And you thought no planes was controversial

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Twin towers - not controlled demolition - but a beam weapon from space

No molten metal at base of twin towers

No steel exported to China - because there was no steel

This is some of the Judy Wood interview

Discuss

[John White]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

John why must you always talk in riddles?

This stuff is incredible - it blows the conventional CD theory out of the water.


http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html

[Andrew Johnson]

[tfayaz]

[andyb]

Andrew,

I'm surprised at your backing of this. You are the only poster who can explain the NPT in a decent manner but you still can't answer many of the questions raised. Just because you've been in contact and she's been gracious does not make it true. You are one of our best campaigners but you are putting yourself up for ridicule if this is wrong. I may be wrong and may be ridiculed for saying this. It jsut deosn't seem well researched enough and there are many other points to go on about. You must realise this after the piece you had in the Telegraph. One search of this forum and a reporter will have ammo against you and it will be used against us as a whole.

TTWSY3,

Are you solely on this board to cause division as you do a might good job of it.

[marek]

Without speaking to the engineering or the "star wars" aspects, Judy Wood does raise a number of significant points:

1. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 look markedly different from that of WTC7.

WTC7 looks pretty much like traditional CD, with the structure collapsing bottom-up. The collapse is relatively localized, and the amounf of smoke/dust is minimal compared to WTC1 and 2.

WTC 1 and 2 did not look like regular controlled demolition. The net effect looks similar, but CD does not make a building "explode" up and laterally, and it does not cause a huge area to be covered with thick, toxic dust. Indeed, the reason we have CD is to make sure this does not happen when we demolish a building.

CD does not start at the top floor (or near it) and progress down: it normally progresses bottom-up.

2. While the "net effect" of the demolition looks similar to regular CD, the amount of debris is apparently very small. Most of WTC 1 and 2 turned to dust as they fell (unlike WTC 7).

When you watch the collapse videos, WTC 1 and 2 seem to turn to dust even as they are collapsing, floor by floor. Very few pieces of debris, if any, are seen to fall whole. Both 1 and 2 become instantly pulverized; they literally dissolve into dust.

I've voiced this issue here before and met with some disagreement, so feel free to show otherwise, but this is what I am seeing.

If thermite can "cut through steel", as is often claimed, does it also pulverize concrete, leaving no sections whole? Does anyone know?

(This issue seems pretty important to me, because I haven't seen anyone discuss it before, yet it is so obvious in all the videos: whatever caused the collapses, WTC 7 was not brought down the same way WTC 1 and 2 were.)

3. Do have a look at the pictures of burnt ("wilted") cars on page 5:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html

Some of them do look rather unsual. Can anyone suggest a more "orthodox" explanation that Judy Wood's?

4. The "holes", with rounded-like corners, that look like someone poked the rubble with a stick:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html

Has anyone addressed them yet?

(It may also be of interest to note Michael Ruppert's claims made via his website and talks he gave that he / his office were being "microwaved". This is not to suggest these claims are true or false, only to point out that they are somehow parallel to Judy Wood's.)

[andrewwatson]

This makes absolute sense to me. I am entirely with Andrew Johnson in endorsing his call for Professor's Wood's document to be examined carefully by everyone who has an interest in uncovering the truth about the destruction of the World Trade Center.

I agree that it is not a scientific paper, more a slideshow, but the photographic evidence, much of it quite new to me, is compelling.

Judy Wood points out something that has long puzzled me:

''The World Trade Center (WTC) towers did not "collapse" on 9/11/01, they were pulverized (Blown to Kingdom Come) before a gravity-driven collapse was even a possibility.''

What happened to thousands of tons of solid material, given that the rubble piles were so small? Answer: They were turned to dust in mid-air and settled all over Manhattan and on the Hudson River.

