Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth debunk Judy Wood!

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 19554
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:20 am
Location: underneath the circumstances

PostFri May 13, 2011 2:33 pm » by The57ironman


rydher wrote:This whole thermite has been beyond debunked. I have zero clue why you guys keep thinking its plausible. To those I haven't responded to in the thread before, actually take the time to look and read up on the other side of the story. The ones that don't use crazy speculation, the ones that use facts from that day. I will say this on thermite....

Two byproducts, aluminum oxide and barium nitrate, that would have to be present were NOT found in any amounts at the WTC. As for nano-thermite, I have been unable to locate anywhere if those byproducts are also part of that but I would guess some would have to be. Even that one Norwegian scientist didn't look for or even mention what the byproducts of nano-thermite is. Does it really matter? At first it was thermite, then thermate, then nano-thermite, now this. If not this it will be something else.

Just take a look at all these people that come out with these theories. Their motivation is plain as day to see. $$$$$ and fame to perpetuate the absurd theory of explosives planted into the WTC buildings. There is so much more out there that explains exactly how the towers came down from countless people that don't speculate on 'secret technology' or rely completely on the unknowns of that day, which there are some.

yeah , you're right....
................................................... CHA-CHINGLE BELLS .................................................
ImageImageImage

Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 2:36 pm

PostFri May 13, 2011 2:52 pm » by Arten


My fist post on this forum so will jumps straight into the deep end.

I wonder if this guy is onto something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPLKfmzbvg4


``When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations. The Truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.''
Dresden James

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:37 am
Location: Earth...

PostSat May 14, 2011 4:48 am » by Astroboy777


arten wrote:My fist post on this forum so will jumps straight into the deep end.

I wonder if this guy is onto something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPLKfmzbvg4


``When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations. The Truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.''
Dresden James



Upload to Disclose.tv

.................................Image

Initiate
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:35 pm

PostSat May 14, 2011 10:23 am » by Cee420


tjshultz wrote:Hey guys, I've been looking at Judy Wood's research more and more, and it definitely raises more questions than it answers, but why is that a bad thing?
Personally, I think it was a combination of the 2(controlled demolition and dew or something beyond what we already know).
On the issue of the toasted cars, I would have to agree more on the side of judy woods, because if thermite, or partially unignited thermite caused it from the debris cloud that poured down on all of lower manhattan, then how come the people who were running away from the cloud weren't burned alive when the dust covered them? Some of those people were covered in it for hours and hours before they were able to get help or take a shower, but not all of their skin was melted back like the steel on the cars were.
Another thing I find kinda funny was that there was soooo much paper debris littered all over the place, but they only found 1 and a half steel filing cabinets. That's pretty impressive if that is true. The only main steel pieces that were found in the rubble was from the outer structure and some main structural beams and that was pretty much it.

Also, the amount of damage that was done to the under foundation(The Bathtub) was very minimal. I would've thought that if it was purely 100% a controlled demolition that the force that drove it all downwards with the use of explosives would've destroyed that foundation to rubble, but it wasn't. Thermite, or thermate, or nano thermite, whatever you want to use, isn't going to pulverize every single last shred of concrete. It can help take care of the steel, but the concrete is going to be a little harder, and the force of it crashing down would do a lot more damage. I'm no scientist or anything and don't claim to be, but I definitely think there's a lot more to 9/11 than any of us know about. After all, the gov't spent 100 million investigating a blow job, and spent a grand total of 11 million on 9/11. If it was as easy to say it was a controlled demolition then how come nothing has happened?

I don't know why people are going out trying to debunk Judy Wood like its a festival. I figured if she could bring up atleast one item that is different and new, it would be a breakthrough for the scientific community, after all, I was under the impression that 9/11 Truthers wanted to know the truth and sift through everything that gets thrown their way, not throw all their chips on one hypothesis and claim the science has been settled and its irrefutable, ala Al Gore on Global Warming.
We don't know all the answers yet on 9/11 and sticking with the 100% controlled demolition theory isn't solving anything yet. If Jesse Ventura could get his police state episode censored, it probably means there was a whole lot of truth to it. But if his show about controlled demolition and how everything went about wasn't censored as powerful as some of that info was for a mainstream tv show, then the gov't probably wasn't worried about it at all because they probably know there was wayyyyy more to the story than a controlled demolition.
Yes I believe there were soo many examples of a controlled demolition and I'm not ruling that out, but I think there were things working that day that we don't know about.
I respect a lot of what Alex Jones says, but I seriously doubt he'll ever question anything more about 9/11 because he thinks the science is settled. I think its more of a money thing for him because his named is wrapped up in the powerful 9/11 loose change movies and he has documentaries that say without a doubt its a controlled demolition. I think if he went back on any of that, people might not believe him as much as they already do. I think if he changed his mind, people just might not believe what he says because he could go back on that too.
Not sure if that's why, but that could be why he doesn't give Judy Wood any mention. That and his friendship with Steven Jones too. And I think that if Alex Jones says things about Judy Wood, most of his listeners will take everything he says for fact. I listen to his show almost every day, and as much as people will say they 'don't believe everything Alex says' is true, some people just don't have the time to go and try and prove anything he says to be incorrect or try and look up some of the things people who call into his show bring up and I think he uses that to his benefit. He does cover a lot of other great stuff though that is true, and I'll give him that.

