it was'nt as bad as the last interview, has this been posted before? if not why not? it would of at least explained where beamers are coming from even if people dont agree with all the content. and at last something to debate something given as proof/evidence.
im going to be totally honest but please take into account ive only just watched it and have not had time to think all the points through(i will proberbly watch it any 2-3 times to fully adress things i may or may not agree with). its was a mix of things i was thinking during that, somethings i thought were assumptions or just bad wording or wrong(or maybe wasnt shown clear enough how she came to that conclusion), somethings i could see the point she was getting at and others i was unsure.
however this is the first question i have and i think is the thing that stood out for me. at the end she asks what caused the damage and then showed a beam weapon i appreciate she said she eliminated certain methods but she didnt show that beam weapons can do what she was claiming. whats to say it was'nt a mini nuke for example or some other technology maybe even something we are not even aware of? surely to prove it was a beam it needs to proved a beam weapon can do all that we saw and was coursed on 9/11 including burnt out cars ect ect. also how big the weapon needs to be and how many to acheive the amount of energy needed. it was like a stage of research was skipped over to end up at beams.
i hope you dont see my questions as an attack on beams im trying to understand it.
Well I hope this doesn't skew anyone’s ability to make up their own mind, I tend to think debate is a healthy part of firming up a theory.
Of course she is much more sane here. Carefully written scripts really do make all the difference. Unfortunately the lies just keep on coming...
Opening of the lecture: Un-damaged cartoon characters. (seen that one before)
1:28 - Presents two photos of tower 1 collapse, in both cases the smoke of tower 2 is rising up behind them, and creates the illusion that T1 is exploding upwards. Why not use images from two clearly different angles for clarity?
2.00 - More misleading comparison, nukes and volcanoes which throw debris thousands of feet into the air v's TT's which explode outward.
4.01 - Lies about NIST's prediction of tower fall times.
6.10 - Misrepresents the use of the bathtub, damage done and fails to note that the PATH tunnels did flood with thousands of gallons of water from fire hoses.
6.18 - Possibly the worst sense of humour I’ve ever witnessed.
9.12 - Entire 'king dome' analysis flawed because the two building types are obviously completely different. Why not compare data of a similarly constructed buildings demolition?
10.00 - Bored now. Switching off to rant.
No doubt she continued on to the burning cars... The massive damage to buildings bellow the towers (I agree it's unlikely that falling pennies could do that kind of damage!), etc etc..
Marky, on your question of "Whats to say it wasn’t a mini nuke for example" and such, I quite agree, there's nothing to say it wasn't but the appeal of Beam Weapons is that there is no way to prove they were used, thus it's a very safe theory for the entire movement to believe! _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
I have to say, you guys (Fallious, PB), you were a bit slow off the mark tonight...
I posted at 6:33 - a whole 2 HOURS and 4 MINUTES before Fallious posted....!
Wossamatter, ay?
So you expected us to post, but you put up this flawed lecture anyway? How about in the future you save us the time and leave these lies on the cutting room floor?
Just for the record - you can go back and look through the forum logs if you like: YOU were the one who started the shill hunt, dropping snide comments to undermine my character when you couldn't defeat my arguments. I strongly suspect the same treatment for Patrick. So please don't be under any illusion that the only reason for your hounding is that I don't like your theories...
The thing I most dislike about you is the way you operate on this forum: your tactic of claiming the high moral ground in debate, while blatantly abusing your position to favour the rabbid supporters of your pet theories and claiming insider information that none of us are privy to as your last resort. As if you don't have final say on what happens around here and as if your word does not have significantly more weight than the average poster.
Ultimately when it comes down to it, and people do ask you the hard questions, a straight answer is the last thing you provide.
If you feel this worthy of reply at all, I fully expect a few sentences mocking my anger and upset with you. These aren't serious concerns after all. Thanks Andrew. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Last edited by Fallious on Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Maybe they are not paid to post here Andrew and have lives to get on with?
Quite possibly John. However, I have to say, looking at the evidence and the pattern of posting, something quite strange seems to be going on....
Denial of evidence on their part I also find interesting, for people who purportedly want to find the truth behind 9/11. Fallious even admitted he gave up after 10 minutes. Presumably, he finds it more productive for the remaining 20 minutes to post desultory remarks on these threads? Well, fair enough, but it doesn't seem to be a good way of coming to conclusions about data and evidence if you ask me.... call me a heretic... _________________ Andrew
Perhaps you'd rather analyze peoples posting patterns than correct the points I raised about Woods paper? Two can play this pointless little game, Andrew. And once again, it's you who started it.
Heretic indeed. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Well I suppose the irony is that Andrew posted this new video of Woods in the “9/11 Truth Controversies” section. Controversial to say the least!
When exactly was this filmed Andrew last night?
Presumably filmed after Woods had taken her medication?!!?
