Dr Judy Wood files Qui Tam against NIST

[truthseeker john]

[mediadisbeliever]

[Indubitably]

FACT 1

Destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11/2001 were NOT due to floor collapses as is suggested in the official report of the tragedy. Ground Zero did NOT have a huge pile of debris as would have occurred if such floor collapses in a 'pancake' style had occurred.

FACT 2

The film evidence plainly shows most of the solid bulk of these towers being turned in to dust other than lower floors.

FACT 3

The criminals planted 'squibs' in the Twin Towers to deflect our attention from the actual dessication of these towers happening right in front of our eyes. They wanted us to believe in 'controlled demolition' and in a pancake collapse.

Such was the outline given by Dr Wood in her lecture and unless critics can argue against these facts we can and must accept them as correct.

Despite these facts TruthseekerJohn says -

"Dr" Judy Wood and her theories are an embarrassment'.

Embarrasment ? In what sense ? She has stated facts. If not, which of the above can you show to be untrue ? They embarrass you, for sure. But they are facts.

And it gets worse. Chek writes -

The most alarming thing at this stage is that Judy Wood still doesn't have a thesis.

So, on the one hand TruthseekerJohn talks of Wood's 'theories' and Chek says Dr Wood doesn't even have a thesis !!! You guys are just crackpots !

Dr Wood's lecture is one of the great, defining moments of 9/11 research. Now, for the first time, we understand why Dylan Avery and others of the bogus 'truth movement' were provided with the 'cover' of 'controlled demolition' squibs. These criminals are clever. They fooled us for quite a while. But no longer. The Twin Towers were undoubtedly destroyed by a weapon which effectively turned them in to dust before they even hit the ground.

That's not an opinion but a plain fact confirmed by the evidence of that day.

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Chek,

The confusion is typical of misinformation specialists. Dr Wood has never said at any time that the entire twin towers were turned in to dust. She said (and please learn this, since it will otherwise make you willingly ignorant) that around 2/3rd of these buildings were turned in to dust. The lower floors were demolished. Those above were turned in to a vast ascending dust cloud. Which part of this simple message do you NOT understand ? And which of them is contradicted by evidence ? None at all.

She also says the actual weapon has not been identified. She has repeatedly shown that the vast mass of these towers did NOT fall to the ground near the footprint of those towers. Such FACTS are over and over shown by the evidence.

Come to terms with these facts and you will do a service to truth and reality.

[kc]

[chek]

[gruts]

[Indubitably]

Chek,

You now talk of the 'emptiness' of Dr Wood's theory. But you crazily contradict your own self. You wrote earlier on this thread -

The most alarming thing at this stage is that Judy Wood still doesn't have a thesis

So, does Dr Wood have a theory or not ? You one minute say she doesn't even have a thesis ! This contradicted by saying she has a theory that is 'empty' !!!

Why not stop this silly playing around ? It only makes you look silly and woefully ignorant of the difference between a thesis and a theory. Why are you so publicly silly ?

[Indubitably]

Gruts,

You really must start to face facts. The mulitiple video evidence shows the disintegration of the towers from the top downwards. They (from the top floor downwards) are being turned in to dust before our eyes. You can see this, right ? Or are you blind ?

That is NOT a building 'collapse'. It's the disintegration of most of the tower. All but for the lower floors. The lower floors are destroyed and they are the pile of rubble we see shortly afterwards at Ground Zero.

Unless you face these facts it's a total waste of time to talk further with you on this matter.

Dr Wood has presented these facts. They are facts worthy of being discussed. Do not say these facts do not exist. They exist.

Two thirds of the building is unaccounted for even before the destruction of the tower is finished. We therefore have in place of almost 2/3rds of the tower a vast, ascending cloud of dust - this confirmed by multiple video and photographic sources.

If you disagree look at the video and photographic evidence. There is no argument.

[gruts]

I have no problem facing facts. just as I have no problem distinguishing real facts from irrational evidence-free drivel, which is what your so-called "facts" actually consist of...

[Indubitably]

The facts are these towers are disintegrating before our eyes in to dust. The facts are that this is NO 'building collapse'. The facts are that except for the lower floors the concrete and steel of most of this building is being reduced to a vast ascending cloud. Those ARE the facts. Period.

[gruts]

the facts are that your so-called "facts" as stated above by you in capital letters, are not facts but irrational speculation.

if you disagree with this assessment, then please provide some proof that shows how high the rubble pile should have been, and that the way the towers came down is evidence for DEW not CD, and that the perps somehow "planted" the squibs - as you claim.

until then I'll continue to regard these claims as irrational evidence-free drivel.

have you watched the video by the way?

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Check,

Show us the 'collapse' of the Twin Towers. What everyone can see except you is gigantic disintegration in to dust of the towers from top floors downwards. This is NOT building collapse. It does not even resemble the collapse of a building. It is as anyone can see the disintegration into dust of an enormous building - certainly of all but the lower floors. The dust of their disintegration is being created from the top floors downwards. It is totally unique. And it's indisputable.

