Judy Wood Ph.D, Materials Science, 9/11, & Energy Weapon

[Daniel Elliott]

Thanks Abe. Great work on the Youtube content.

Nice to see you back on the forum.

[PookztA]

no problem at all, just sharing info Thanks for the comments folks!

Happy Saturday night to ya,

-Abe

[PookztA]

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence

Dear Reader,

The extraordinary claim that explosives and/or jet fuel are what destroyed the towers on 9/11 is scientifically inaccurate. It is comparable to charging a murder suspect for 'stabbing the victim with a knife', despite the fact that numerous bullet casings had been found at the crime scene and the murder victim actually had multiple gunshot wounds. There is a thing called Double Jeopardy in our legal system, so we only get one shot at charging the true suspects, and thus, we better figure out exactly how they did it before we charge them. We can do this by analyzing the physical evidence from 9/11.


To this day, the only researcher who has put forth a scientific conclusion which explains all the physical evidence, is Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D (Materials Science Engineering). If anyone can explain the physical evidence better than Dr. Judy Wood has, please let me know, for I am more than willing to consider an alternative scientific explanation if it can successfully account for all the evidence.


In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the corporations NIST had contracted to conduct the 9/11 "investigations", many of which are military / defense / weapons organizations involved in Directed Energy research (huge conflict-of-interest). The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act, and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. One of her legal cases made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 2009. John Hutchison has filed an affidavit in Dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between The Hutchison Effect and the 9/11 attacks. Surprisingly, Dr. Judy Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth. She has been actively pursuing 9/11 Truth with her lawyer, despite the lack of support she has received from Dr. Steven Jones and other members of the 9/11 Truth community. The legal documents from her court cases can be viewed at the following links:

1. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html
2. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml



The following information is a small fraction of the important physical evidence which must be explained. Dr. Judy Wood has literally gathered thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents in her analysis (with virtually every source provided), so this is just a tiny sample of the data shared on her website (www.drjudywood.com):


The USGS discovered that the WTC dust which blanketed NYC contained a significant quantity of these unique nano-sized iron-rich microspheres. What could have caused these unique iron-rich microspheres to form? What can transform steel buildings into nano-scale, iron-rich, microspheric dust? (Steel is mainly iron and carbon) Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc


Based on what we know from previous building collapses and controlled demolitions, the rubble pile of each WTC Twin Tower should have been at least 12% (13 stories) of the building's original height (110 stories), yet the actual rubble pile that resulted was less than 3 stories tall. What could have caused this? The following video explains this fact more clearly:


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



The WTC buildings were transformed to dust so fine that a large portion of it floated high up into our atmosphere (if you look closely, you can also see the small black plume of smoke rising from the debris). What could transform a steel building into dust this fine, while warping and burning aluminum, yet leaving paper and plastic virtually unharmed? Why did the dust stay in a column until it reached a certain point in our atmosphere at which it finally began diffusing?

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



Why was there only one metal file cabinet found in the rubble of the WTC towers? Why were metal door knobs virtually non-existent in the debris pile as well? Only one metal file cabinet of thousands survived the 'collapse' of two of the largest office buildings in the world? Why did the metal of this single surviving file cabinet show severe distortion/warping that is characteristic of the metal distortion/warping seen in The Hutchison Effect experiments? Why were there pieces of paper fused to the metal inside this remaining file cabinet, yet the paper was unburnt? Furthermore, why were numerous intact plastic ID cards found in the rubble? How did numerous plastic ID cards survive the 'collapses', yet thousands of metal file cabinets and door knobs did not? The following video explains these facts more clearly:


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



Why were there statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 University of Alaska magnetometer stations detecting normal readings for days before 9/11, when there was suddenly a huge electromagnetic disturbance in the Earth's magnetosphere precisely as the attacks occurred? What could have caused this? (You may have to scroll to the right to see the peaks) Source: http://magnet.gi.alaska.edu/table_index/2001_table.html

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



Below, I have listed some other important pieces of evidence which must be explained. This list is just a small fraction of the thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents which Dr. Judy Wood has gathered, which most certainly are not explained by jetfuel and/or explosives of any kind. Please consider the following evidence-based questions:



• How come most of the Twin Towers’ steel and concrete was transformed into a fine dust, while large quantities of aluminum exhibited strange electrical warping and burns, yet paper was unharmed? Extreme heat from jet fuel (or explosives) does not selectively damage certain materials, so how come some materials turned to dust, while other materials were bent or burnt, and yet other materials were completely unharmed?