I suppose when people keep questioning you it's a slight indication that you're talking non-sense. Like a sh*ll perhaps? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
just in case anyone has forgot i did take the judy wood talk seriously and posted a question, i cannot move closer to believing this theory untill my question is answered by anybody believing beams.
anyone have the answer? if not at least admit that part has not been looked into properly and i can move on to other questions so im able to get a better picture.
avoidance of helping people understand isnt doing any favours, i can tell serious debate has been sidelined again for verbal punches but i would be greatfull if any beamer out there can help answer my questions.
just in case anyone has forgot i did take the judy wood talk seriously and posted a question, i cannot move closer to believing this theory untill my question is answered by anybody believing beams.
anyone have the answer? if not at least admit that part has not been looked into properly and i can move on to other questions so im able to get a better picture.
avoidance of helping people understand isnt doing any favours, i can tell serious debate has been sidelined again for verbal punches but i would be greatfull if any beamer out there can help answer my questions.
hmmm do i have to assume there is no proof or is it just secret only a few truthers are aloud to know about?
So that’s pretty conclusive... Out of all the people posting in this thread, one had questions about the movie, one raised numerous faults with the movie, another questioned the worth of the clip, and Andrews reply? Character attacks.
Then when a moderator got involved to pull him up, he's off and left without another word.
If you post something in the controversial theories section, wouldn't it be logical to expect some serious debate of the post content? Or perhaps I am missing something. This is very similar to the old 'drop it and leg it' posting tactics of TC, TTWSU3 and Brooklyn.
I dunno.. Call me a heretic. (oh, please do) _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
the only thing that puzzles me is the use of comparison to the dome building as oppose to WTC 7 (maybe because we are not sure it was CD or rather it is not accepted in the mainstream as a CD?) but i would of thought WTC7 would of been a better comparison.
my first question is does anyone have any differant readings?
because according to this if WTC7 was CD'ed(even if it wasnt) then although it the event was longer less mass hit the floor compared to WTC 1, WTC2. which throws doubt over the theory that WTC 1, WTC 2 was dustified and no mass hit the floor and most of the steel evaporated. we saw the rubble at WTC7 was 5-6 floors high(judy woods words) and yet only a 0.6 compared to 2.1 and 2.3 at the towers where apparently no significant mass hit the ground.
anyone have any thoughts or can anyone add to this or explain?
edited to make it clearer.
Last edited by marky 54 on Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:30 am; edited 1 time in total
So that’s pretty conclusive... Out of all the people posting in this thread, one had questions about the movie, one raised numerous faults with the movie, another questioned the worth of the clip, and Andrews reply? Character attacks.
Then when a moderator got involved to pull him up, he's off and left without another word.
If you post something in the controversial theories section, wouldn't it be logical to expect some serious debate of the post content? Or perhaps I am missing something. This is very similar to the old 'drop it and leg it' posting tactics of TC, TTWSU3 and Brooklyn.
I dunno.. Call me a heretic. (oh, please do)
Heretic - you asked for it - you raise no specific points of evidence and I have discussed some of these on other threads.
So, again, we see the repeated distortion of the truth in your posts. Not looking to good for you again is it?
Also, you encourage circular debate, rather than finding these threads for yourself. I have provided evidence to back up what I am saying (the link to the post above). You have made some personalised statements with no evidence discussed.
More and more people are now getting wise to this difference, so you are going to have to come up with better tactics before long.
Would you like to become a whistleblower, or are you happy to debunk fundamentally important evidence to the detriment of everyone else - and in the process cast asperions and make false or misrepresentative statements - as you just did (again) above?
Night night.
Thanks for being self-documenting! _________________ Andrew
Not correct - WTC collapse time was 6.6 seconds - not sure about the seismic reading - I have not been able to find another source.
Quote:
the only thing that puzzles me is the use of comparison to the dome building as oppose to WTC 7 (maybe because we are not sure it was CD or rather it is not accepted in the mainstream as a CD?) but i would of thought WTC7 would of been a better comparison.
It's a good question. I'll ask Judy.
Quote:
because according to this if WTC7 was CD'ed(even if it wasnt) then although it took longer to collapse
It didn't take longer - the videos show 6.6 seconds.
Quote:
less mass hit the floor compared to WTC 1, WTC2.
This is clear from the photos i.e. rubble pile should be 12% of building height - WTC 7 was about right at 6 floors high. WTC 1 & 2 should have been 13 stories higher - higher than some of the surrounding buildings
Quote:
which throws doubt over the theory that WTC 1, WTC 2 was dustified and no mass hit the floor and most of the steel evaporated. we saw the rubble at WTC7 was 5-6 floors high(judy woods words) and yet only a 0.6 compared to 2.1 and 2.3 at the towers where apparently no significant mass hit the ground.
Ignore the seismic evidence and collapse anomalies:
What about the toasted cars?
How did the subway and mall stores survive with undamaged goods? There are 15 different points of data to be explained. If you can come up with an alternative hypothesis, I'm all ears.... _________________ Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Not correct - WTC collapse time was 6.6 seconds - not sure about the seismic reading - I have not been able to find another source.