Sorry for the rant, if you read all of that, then I'll give you brownie points, lmao



Hey.

tjshultz wrote:Personally, I think it was a combination of the 2(controlled demolition and dew or something beyond what we already know).
On the issue of the toasted cars, I would have to agree more on the side of judy woods, because if thermite, or partially unignited thermite caused it from the debris cloud that poured down on all of lower manhattan, then how come the people who were running away from the cloud weren't burned alive when the dust covered them? Some of those people were covered in it for hours and hours before they were able to get help or take a shower, but not all of their skin was melted back like the steel on the cars were.


Not all the cars around ground zero burned thou they had WTC-dust on them.
Many of such cars can be seen in the photos on Judy Wood’s site
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/ ... Beam5.html
This can be explained by the hypothesis that that the controlled demolition was not done with thermite alone, but with conventional demolition charges along the thermite-charges.
The thermite was only used for cutting the steel structures in smaller pieces, and then the conventional explosives were used to knock them of their places ..but this is only a suggested blast-scenario

The unburned paper Is explained with the same thing ..the dust was not filled with reacting thermite or hot bits from thermite ..but it was only here and there ..the strong winds from the collapse and the high-explosives also allow the paper to be blown around and “out of harms way”
..and like I already said ..not everything, touched by WTC-dust got burned ..not every car and so on, so it’seasy to understand why people were not burned either

tjshultz wrote:Thermite, or thermate, or nano thermite, whatever you want to use, isn't going to pulverize every single last shred of concrete

Like mentioned above, conventional demolition charges were also used, which pulverized the concrete ..yes, nano-thermite did not do the pulverization, but conventional high-explosives did.

tjshultz wrote:Also, the amount of damage that was done to the under foundation(The Bathtub) was very minimal. I would've thought that if it was purely 100% a controlled demolition that the force that drove it all downwards with the use of explosives would've destroyed that foundation to rubble, but it wasn't.

A lot of the falling debris from the Twin Towers were ejected on other buildings and in every direction, and the debris was cut in relatively small pieces ..so not very huge chunks hit the ground and so it’s fairly natural that the foundations were quite unharmed.


tjshultz wrote:I don't know why people are going out trying to debunk Judy Wood like its a festival.


It is because Judy Wood’s research is quite bad. She makes claims, and hold it as her “empirical evidence” that is not in line with facts of the events.
-She claims that most of the WTC steel was pulverized ..NOT TRUE
-She claims that car engines got melted around Ground Zero ..NOT TRUE
-She suggest in her material that the explosive ejections seen on many pictures and videos of the Twin Towers were actually “decoy explosives” to hide the use of DEW-technology ..which is quite stupid suggestion when you think about it
= when the people are trying to convince the world that the WTC destruction happened because of air-plane mpacts and the fires ..why would they use “decoy explosives”

..and so on.
So when she can’t even get the easily variable things right ..and makes these claims year after year, people start to see her as a possible ‘dis-info agent’

tjshultz wrote:Not sure if that's why, but that could be why he doesn't give Judy Wood any mention.


He’s not talking about Judy Wood because of the things I mentioned above
Her research is very bad ..so bad that she actually looks like a dis-info agent
And second ..her theory has no scientific backing ..these are only her theories, while the nano-thermite has been verified with physical tests (see my next post to this thread)
But yes, maybe it would be good for Alex to talk about her research to show people how bad her work really is.

Peace.

Initiate
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:35 pm

PostSat May 14, 2011 10:34 am » by Cee420


rydher wrote:This whole thermite has been beyond debunked. I have zero clue why you guys keep thinking its plausible. To those I haven't responded to in the thread before, actually take the time to look and read up on the other side of the story. The ones that don't use crazy speculation, the ones that use facts from that day. I will say this on thermite....

Two byproducts, aluminum oxide and barium nitrate, that would have to be present were NOT found in any amounts at the WTC. As for nano-thermite, I have been unable to locate anywhere if those byproducts are also part of that but I would guess some would have to be. Even that one Norwegian scientist didn't look for or even mention what the byproducts of nano-thermite is. Does it really matter? At first it was thermite, then thermate, then nano-thermite, now this. If not this it will be something else.

Just take a look at all these people that come out with these theories. Their motivation is plain as day to see. $$$$$ and fame to perpetuate the absurd theory of explosives planted into the WTC buildings. There is so much more out there that explains exactly how the towers came down from countless people that don't speculate on 'secret technology' or rely completely on the unknowns of that day, which there are some.



Hey.
Can you actually show something more specific about “thermite being debunked”, other than your opinions? Many people I have seen debunking it in the internet, have usually based their debunking on math and some “loose statements” about the characteristics of thermite-composites, which actually come in many different forms and mixtures.
..but usually, if not every time these people have zero-percent of physical research to back their claims & math ..and the people who have actually done some research with thermites have actually debunked these debunkers fairly well.

rydher wrote:At first it was thermite, then thermate, then nano-thermite, now this. If not this it will be something else.