If you can't even accept this fact what's the point of talking ?

[chek]

[Indubitably]

The satellite pictures clearly show dust has risen high into the atmosphere at the collapse of the North Tower. Caught on satellite picture. It is indisputably rising from around the area of the North Tower, even to such altitude. Do you accept this ? It has risen there.

[chek]

[Indubitably]

The satellite picture shows a great trail of something rising high in to the atmosphere. A huge event. Taken by satellite. Yes ?

[chek]

[Indubitably]

OK Chek, you fly your kites. See you. Geez !

[my left bollock]

[chek]

[Indubitably]

I think we can sum this thing up quite easily in a few simple observations.

1. Where is the supposed debris from almost 75 floors of the Twin Towers (i.e. the majority of floors above around the 25th floor) in the final moments of the 'collapse' footage ? It's definitely NOT fallen down at Ground Zero. Where has this huge amount of solid MATTER gone ? We see that it's literally turning to dust in front of our eyes. This is no 'collapse' in the pancake style. How can anyone argue that this footage shows floors collapsing top to bottom ? It shows nothing of the kind. It's the turning in to dust of most of the entire tower and its contents. The truth is, Judy Wood's critics have not even faced the evidence before them.

2. Chek also has nothing to say about satellite photograph taken while one tower still stands. (The photograph showing matter in the form of dust has already risen to great altitude which is undoubtedly coming from the area of the destroyed tower).

It's a complete disgrace that Judy Wood has been portrayed as crazy by those who have never yet addressed themselves to the observable facts.

[chek]

[gruts]

[Indubitably]

Gruts,

What evidence do you see from the Twin Towers that they collapsed in a pancake fashion, floor by floor ?

It's because two thirds (and more) of the material from the Twin Towers is unaccounted for even before their lower floors disappear that makes me think you have some explaining to do. There is, in short, about 900 feet of building that you must account for, even before the destruction gets to the lower floors. Have you any suggestion where this material has gone ? Has it pancaked to Ground Zero ? And where can we see this material falling to ground level ?

You see with your own eyes what is really occurring, don't you ? This is NOT a tower collapse. It's the transformation of most of these towers in to dust, from the top downwards - the lowest floors being exploded to form most of the relatively very small amount of material found at Ground Zero.

These are the plain facts. Now please tell us what you think happened with the solid material of the Twin Towers. All of it.

p.s. The videos you have given me show that Dr Wood time and time again made her critics look like schoolboys. She asks them to explain where the solid matter is from most of the floors of the tower before it even falls to ground. They simply can't answer her. Because, in fact, they don't have the ability to see the facts before them.

[gruts]

stop using straw man arguments, ducking questions and repeating the same old drivel.

the facts are that your so-called "facts" as stated above by you in capital letters, are not facts but irrational speculation.

if you disagree with this assessment, then please provide some proof that shows how high the rubble pile should have been, and that the way the towers came down is evidence for DEW not CD, and that the perps somehow "planted" the squibs - as you claim.

still waiting....

[truthseeker john]

[Indubitably]

Gruts,

Neither of us have to hand the precise volume of solid matter that made up these Twin Towers. Nor am I asking you what the volume of debris at Ground Zero should be. So in this respect we are (and should remain) equal. Is that fair ?

The substance is, of course, the visual record of the final moments of these Twin Towers.

Let me state, once again, my position (and that of various others).

1. That the Twin Towers were both reduced to dust from the top floors downwards. The exception being the lower floors (these comprising about one quarter of the total mass of these structures) which were destroyed by acts of controlled demolition.

2. That the film and photographic evidence provides clear proof that these upper levels of the towers were literally being reduced to small particles at the time when those floors disintegrated. They were not, therefore, floors pancaking down upon one another. Nor is this mass to be found at Ground Zero.

3. The mass at Ground Zero was, in fact, mostly composed of these lower floors already mentioned. Some of this photographed in later days to give the false impression that it was of uniform height all over the footprint of the tower sites. In fact (as is clearly seen) the mass of the towers, comprising over 3/4 of the total mass, does not at any time fall in to the footprint of these towers. It is reduced to dust. Once again, there is no evidence whatsoever for a pancake 'collapse' or indeed a floor collapse in any normal sense. The video and photographic evidence is clear.

4. The exact cause of such a massive structure being crumbled to small particles has not been determined. Nor has anyone suggested the exact cause. But the physical facts, the effects, are what we are first to agree upon.

5. Satellite and other evidence (even prior to the collapse of the North Tower) shows a vast plume rising from Ground Zero to great altitude.

6. There is, before the lower floors of these towers fall to ground, no evidence of large structural pieces piling themselves at Ground Level. Once again, this is NOT a 'building collapse' but a disintegration of the vast mass of these towers, only the lower floors falling to the ground by acts of controlled demolition.

Now Gruts, you have a rough suggestion of what occurred. A version derived from the photographic and film evidence.

I hope you can tell us, in return, how you believe these Twin Towers were destroyed and can support it with the same evidence.

That is how we should proceed.