my questions on beam weapons/judy woods.

[marky 54]

im just after straight answers and cannot be doing with hes dissing my theory type of attitude.

im keeping an open mind on weapon type because i have seen no proof it was beams involved so far.

my first point from the judy wood interview event times and seismic readings.

judy wood compares the rubble pile of WTC7 to the towers but dosnt compare seismic readings of WTC7, i wonder why? lets find out here are the readings:

http://www.firehouse.com/tech/news/2002/0121_terrorist.html

after clicking the link scroll down for readings.

south tower 10 seconds event duration, seismic reading 2.1

north tower 8 second event duration seismic reading 2.3

WTC7(remember lots of rubble) 18 second event duration seismic reading 0.6

question: does anybody have differant readings to me here?

the following im going to be mentioning is from the judy woods talk originally linked by andrew johnson in the "prof judy wood discusses wtc evidence and what happened" thread in this same section.

she compares the kingdome to the wtc's and here is how:

she does not compare actual seismic readings of the dome to wtc 1 or 2, instead she uses actual seismic readings of an earthquake that measured as a 2.4 . she then compares the event duration of an earthquake to wtc 1 and 2.

these comparsions are wrong, a earthquake duration is dependant on the rubbing of the earths crust or underground pressure, where as the event duration of a collapse can only last as long as gravity will allow it to and all debris come to a hault. they may of both measured the same(earthquake 2.4 north tower 2.3) but the duration of an earthquake relys on totally differant forces.

now although she uses the kingdome as an example i have no idea why she was comparing the kingdome. for a start she didnt actually compare it, she just appeared to compare it. she gave no actual siesmic readings from this event, instead all she did was use it to work out how much dynamite may of been used in the wtc 1 or 2. then using here calculation of dynamite used gave a calculation on what the seismic readings would be for the kingdome and wtc's, no where does she show how she worked out the said amount of dynamite could cause the said seismic readings. and at times during this example it sounds like shes doing the calculation of the top of her head. again this is a bad comparsion not even based on an accurate seismic reading from the kingdome which was hollow and round a totally differant shape.

why not compare to wtc7?

she also claims no significant mass hit the floor at WTC1 and WTC2and there was dustifaction and steel evapourated, both had seismic readings of 2.3 and 2.1 .

at the WTC7 building she claims the rubble pile was 5-6 floors high causing only a 0.6 on the seismic reading.

so if no mass hit the floor and all that she is claiming is correct that only leaves the weapon to cause the seismic readings of 2.3 and 2.1 . can beams cause an earthquake of 2.3 alone? WTC7 only caused a 0.6 and look at the amount of rubble left over.

so i suggest that either a very large volume of debris did hit the floor at WTC1 and WTC2 or it was a weapon with enough explosive power to cause a 2.3 earthquake reading alone. how does this add up to beams?

if beams cannot cause a 2.3 reading then this theory is flawed.

[Andrew Johnson]

Mark,

I am not sure why you are repeating this post. I partly answered it here, and have asked Judy on your behalf.

See here:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=53027#53027

If Judy is able to send a response, I will certainly pass it on. On the page you linked, it shows collapse times of 8 and 10 seconds for 1 & 2 yet 18 seconds for WTC 7. Do you know why there is this disparity? (This is a serious question, because I didn't work through the whole page due to lack of time).

[marky 54]

[Fallious]

[marky 54]

just giveing my postion on event duration times for each event.

8 second and 10 second event duration for 110 storys to fall/explode whatever.

where as a building less than half the size(47 storys) falls straight down from bottom up looking incredibly more like a CD than the towers did and an event duration of 18 seconds. double the time or almost double the time of both towers and it was half the size.

i dont know if the same method top down would play a part in the event duration seismic reading being a lesser time throughout the whole event, because the top was considrably ferther away from the ground untill the destruction got closer to the ground to be picked up resulting in a lesser time event duration picked up, where as WTC7 was bottom up so the event started from the base picking up the whole event from start to finish.

if anyone has thoughts on these points please let me know, as im not sure if that could be a factor in event duration times being so differant.

depending on the point above(paragraph not post) it leads me to think that differant methods of destruction were involved in both cases(towers/WTC7). however the towers being destroyed top down has to be looked at as a factor of research in why the event times were so differant as oppse to bottom up of wtc7.

[marky 54]

fallious said:
Personally, I understand that the majority of the debris did not fall onto the bedrock, it first hit the roof of the bathtub, thus drastically reducing its energy and so transferring very little 'impact' to the ground. This accounts for the length of the vibration and I would suspect represents about the strength you'd expect to see. Clearly there are vast quantities of debris landing all around ground zero, but the majority of it did not penetrate the bathtub roof to impact the bedrock. end:


sorry only just noticed this point, and agree this could indeed had a major factor in event duration lenght only being 10seconds and 8 seconds for each tower. maybe with the top down approach adding to the fact it was a shorter event being able to be picked up from the ground level, all though im not sure if the top down approach would effect the duration as oppose to bottom up. however if beams or someother exotic weapon was used this needs to be looked at as factors to event duration of siesmic readings.