• Why was Hurricane Erin travelling straight for NYC from September 7th-11th 2001, yet it was not reported on by local media broadcasts in that area in the days leading up to 9/11? When local news channels displayed schematic maps of the northeast coastline, why was Hurricane Erin not shown? Hurricane Erin was slightly larger than Hurricane Katrina, and hurricanes rarely head straight for NYC, so why wasn’t it reported on and/or shown by local media outlets? Hurricane Erin reached its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th. After the 9/11 attacks, Erin made a sudden ~150° turn away from its straight-line path and headed back out to sea.

• Why were there statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 University of Alaska magnetometer stations detecting normal readings for many days before 9/11, when suddenly, there was a huge electromagnetic disturbance in the Earth's magnetosphere precisely as the attacks occurred?

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

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

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

• How were the Twin Towers turned to dust so fine, that the dust floated high up into our atmosphere. The satellite photos show a clear distinction between the black smoke and the whitish-grey dust, so what turned such a large portion of these buildings to dust so fine that it floated high into our atmosphere?



Lobby for quick frame of reference; note the distinct columns around the lobby's perimeter, these are roughly 3 stories tall


Where did the building go? Seconds earlier, there was one of the world's largest office buildings standing here (notice the ambulance which was parked on the street; also note the distinct columns from the WTC lobby). What caused this? (You may have to scroll to the right to see the rest of the image)

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



• How come 1,400+ vehicles located several blocks away (some up to ¼ a mile away) from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? If you think the building debris caused these things, then how come that same debris did not burn the clothing or skin of the nearby pedestrians it covered?

• How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side, next to trees which still had all of their leaves on them?

• How come several steel beams were observed to be bent and/or shriveled up in very unusual ways, ways which have only been observed during The Hutchison Effect experiments?

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

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

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

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



How is this steel turning to dust in midair? The smaller pieces in the air are aluminum cladding from the exterior of the building, but the large slabs/grids turning to dust towards the bottom of the image are steel. What can transform steel to fine dust in mid air?

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



• How come spontaneous rusting of materials occurred all around ground zero? In some instances, entire front-halves of cars were rusted, while the back-halves appeared to be virtually untouched?

• How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?

• How come circular holes were observed in the windows of virtually all the buildings near ground zero, when holes like these are known only to be caused by longitudinal waves of energy? If building debris smashed the windows, they would have shattered in a predictable way, so how come these countless windows did not shatter, but instead, developed circular holes characteristic of the effect of longitudinal waves of energy on glass?

• How was the ‘bathtub’, the area directly beneath the Twin Towers, left virtually unharmed? How could thousands of tons of falling building debris not damage the ‘bathtub’ beneath the WTC buildings?

• How was the ‘Looney Toons’ gift shop in the basement of the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed, so dramatically that the ‘Bugs Bunny’ statue and other statues were not even scratched or dented? How could these figurines survive thousands of tons of falling building debris?

• How was the PATH Train beneath the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t falling building debris have crushed that train, or at the very least, knocked it off the tracks?

• How could thousands of tons of rapidly falling steel and concrete building debris leave the ‘Bath Tub’, the basement gift shops, and the PATH train, virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete cause significant damage to at least one of these?



How is this steel turning to dust in midair? The smaller pieces in the air are aluminum cladding from the exterior of the building, but the large slab being turned to dust towards the bottom of the image is steel.

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



• How come Dr. Wood has already filed evidence-based legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies based on their conflict-of-interest relationship with N.I.S.T., yet other 9/11 “truth” researchers have not? How come Dr. Steven Jones has not officially filed his scientific ‘peer-reviewed’ nano-thermite evidence with Congress or the U.S. Courts?

