Dustification nonsense - Demand for retraction from Woods

[andyb]

I've posted this on a few threads that keep slipping into the black hole. Judy Woods and others claim, with the help of a grainy gif image, that a spire of the towers turned to dust.

I recently watched 'Explosive Reality' and numerous different angles show this to be completely false. Will Woods retact this assertion beofre it is used as a straw man against the campaign? If not then I don't see any reason to trust any of her other assertions.

[Andrew Johnson]

Several points to consider here Mr B:

1) On whose authority do you make such a demand?
2) Are you making the same demands of all the other people who see the reality of the spire turning to dust in a few seconds?
3) I also state clearly this is what happened, do you wish me to retract such statements? If that is the case, I absolutely refuse - further I make a POLITE REQUEST that you present the grounds on which you make such a categorical statement.
4) Why do you feel the need to make such a demand?
5) Are you aware of the 3 independent sources showing this?

Again, you absolutely surprise me with your specific interest in this issue, as if it somehow affects what you want to do in the 9//11 truth area. It's weird man. i.e. What difference does it make?

[scubadiver]

How can steel turn into dust? I think this needs clarification!

[gruts]

[andyb]

Andrew,

I have many interests in many issues. The highest priority is getting a new investigation into 9/11. Presenting false information as truth is detrimental to this aim. All it takes is for someone to look at the shot from the different angles to work this out. Then cognitive dissonance(straw man syndrome) kicks in and stops people looking at the issues that are watertight.

On who's authority do i make this demand? Nobodies apart from myself and general common sense. I would ask you, perhaps demand is too strong a word, for which i apologise(late night posting after the pub should be avoided), to retract your statement abourt the spire turning to dust, as this is a false statement easily debunked by looking at a few different angles of the spire's collapse. False information will hurt all of us. I wasn't commenting on the rest of Wood's work, just this one area. It would make her work more credible if she retracted the statement, if she doesn't then I for one will question her desire for truth.

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

[John White]

[chek]

Agent Ensign Chekov reporting in.
I know you're not expecting the Spanish Inquisition Andrew, but I'd like to know three - no four - things:

Has Dr Ms Wood done any research, apart from the looking at photos and interpreting them? I've read (well 'looked at' would be more accurate) her papers and see no reference to any other research.

How do a few photos of the relatively unscathed Mall area and a PATH station suggest that they are representative of the rest of a 9 1/2 acre basement complex? It took weeks of clearance to access and drain the tanker sized freon tanks in the basement HVAC plant.

Why does Wood claim the steel was 'dustified' when it's obvious from photos that the steel remained and it was everything else that was blown to particles if not 'dustified'?

The phrases 'Some type of Phase Conjugation' and/or a 'Quantum Potential' are just a fancy if more erudite way of saying the fairies did it, aren't they?
PhC is if anything optical laser related (raising the problem of the reflectivity of steel requiring grossly excessive power) while QP I presume takes us into the even more implausible theory of black hole creation on demand and are actually deflective speculation multipliers rather than being in any way explanatory.

Furthermore... oh is that the time? Damn, my shifts over.
Ta ra for now.

[Stefan]

Andrew,
Have you watched the film - 9/11: Explosive Reality?

Download the highest quality version you can by torrent.

It shows the event in question from every angle and confirms what I have said all along - the core falls, it does not turn to dust.

Please, watch the film before making your mind up.

[andyb]

Andrew,

You haven't addressed the different angles. I the original footage that you posted, and is used to push this theory, could be the steel turning to dust due to the angle. This could not be ruled out due to the angle. Please watch Explosive Reality

Here's the first part, please watch it as it is harming your theory pushing this evidence as it can be too easily debunked.


Link

[zoomer]

Listen to me please. onmly about three weeks ago I kind of woke out of a dream, or nightmare.
The realization was that for some odd reason i had allowed myself to get well and truly bullshitted by the so-called 'truth' movement' --many hanging on every word of that slimy laughing gnome prof steve jones, and his thermat experiments. i CRINGE, literally cringe when i dig that i was taken in by that nonsense

NOW i know what he is up to. trying to fuk up real investigation about star wars in New York City on 9/11, and their use in Iraq etc.

Thjere is no doubt this is what happened.

Compare results of these weapons in Iraq with what happened in New York City.

All this piecemeal, bit by bit blasted fukin pseudoscience of pJones has got the ones taking it seriously as if in a religious cult!! It is dis-information. checkout what thet term means to refresh yourself. It is giving you so much percent of a possible truth. half a truth, which aint no truth

checkout his past ----who he's been in 'bed' with. and connect the dots

Just GET IT. Stop fighting against this people. Things are to fukin serious now. They ARE using these weapons right now, AND used them on their own people on 9/11! SEE IT!

[John White]

So how much might you cringe Zoomer if you come to realise you've just been taken in by a different load of nonsense?

The "problems" with Jones wouldnt be the problems identified by the same people who are pushing "beam weapons" and "dustification", would it? Just a thought...

[zoomer]

[John White]

[gruts]

[zoomer]

oh well, (rolls over in shock )--didn't expect this reaction!

Now I suppose I am expected to run my arse off presenting you with why you truthlings are so stuck in nonesense land its a sad joke.....right?

So. let me guess what? planes and thermite did that to those buildings??

What about the weird fireengine, the cars, the pulverization. I can see yous all sat at the feet of your giggling gnome-guru professor Jones-the-scientist..............oh maaaan

[ian neal]

Prof Jones and Dr Woods are not the only alternative explanations for the tower collapses. It is quite possible to support 911 truth and see no need to follow any guru. If 9/11 teaches us anything it is surely question everything and don't trust leaders.