Here is the final summary:

Here are the principal data that must be explained:

1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (free fall speed "collapse")
2. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers
3. The rail lines, rail cars and tunnels had only light damage
4. The WTC mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends
5. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on our comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition
6. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up, unlike WTC7
7. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth
8. File cabinet with folder dividers surviving
9. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, plus a cylindrical arc into Bankers Trust and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust
10. All planes but top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes after WTC 1 had been destroyed
11. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers
12. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub.
13. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged or destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix, and no others.
14. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared
15. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass, unlike that of WTC7
16. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball and electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, the sound of explosions
17. The possibility that a technology exists. Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955*, commercial and military development of beam technology has proceeded apace, so use of high-energy beams are likely

What theories are available to explain these phenomena?
We can identify six theories:

1. Natural causes such as earthquakes and hurricanes
2. The official theory of airplane impact, fires and weakened steel collapsing
3. Conventional demolition with explosives such as RDX, dynamite, etc.
4. Demolition via thermite or its variants


5. Fission or fusion nukes (and clean bombs)

6. Beam weapons

No one proposes that an earthquake destroyed the Twin Towers from the top down. The theory is contradicted by nearly all the data above. For example, no earthquake can toast cars in inexplicable patterns.

In fact, the data refute theories a to d–natural, official, conventional and thermite demolition–in particular the intact bathtub, minimal seismic impact, and "dustification" prove nothing close to 1 million tons of material slammed down on the WTC foundation and its sub-basements. The debris stacks left where the Twin Towers once stood hardly covered the ground. The rescue dogs and workers did not climb up a tall pile but had to repel down to search for survivors.

The nuclear theory fails because an explosion powerful enough to turn most of each tower to dust would have seriously damaged the bathtub, probably flooded lower Manhattan, and spiked a high Richter reading. It violates a number of data points, including the observed top-down disintegration. And if a nuke were at the top, it could not progressively destroy lower floors and there were only a few steel beams tossed onto adjacent buildings and none above the 20th floor. Lots of aluminum cladding was tossed onto neighboring buildings’ roofs but no steel beams. How could a nuke be so selective? It could not. Nor can a nuke explain the toasted cars.

All the data are consistent with a beam weapon. Take the round holes in buildings 5 and 6. A high-energy weapon by definition could cut into buildings, destroy material and leave discreet boundaries in the buildings. We have know of no other explanation that has been offered for these peculiar holes. Similarly, some 1,400 cars were toasted in inexplicable patterns, and no alternative explanation to energy wave reflections has been offered. As Sherlock Holmes declared,

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."


If this is true, it throws an entirely new light on the story of 9/11. It deserves the most serious scrutiny.

[marek]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[andyb]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[andyb]

It is all SPECULATION, show me the proof and I will be happy to change my mind.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[andyb]

[brian]

Woods and Reynolds attack on Jones was ridiculous and this paper by Woods is equally ridiculous.

Is it an investigation we want or a Broadway farce?

They lied about Jones' position, attacking him for using the term hypothesis when referring to controlled demolition. Jones approaches the issue from the scientific angle whilst Woods and Reynolds approach from the Captain America angle.

Give me Jones' approach every time.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[brian]

The Star Wars Beam Weapon
By
Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds
----------------

The title for starters, what scientific evidence supports such a ridicule attracting title?

[John White]

[mason-free party]

cheers Andrew,bloody awesome!


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Jim%20Fetzer%20&%20Prof%20Ju dy%20Wood%20on%20RBN%20Live%20-%20WTC%20Destruction%2011%20Nov%202006. mp3

This is an important broadcast. Judy Wood's article can be found here:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

The pictures do, indeed, tell the story. This is not for the feint-hearted...

[telecasterisation]

Using my only 'real world' example of watching an unhealthy quantity of sci-fi as my only practical guide of getting my head around what is being suggested;

The source of the beam which was either in space or aboard a moving aircraft, would have needed multiple targets to have allowed freefall collapse in both towers. In other words, the first 'beam' hits the first section which in turn falls onto the next section as the 'beam' is then cutting through the next set of appropriate points to facilitate freefall collapse.

Would the weapon have to be at an angle to the target, on the horizon so to speak, or could it do this from 'above' the target without 'melting' the exterior wall of the tower/s which would be captured by one of the many cameras present? Would the weapon only work on steel?

It would need multi-targeting functionality, also be capable of firing more than one 'beam' at a time and the timing would need to be microscopically accurate to facilitate freefall - removing the lower floor supports at precisely the right micro-second. Not to mention the correct amount of 'beam', any overspill cutting through and out into surrounding Manhattan.

Also, are we now dismissing and forgetting the 'squibs' or are they a by-product of how this weapon functions? Perhaps it was a combination of the two, beam and explosives?