• Why are groups like AE911Truth and PilotsFor911Truth just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which was successfully appealed to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009?

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

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



Where did the building go? Seconds earlier, there was one of the world's largest office buildings standing here (notice the traffic light which marks street level). What caused this?

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



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

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

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

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


click here for giant image
http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/hpics/010911_1867.jpeg
Why was Hurricane Erin travelling straight for NYC from September 7th-11th 2001, yet it was not reported on by local media broadcasts in that area in the days leading up to 9/11? When local news channels displayed schematic maps of the northeast coastline, why was Hurricane Erin not shown? Hurricane Erin was slightly larger than Hurricane Katrina, and hurricanes rarely head straight for NYC, so why wasn’t it reported on and/or shown by local media outlets? Hurricane Erin reached its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, just before it did a ~150° turn away from its straight-line trajectory later that day and headed back out to sea. You can view a compilation of news clips and weather reports from the morning of 9/11, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xWjdYnpxUg

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



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



'Dustification' of the remaining steel columns. What could have done this? See a CNN video clip of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4

Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all which must be explained: http://drjudywood.com/wtc



As a scientist and medical student, I must rely on verifiable evidence to formulate my opinions. For this reason, I cannot accept the claim that jetfuel and/or explosives are what caused the overwhelming amount of anomalous damage on 9/11, because the evidence does not support those claims. Explosives and/or jetfuel do not explain the physical evidence, but Dr. Judy Wood does, and that is why I support her. She is fighting for all of us.

click to see pic
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc1blowupconcretefull.j pg

My intellectual integrity prevents me from calling this a collapse. This is why I have chosen to stand up. My conscience leaves me no other choice. -Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D


Please feel free to copy this post and paste it elsewhere if you feel it is important.


Thanks for your time,



-Abe



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


click here for giant image
http://www.caresearch.com.au/Caresearch/Portals/0/Nurses%20Hub/Evidenc e%20Based%20Practice.jpg
Be skeptical, but don't close your mind.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

The problem pookzta is that you have failed to notice yet again that all of the questions you have asked yet again in your post have been critically dissected many many times here on this forum,

No debris at ground zero

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=18217

Hurricane Erin

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=18218

The spire turning to dust

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/disinfo.html

(go to that link, scroll down to "The "Spire" Did Not Turn To Dust" and play the second link, it clearly just falls over, showing the spire in still shots is a deception)

On and on it goes.

Simply reposting it all again every six months without re-examination and critical dissection would seem pretty pointless.

[PookztA]

GodSaveTheTeam,

Despite the fact that you ignored 90-95% of the easily verifiable physical evidence in the list I have compiled, I decided to view your first link out of curiosity. Upon doing so, I was met with the usual unscientific inaccuracies and falsehoods, which attempt to deny the simple fact that the WTC rubble piles were far smaller than they should have been based on what we know from past controlled demolitions and building collapses. This is one of the first facts I address in my above post, but I will now post it again for you since you must have missed it the first time:

[GodSaveTheTeam]

I'm tired of debating these points pookzta.

You say the debris piles were smaller than usual. But comparing the kingdome to the wtc towers is laughable. It's a completely different structure in both shape and construction. There isn't anything to compare it to that is remotely similar to the wtc.

There are masses of photos that show tons of steel at GZ.

Hurricane Erin was one of many hurricanes on and around 9/11.

The media did report that it had lost power the day before 9/11.

The spire doesn't turn to dust. It falls over.

Toasted cars is psuedo-scientific for burnt out cars.

Listen I dont really care if you want to keep ignoring these points. Keep spamming this stuff again and again if you must.

Just dont expect anyone to forget that it's all been discussed many times before.

[PookztA]

GodSave,

Considering that you have ignored 90-95% of the easily verifiable physical evidence I have shared, I don't plan on replying to you much longer. Ignoring evidence is unscientific, and certainly won't lead anyone to the truth.