[marky 54]

just to point out that if judy wood is correct about dustifaction ect and no significant mass hit the ground my overall point is she is either wrong about the amount of debris hitting the floor or the 2.3 seismic reading could be a pointer to weapon/method used.

i am not saying she dosnt have a point about a few things or she is totally wrong, but things aint adding up and some methods of comparsion dont make sense or of course i am wrong about all the above points which could be very possible as i am no scientist.

[Bonko]

Take a look at this pathetic interview with "Dr." Judy Wood..... She really does
have a lot of explaining to do, calling herself a scientist of any sort.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

This is a high level campaign to discredit those with ligitimate questions
concerning 9-11..... It's the crime of the century, with the cover-up of the
the century to boot, only thing is....the cover-up job is the truth movement itself !!!!


Check here for more...
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6997

[CB_Brooklyn]

Yes, it is a high level campaign to distract people from learning what really happened on 9/11.

It's a campaign to distract people from learning what Judy Wood knows.

It's a campaign run by people such as former NSA fund-receiver Greg Jenkins to discredit the real researchers.



Judy Wood hadn't slept for 48 hours and had driven 6 hours to be in attendance at the National Press Club. She was NOT expecting to be interviewed. It was an ambush interview.

[marky 54]

[Bonko]

[marky 54]

[Bonko]

[marky 54]

[sweetheart]

.. explain it better. A beam weapon worked in 360, why would it not just
be a spherical beam weapon, an xray deuterium/tritium blast:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0510/0510071.pdf
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm

I actually believe that the perpetrators, from their pentagon and shadow
government (cheney) secret bunkers, planned for the public to see the
mushroom clouds, like the ones that everyone saw but did not think they
saw. And they were on-deck with the WMD thesis for a middle east
invasion 'suitcase nukes'. But in the aftermath, it became unnecessary
to use it.

[Andrew Johnson]

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

to tell you the truth im starting to think i am meant to just believe anything im told and people get angered if you ask questions.

the whole NPT/beams thing has been a stress for both sides of the arguement, one side fully believes it and gets angered if its questioned or opposed, and the otherside cannot see the basis and question it and get angered when they are ignored because they want to beable to see the reasons for it.

it is important to do it properly regardless of who's right and not get caught up in the above mentioned, so thank you for taking the time to inform or ask judy wood. however i dont want to fall out with anyone whilst doing this the how is not the most important thing for the movement its only important for me to understand or come to the same conclusion or not.

[Batrabill]

I'm sorry, I was day dreaming.

Did you say beams?

[marky 54]

[Batrabill]

Sorry I was day dreaming, did you say banned?

It is quite sad isn't it? How people's anxiety leads them to coalesce together. before long you have a movement and a movement need rules.
Then some people break the rules and they must be punished.

And... oh look, we've become what we were against.

[sweetheart]

What i saw, between the words, was a young gun male mistaking the
open and pleasant demeanor of a teaching professor for ignorance.

The towers were turned to 'dust', painted over square miles in significant
depths to count as rubble... heck, 5 inches of solid was a WTC floor, 5 inches
of WTC dust surely is a WTC floor elsewhere just at less density.

She made an interesting point about 'the snow ball', considering it as an
equation of density. When he started with the 'do you not see any falling
bits' line of questioning, he became demeaning, rude and showed rather
than his interviewee unprepared (which she was at worst), but himself to
be tremendously unable to extend goodwill and have a discussion.

She calls this 'games', and in my lifetime, i've seen men do similar sorts of
games to undermine women and question their credentials, when the same
sorts of meanness are not extended towards men.

Perhaps a more emotionally mature interviewer might have a very intelligent
exploration with Dr. Woods. This guy was afraid of sex (discussion).

[John White]

[Bonko]

[John White]

LOL! Break for News!

Well that makes sense

I'll just go over there and do "Finton Dunne is a paid CIA agent becuase he looks like one" thread and see how that does shall I?

[Bonko]

[John White]

If you thought that was an accusation you definately havnt got your head on straight!

I'm just mimicking what Finton does

This forum is the way it is Bonko: your welcome to come here and vent your belief it should be different if you wish (to a point), but it isnt going to change things: I'd put your energy elsewhere if I were you, or get on with something productive

After all, I co-run a free speech forum that knocks Break for News's socks off with it's range of conversation: but that is there: facilitating that is not what's needed here, but real moderation between combative posters