To generate the type of power needed to melt steel from space (someone will now sugggest it was in a vehicle or in another building - WTC7?), would be considerable - solar powered or regular deliveries of AA batteries via shuttle visits.

I accept the concept of what is suggested, but the logistics of creating a visually believable collapse of a building via a beam from space is in my opinion, simply not viable/possible. To remove the relevant sections in the correct order is simply beyond our capabilities - back-engineered alien technology not withstanding.

[Patrick Brown]

She's been gotten at or she's a shill. She was doing OK but then seems to have turned!

Listen to this radio clip here: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=37437#37437

[Poseidon]

Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds peddle utter nonsense such as their Fact #5 "no aluminum airliner hit the Towers" at this link:

http://www.total911.info/2006/09/revere-radio-special-reynolds-wood-on .html

Reynolds and Wood are nothing more than second-rate infiltrators, employed to promote straw man theories. Lies are intermixed with a few honest points in an attempt to cast doubt upon the true facts that provide evidence of the crime. Reynolds is a 'former' Bush Admin member in the same sense that Bin Laden, dead or alive, is a 'former' CIA asset. Wood was in a coma for six years, and her students regarded her as a poor teacher who did not really know the material. A poster at a Clemson talk forum described her as "arguably the dumbest person [he'd] ever met, and by far the most incompetant [sic] instructor Clemson has ever hired".

One of Wood's/Reynolds' tasks was to try to counter Steven Jones' exposure of the video evidence of molten iron pouring from the side of WTC 2 in the minutes leading up to collapse. They claimed it was aluminium.

http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm

The WTC fires gas temperatures could not have averaged much over 600 C; 1000 C would have been possible for 20 minutes along with 500 C or cooler for 80 minutes. The aluminum would not have got anywhere near the gas temperatures let alone matched or exceeded them, which would have been necessary to produce the observed yellow liquid, even disregarding aluminium's low emissivity which would cause it to appear silvery in daylight conditions. Larry Silverstein's team concluded that fire temperatures were lower than typical "fully developed" office fires, because of dust and debris distributed by the crashes. They placed the temperatures at between 750 F and 1300 F (about 400 C to 700 C). (His study said the floors did not fail, and the collapses were due to column failure. They are right, but the column failure was not due to burning paper and curtains. It was the result of a thermate-based controlled demolition.)

If the gas temperatures were 700 C and the alloy melted at only 600 C, then given an emissivity of 0.1 the absorption rate would be:

P/A = 0.1 * 5.67 * 10^-8 * (973^4 - 873^4) = 1.789 kW/m^2.

With 397 kJ/kg for the latent heat of fusion, the alloy could melt at a rate of 4.5 g per square meter per second, or 5.4 kg per square meter after 20 minutes of sustained local combustion after the metal had already managed to reach 600 C.

Reynolds' and Wood's "no WTC planes" absurdities and blatant agenda of trying to discredit Dr Jones allow us to disregard any further disinformation that they have concocted.

Here is what Steven Jones had to say about Reynolds' and Wood's attacks on him:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.pdf

It includes a letter from someone confirming that molten aluminum (exposed to air) is silvery in appearance.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Can anyone explain how whole parking lots of cars were destroyed as seen in the pictures. Certainly not the result of a traditional controlled demolition.

I understand the reason they used a beam weapon was to ensure that most of the buildings were converted to dust and did not fall to the ground with great force.

A controlled demolition would have destroyed the bathtub and Manhattan would have been flooded WTC is built over the Hudson river.

Further evidence of this is that the underground car parks emerged unscathed . Check it out for yerselves.

Why most of you doubt the existence of black ops technology surprises me.

You are likely to see it again in the future - maybe under the guise of a faken alien invasion

I would recommend all of you to watch disclososure project - link below where scores of senior Armed Forces personnel swear that they have seen evidence of Aliens

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6552475158249898710

[Patrick Brown]

[telecasterisation]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[telecasterisation]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Sorry Telecaster

What I meant to say was regarding the squibs

If you look at the hundreds of card in the vicinity they all appear to have exploded from within by some forces of pressure - maybe the same forces from the beam weapon caused the squibs - check it out.

[Thermate]

This forum seems to have more than its fair share of crackpots and government plants.

Insane tin-foil-hat theories are not needed or required to explain 911.

Controlled demolition covers it all just fine.