Dividing opinion and campaigners in to truthlings and researchers serves no one but the PTB. Fermenting division and in fighting is their modus operandi within movements that challenge their power.

Surely as a movement we need to grow up. The tipping point will be reached when we have a critical mass of popular support. Internecine squabbles will only delay us reaching this tipping point. We need not unite around a single belief or explanation of what really happened. Instead we need only unite in our belief that the truth is being covered up and we have been lied to big time.

We can prove the 911 Commission is based on lie after lie, but I for one will not be referring to either thermite or dustification of spires in proving this.

When under immense pressure the PTB attempt to sell us a new version of the 'truth' we should all be alert to them trying to push a limited hangout. It is then that the hypotheses, questions and evidence put forward by Judy Woods or Prof Jones will need to be fully examined and tested.

[zoomer]

But as I now see it, the 9/11 truth movement has already been infiltrated, and it only seems to be 911 researchers who are seeing this and very much pointing it out!
Are you claiming that the 'truth' movement HASN'T been infiltrated?

You might say, eg 'YOU are the infiltrators cause you want to ruin the 'movement'' But it is already ruined if it is infiltrated

Obviously the perps would want to infiltrate the movement and use disinformation....................don't you think?

And also, what is science. As 'outsiders' have shown, one of the heroes of the truthers, PJones is constantly going on about the 'scientific method', YET he will not acknowledge all available evidence. Which is disinformation, isn't it. Pushing half truths. Channeling the people--who follow his theories--away from the rest of the evidence.

I am sure you know how serious all this is? We do not have time to sit around waiting for you lot to get it. The perps are using space war weaponry. Star wars.
9/11 was their fukin pivotal gateway. Everything was a gateway through that. Dont pretend they wouldn't use all their toys on that one!

[Stefan]

Yes, I see infiltration and dirty mind control.

I see vidoes with layered images and audio, bright flashing lights, slogans like "Plane Huggers hate America" "Plane Huggers Want Eurasia to win world war 4/5" "Arrest William Rodriguez and Loose Change" and evil clown faces super imposed over the loose change crew while ever changing and intrusive electronic music disorientates the viewer.

I see spurious claims about birds being UFOs, core columns which can be seen clearly to fall "turning to dust" and the whole of new york being created on computers, of faked evidence of explosives and molten metal to "throw people off the trail" and "why are these birds moving fasting than a plane" - a question based entirely on its auidence not understanding perspective.

I see an endless pouring of ever re-spawning abuse posters appearing at this site attacking everyone who does not believe all the above is genuine research.

I see it all coming from 911 Researchers.

Mind Control

Disinfo

Aggressive Divide and Conquer tactics

Discrediting arguments inserted anywhere it can be

Why is it you can't see this?

[Craig W]

[Craig W]

Regarding the "911 researchers", what I have seen of them is pretty shoddy. I find the tone and content of their "research" alarmingly dogmatic and their points poorly argued. Attempts at meaningful debate have been hampered by an apparent unwillingness to cooperate with anyone not fully convinced of their rightness from the outset.

None of this precludes absolutely the possibility of their theories being correct but it hardly inspires confidence.

[John White]

[rodin]

[rodin]

[zoomer]

"Maybe you could explain why you feel the need to reach for exotic scenarios when a straightfoward one will do nicely?"

Because it doesn't. But you apparently can't see this. I can.

[John White]

[ian neal]

[marky 54]

[Stefan]

It is perfect "divide and conquer" infiltration tactics to try and manipulate a group into two opposing camps with recognisable leaders - in this case Wood and Jones.

Don't get suckered in. Keep your eyes peeled for signs of people who clearly have the intention of cementing a fictional divide rather than presenting evidence (i.e. videos whose message is “Plane Huggers hate America” or super impose evil clown faces on fellow truthers might give you a hint).

I personally think there is no need for laymen to be concerned about exactly how the buildings were destroyed, it is child’s play to demonstrate that they can't have fallen like that through fire and damage alone, try and explain exactly why they did fall and the possibilities are infinite and we all get lost in mine fields of minutiae.

My position is what Jones is saying is basically harmless to the movement in terms of credibility while Wood’s work is the opposite.

And the fact that people who have swallowed up this “tribal” divide, led by the sheep in their soul – that need to follow, have used such frankly laughable tactics recently to combat Jones’ view (ie. The suggestion that the “perps” deliberately manufactured fake evidence of a controlled demolition, implicating themselves, just so no one would find out about HOW they did it??!!!?) makes these people all the more damaging to credibility.

That doesn’t mean Jones is right.

But say Jones is wrong. Say some completely different substance rather than thermate and explosives, or even a DEW was used. Will this discredit us if serious evidence ever transpires of the method of destruction? Of course not. Conventional explosives and steel cutting incendiaries does not sound like pie-in-the-sky, it is a logical guess, and it was wrong. Fine.

Wood’s position, however, seems designed (and I say “seems” I’m not directly accusing Woods of anything here) to make the truth movement look exactly how the PTB want to portray us – wild eyed sci-fi loving tin foil hat wearing kooks.

“What’s the 9/11 truth movement?”

“Oh they’re those kooks who think no planes hit the world trade centre and it was destroyed by a beam weapon from space”

“LOL!”

Don’t you realise that is EXACTLY the box they want us to be in?

But forget this division which is, to me, cynically designed and manipulated from outside the movement and focus on what we all agree on: 9/11 was an inside job.