As for your comments, the Kingdome was a stadium that was brought down via controlled demolition. Based on the controlled demolitions of the Kingdome and other buildings, we see that a rubble pile of roughly 12% is left after the demolition.

The WTC buildings should have also left a rubble pile of roughly 12%, which would have been 13.2 stories of the buildings original height (110 stories). As it turns out, the WTC rubble piles were less than 3 stories tall, which is simply mind-blowing. How you can be wrong about this simple, easily verifiable fact, is beyond me...

Feel free to continue pretending that there was not a lack of coarse rubble, but your opinion does not change the fact that the WTC rubble piles were much, much smaller than what was expected based on previous controlled demolitions. Similarly, your unscientific, inaccurate opinion does not change the fact that steel and marble were transformed to nanometer-scale, microspheric dust on 9/11, which is just one more point from an enormous list of easily verifiable physical evidence which explosives cannot account for.

Instead of promoting falsehoods and inaccuracies, why not promote facts and easily verifiable physical evidence? Why attempt to convince people by spreading rumors and inaccuracies, when you could present easily verifiable physical evidence and encourage people to make up their own minds about that evidence?

People are smarter than you might think...

Peace,

-Abe

[fish5133]

yawn. For any newbies following this thread it has already been covered several times before so i dont understand pooktza raising it again unless there is something new from the Dr Judy Wood stable.

[PookztA]

[scienceplease 2]

"Easily verifiable"?

There is no science that supports any of Judy Woods' assertions.

Cf Nanothermite: google "energetic nanomaterials" and immediately find scientific references.

[insidejob]

[Daniel Elliott]

Further to the post from Fish regarding new readers. You may well find it's worth looking at what Abe has posted. He's posted it and repeated it for a good reason.

[fish5133]

[scienceplease 2]

[PookztA]

Moderators: I see that the list of evidence I have shared is too "controversial" for the general section of your forum. How strange that you would move a post dedicated to evidence and truth to the "Controversial" section of your forum. It speaks loudly about what the agenda is here. *screenshot*

Daniel & Insidejob: Thank you for your comments and points. They are appreciated.

Science & Fish: Dr. Wood only discusses evidence, evidence that must be explained. The evidence is easily verifiable, because she provides virtually every source. This makes it very easy to verify the validity of the data, for example, by seeing that the photos of the nanometer-sized iron-rich microspheres were indeed taken by the USGS, and that the 6 Alaskan magnetometer readings were indeed acquired from the University of Alaska. This is indeed scientific, and claiming otherwise does not tell me or anyone how explosives can account for all this easily verifiable physical evidence. The more you give the excuse that "Dr. Wood's conclusions are not scientific", the more you show how much energy you are willing to put forth to attack the researcher instead of explain the evidence. I don't need to put forth much effort when replying to you both, other than pointing out what you are obviously doing, which is avoiding the evidence and attacking the researcher instead.

Either you can explain the evidence or you can't. Typically, when someone cannot explain the evidence, they attempt to redirect the focus onto denigrating those who can, as you both (Science & Fish) continue to do.

So, continue your attempts to denigrate Dr. Wood all you want. Your opinions and attacks don't make the evidence any less true; it merely illustrates that you are unable to tell me how explosives of any kind can account for all this easily verifiable evidence.

In Peace,

-Abe

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

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Pookzta,

It really is quite simple.

1)You think there was a severe lack of debris at GZ and Wood uses this picture to prove it.



No debris shock horror...

Whereas simply googling "WTC debris" gives one a selection of pictures such as these -

A


Debris piled high either side of tiny people

B
[/img]

Masses of debris being cleared away

C


Can you see the tiny man in all that debris?

Now you may say that there is not enough debris to account for all that building. But the point is there's a lot more debris in the pictures I chose than the one you chose.

Do you see the point?

Wood says there wasn't enough debris based on pictures, but I or any one else can also show pictures that will include lots and lots of debris.

Notice how there are cranes in the pictures I have used. This suggests that some of the debris may have already been cleared away.

2)You say Hurricane Erin is suspicious and should be looked into. It already has been.

