testimony, etc).

g) The quest for TRUTH, remember, XXXX .... we aren't a party, nor a campaign for the disseminationof a party line, nor primarily a campaign for an international Inquiry.

h) What standard of proof are we applying to other articles on the site? Are you sure our fears about being sneered at and ostrcised by the sub-set ot the population we have set your sights on convincing aren't getting in the way of assessing new evidence with an open mind?

i) ONE HOUR minimum on her site, pleeeease.

All the best, Keith

[TonyGosling]

I quite agree with the 'quest for truth' mission but until there is a genuine consensus in the UK 9/11 Truth Campaign about this exotic weaponry idea, comparable to the other major pillars of the campaign such as controlled demolition at the WTC, exercises and stand-downs on 9/11 and impossible plane turns at the Pentagon etc. it's going to remain on the back burner. Reason, nobody wants to fall into the Straw Man trap.

This stuff has to be peer reviewed and your peers here such as Snowygrouch demolish the Judy Wood stories with apparrent ease.

Sometimes these ideas can break through virally upon the release of a well put together video. It would help immensely if you could find one that does justice to Judy's claims. That might help your cause.

[Keith Mothersson]

Dear Tony,
You have just confirmed to me that, alas, you do seem to have a tenacious but doubtless unconscious double standard:

Please just look at the stuff you still think is non-controversial - "other major pillars of the campaign such as
* "controlled demolition at the WTC " - I'll give you this one: though Wood doesn't disagree that buildings 1,2 and 7 WERE destroyed as an inside job, and within freefall speed, though not quite so very controlled it turns out (due to non-self-quenching reaction);

* "exercises and stand-downs on 9/11" : NO GENUINE CONSENSUS ON THIS ONE, Tony! What counts as an INTERNAL critique of the official story is all very well for pleading for Mr Meacher and co to give us an enquiry - while the rich world world goes to sleep, and the poor world goes to Hell in a hand-basket; But it takes us not one jot closer to discovering what really did happen. If you think Cheney arranged a 'stand-down' order so that real aircraft could fly around, presumably you DO think that real planes - 'the planes' - were flying into the Pentagon and nose diving into a field at Shanksville? ... Strikes me as a highly CONTROVERSIAL theory, entirely dependent on info leaked by the Intel agencies, often in dribs and drabs with contradictions to draw us further into their reserve web of lies .... and which we follow without ever making clear to people that actually this is just an IMMANENT critique for those who are minded to believe the official story. But if they LIE about the seconds-long destruction of the towers and WTC7, then why should we believe a word these imperialist fascist agencies tell us?

* "and impossible plane turns at the Pentagon etc" - Yes, everyone in our movement knows that is rubbish, but everything depends on how that is deployed by us. Everyone shies away from first principles and Ockham's razor - why the **** should we believe in ANY of these planes?, let alone any of these hi-jacker bogey-tales. But regularly I come across in the 'Non-Controversial' main sections all sorts of LIHOP assumptions and assumptions that the CIA and FBI good guys could have stopped the hijackers if allowed to, etc. All that is pukkha, cos people can get books published if they sing from those LIMITED HANGOUT songsheets, whereas you regularly discriminate against someone who says: Look, there is LOTS of weird phenomena at the WTC which we need to look at, and maybe it has been procured under the Star wars secret programme, and maybe using some energy modulation techniques as per Hutchison technology.

You cite Snowy Grouch being able to despatch Wood with ease??!! Snowy Grouch has not demolished one plank of Judy's work. He talks a lot about qualifications, yet he has many fewer qualifications than Wood has.

[John White]

[alwun]

there's one in every crowd - so I remain on topic by pasting the following intro-

How to Recognize an OP (Operative)

If the "truth movement" is infiltrated, what would it look like? Would an OP show up wearing a name tag that says, "Hi, my name is Fred, and I'm an OP"?

Ask the following questions:

1) Does this person encourage me to think my own thoughts or do they pressure me to accept their thoughts as "my opinion"?

2) Does this person support and encourage me to continue working independently or do they try to impede my research (or outreach) efforts?

3) Does this person spend more time on their own research interests or more time focused on attacking other researchers?

Attacking by undermining

Preaching to others that "Person X" is speaking "nonsense" and should be disregarded, e.g. don't check facts, and just "trust me" that this person is "disinfo."


cheers Al..

[Dallas]

[Dallas]