Quote:
the only thing that puzzles me is the use of comparison to the dome building as oppose to WTC 7 (maybe because we are not sure it was CD or rather it is not accepted in the mainstream as a CD?) but i would of thought WTC7 would of been a better comparison.
It's a good question. I'll ask Judy.
Quote:
because according to this if WTC7 was CD'ed(even if it wasnt) then although it took longer to collapse
It didn't take longer - the videos show 6.6 seconds.
[quote]
less mass hit the floor compared to WTC 1, WTC2.
Quote:
This is clear from the photos i.e. rubble pile should be 12% of building height - WTC 7 was about right at 6 floors high. WTC 1 & 2 should have been 13 stories higher - higher than some of the surrounding buildings
Quote:
which throws doubt over the theory that WTC 1, WTC 2 was dustified and no mass hit the floor and most of the steel evaporated. we saw the rubble at WTC7 was 5-6 floors high(judy woods words) and yet only a 0.6 compared to 2.1 and 2.3 at the towers where apparently no significant mass hit the ground.
Ignore the seismic evidence and collapse anomalies:
What about the toasted cars?
How did the subway and mall stores survive with undamaged goods? There are 15 different points of data to be explained. If you can come up with an alternative hypothesis, I'm all ears....
collapse times according to seismic data not visual. i linked the page.
and i havent looked at cars just yet, ive come to a question and need to ask it anyone can answer it.
the only thing that puzzles me is the use of comparison to the dome building as oppose to WTC 7 (maybe because we are not sure it was CD or rather it is not accepted in the mainstream as a CD?) but i would of thought WTC7 would of been a better comparison.
my first question is does anyone have any differant readings?
because according to this if WTC7 was CD'ed(even if it wasnt) then although it the event was longer less mass hit the floor compared to WTC 1, WTC2. which throws doubt over the theory that WTC 1, WTC 2 was dustified and no mass hit the floor and most of the steel evaporated. we saw the rubble at WTC7 was 5-6 floors high(judy woods words) and yet only a 0.6 compared to 2.1 and 2.3 at the towers where apparently no significant mass hit the ground.
anyone have any thoughts or can anyone add to this or explain?
can beam weapons cause a 2.3 earthquake? if not then we have to assume it was the debris of the building that caused it pointing to a significant more amount rubble than the 0.6 at WTC7. or it was a differant weapon that could cause a 2.3 earthquake and it wasnt the debris hitting the ground.
just to add the event duration do make me think differant methods were used on the tower as oppose to WTC7 but that dosnt lead me to beams yet.
You're either so utterly paranoid Andrew that you've become a parody of a conspiricist or you are a parody.
I havn't made my mind up.
Alert! Alert!
Evidence Free Post!!
Alert! Alert!
That's you that is.
Andrew have you got any evidence or not?
Ohh it's all Beam Weapons and "well are you sure you saw a jumbo jet impact the towers" type thang? Eh? Eh?
I know a song about people like you. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
So that’s pretty conclusive... Out of all the people posting in this thread, one had questions about the movie, one raised numerous faults with the movie, another questioned the worth of the clip, and Andrews reply? Character attacks.
Then when a moderator got involved to pull him up, he's off and left without another word.
If you post something in the controversial theories section, wouldn't it be logical to expect some serious debate of the post content? Or perhaps I am missing something. This is very similar to the old 'drop it and leg it' posting tactics of TC, TTWSU3 and Brooklyn.
I dunno.. Call me a heretic. (oh, please do)
Heretic - you asked for it - you raise no specific points of evidence and I have discussed some of these on other threads.
So, again, we see the repeated distortion of the truth in your posts. Not looking to good for you again is it?
Also, you encourage circular debate, rather than finding these threads for yourself. I have provided evidence to back up what I am saying (the link to the post above). You have made some personalised statements with no evidence discussed.
More and more people are now getting wise to this difference, so you are going to have to come up with better tactics before long.
Would you like to become a whistleblower, or are you happy to debunk fundamentally important evidence to the detriment of everyone else - and in the process cast asperions and make false or misrepresentative statements - as you just did (again) above?
Night night.
Thanks for being self-documenting!
All my tired re-iteration of points that you and other beamers refuse to address aside, I'm not the one that initiated the personal attacks Andrew, and that speaks volumes more than anything else you could add to this disagreement.
By posting an admittedly controversial topic and then refusing to engage in discussion about it, you are the one generating circular debate. You seem infinitely capable of answering as-yet unanswered questions, but when presented with a challenge of a *ahem* factual error, in the material you post, you are apparently incapable of addressing that issue personally or asking Judy about it on my behalf. Why is that?
This is a forum Andrew, we debate material here. That's one of the primary uses of the place but you seem incapable of grasping that.
The only difference between me and Marky's post is that he demonstrated the patience to appear overtly interested in joining your cause whereas I’m simply looking for some answers and accountability without the strings attached which you seem to require to consider discussion worthwhile.
Maybe it would help me get some answers if in the next thread you post I pretend to be interested in converting to NPT or Beam Weapons? _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