If you think a hurricane in the hurricane hotspot known as the North Atlantic is suspicious then I really dont know what to say, apart from that Erin was one of many hurricanes and tropical storms on and around 9/11.

Here they are -




Pick any year from this link and see how many hurricanes are prevolent every single year in the hotspot known as the North Atlantic...

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/index.html

Then ask yourself again is Culbertson not mentioning Erin on 9/11 really that suspicious afterall? I dont really think it is.

The astronaut had hours and hours of space time under his belt. He would have been used to seeing hurricanes and storms all the time in the hotspot known as the North Atlantic.

He would also have been trained not to focus on or worry about them unless it was part of the space mission he was undertaking.

Was Expiditon 3 a weather monitoring expidition?

Besides, what did you expect him to say?

Wow, looking down from space at New York I'm deeply saddened...thousands maybe dead, geez that's awful...and I hate to tell you it may be a few thousand more because there's a whacking great hurricane heading your way, get in cars now maaan get the f**k outa town you're all gonna die"



Also the picture on Wood's website -



...is not nearly the same as the actual footage taken by Frank Culbertson himself...



Also the fact that Erin had lost speed and was reported to have done so is a fact before 9/11. Here's an article...



3)You think the WTC spire turned to dust. I dont think it did.

You use this still shot sequence to prove the spire turned to dust.



But notice how the top of the silo doesn't match up in terms of positioning.



Lining two of the stills of the silo up with each other gives us an interesting new take on this matter...



Notice now how much the spire has fallen. It falls over, pookzta.

Sorry.

We can see that the spire falls over clearly from this collection of stills from video of a different angle.






See how far it falls in relation to the spire behind the msnbc peackock?

Sorry pookzta. The spire falls over.

It appears to turn to dust from certain angles because as it falls it creates a dust cloud around it.

This will be the last time I engage with your arguments Pookzta.

I'm tired of going through this stuff over and over again.

I know you will not change your mind regarding your blind faith in Wood.

But please, as I said before, dont pretend that everyone here has ignored your so called evidence.

We haven't. But on the whole, you have largely ignored ours.

[d3x0r]

The first images with the water tower - I can't find those in video- I assume they are actually still shots and have a much higher original version? Or are they just croppings of other video?

The last set of images is taken from the worse side - where the column falls behind smoke; definatly arguable that the steel falls away leaving ... asbestos that's been knocked off?


Just a commentary on what the EPA agents found sampling the dust...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNRn3WnQFlk


This is a pretty good collage having the worse and best videos; really wish I could see the higher resolution master videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI


Re debris piles - I like the noaa images best; but the debris only goes up to the top of the arch... as far as I can tell - at ground level, those first arches were only up to about the 4th or 5th story....

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s781.htm
(first image ... shows where they used to be relative to a building...)
(the last image shows in the back-right a still standing corner relative to building (6?).

http://www.stagedterror.com/Pages/WTC6.htm


Buildings prepared for demolition they claim they go down to 12% of the height. 12% of 107 is 12.84; so if the basment was also entirely filled up, and not addnig them, that would still leavel 4.84 almost 5 stories of debris which should at least entirely cover the standing columns... (another view of remaining column amount that is not covered.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/cbs-report-on-911-ground-level-explosion-c aused-wtc-to-collapse.html.

But mind you - that doesn't account for marble facade, plasterboard, office furnature and computers/hardware/large storge cabinets that haven't been removed from the building.

I did find a place that claims they found 1(!) filing cabinet. Astounding for a place that surly should have had 10s of thousands.


Uhmm I isn't letting me attach things; so I had to include the links instead...


I concur that there seems to be a draft of some sort that makes hurricanes go north off the coast (probably why the coast is shaped as it is in the first place).

But I have strong reservations about the building's debris.

Huge piles of debris could be from cleared basement portions... the guy on the rubble pile; I'm so lost in seeing a mass of twisted beams and conduit, and preoccupied by the lack of bright colored objects like potted plants, furniture and drape cloth that really looks like that pile was already pre-sorted for the scrapyard.