Scientific studies on subjects develop and evolve, you do understand this don’t you.
At first these people had only some 9/11 World Trade Center anomalies to work with (molten iron, persistent heat etc.) ..and so they suggested thermite being present.
..then when they got more things to study and research, then they actually found the physical presence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust.
So as you can see, there is nothing odd in this, nor is there anything “un-professional” or unscientific about how this thing has evolved.


rydher wrote:Two byproducts, aluminum oxide and barium nitrate, that would have to be present were NOT found in any amounts at the WTC. As for nano-thermite, I have been unable to locate anywhere if those byproducts are also part of that but I would guess some would have to be. Even that one Norwegian scientist didn't look for or even mention what the byproducts of nano-thermite is.


Do you mean Niels Harrit?

I don’t think barium nitrate is actually NEEDED for Thermite-reaction to take place ..but I believe( and I’m not an expert, and haven’t ever used thermites personally) it can be used in the mixture, and is used, but is not necessary.
..there are many different variations of thermite/thermate

-Second they actually found barium in the “WTC dust nano-thermite chips”
-They also found aluminium being present after the ignition tests of these chips ..they also talk about white smoke from the aluminium, which is usually present during reacting thermite.
-And they also list other trace elements they found in those nano-thermite chips, so to claim they didn’t test these substances, makes me wonder ..have you ever even read their study paper? , cause you clearly do not know what you’re talking about here, friend


Here’s the study on a pdf:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocp ... 7TOCPJ.SGM


Also, not only did they find “elements” of thermite, but they ACTUALLY found un-reacted ‘nano-thermite composite’ in the dust ..so this really is MORE than just residues or “elements”.
..these are tiny chips of the actual ‘cutting agent’ itself.

Image

Here is a photo of a multi-layered nano-thermite chips and this composite is called “nano-laminate”

..and here is a patent from mid-1990’s for such a laminate-thermite
Metal nanolaminate composite
United States Patent 5912069
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5912069.html

Image


-
-
As I mentioned earlier, many times the “thermite debunkers” base their debunking on loose information about thermites.

Their usual claims are:
- thermite is difficult to use in horizontal cutting
- large amounts of thermite is needed to make horizontal cuts
-thermite is not a low-explosive or that thermite has no explosive qualitis ..high explosives being RDX and C-4
- thermite is not used in controlled demolitions of buildings


First here’s a video testimony from an explosives-loader Tom Sullivan. In the Video he also talks about thermite cutting charges being around since the 1980’s
..so apparently themite-charges really are being used in controlled demolitions.

Tom Sullivan - Explosives Loader


Upload to Disclose.tv




And here’s another video made by Jon Cole, in which he demonstrates in his back yard with low-tech engineering hot to make different kinds of thermite/thermate-cutters and how to make horizontal cuts using relatively small amounts of thermate
Jon Cole’s home-made thermate also shos some explosive qualities.

Proof that Thermite can cut a vertical column
“The Great Thermate Debate”


Upload to Disclose.tv




Here’s a video in which you can see three thermite charges exploding inside the perimeter columns of the South Tower few minutes before it’s collapse:
..and this resembles, quite closely, the home-made thermite cutters designed by Jon Cole in the earlier video ..thermite charges placed inside the perimeter columns

9-11 Thermite cutter charges exploding just before South Tower's demolition


Upload to Disclose.tv


-
-People who found the nano-thermite composite from the WTC dust do not claim that the three WTC-buildings were brought down using ONLY thermite.
Here’s a video testimony from Niels Harrit and in it he says that they believe that conventional explosives were used ALONG the thermite-charges.
9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE-Niels Harrit-Chemist


Upload to Disclose.tv




-
-
Here’s an article by Lawrence Livermore Labs on Sol-Gel composites (also nano-thermites) in which they tell us that this process allows to but conventional high-explosives in these sol-gel composites ..so nano-thermite-composites CAN BE mixtures that have high-explosives in them ..if needed.
Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives
https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
-
-
So …can you actually show me who has debunked these people?!

Peace.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:03 pm

PostSat May 14, 2011 11:18 pm » by Rydher


cee420 wrote:So …can you actually show me who has debunked these people?!

Peace.


Yes, please search my posts on 9/11 subjects and you can see for yourself.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:39 pm
Location: Oceanic 815

PostSun May 15, 2011 1:51 am » by Epicfailure


rydher wrote:
cee420 wrote:So …can you actually show me who has debunked these people?!

Peace.


Yes, please search my posts on 9/11 subjects and you can see for yourself.





why do you even try?

you just got massively owned, BIG TIME!

:lol:

Good Job Cee, and not just for owning this guy, but you always come in on these 9/11 threads and dish out the facts, and I can certainly appreciate it!

thanks man!
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:03 pm

PostSun May 15, 2011 1:56 am » by Rydher


Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:39 pm
Location: Oceanic 815

PostSun May 15, 2011 1:59 am » by Epicfailure


rydher wrote:Image



you are used to that on your Xtube profile aren't you rydher?

I know it's you, it's quite funny.

(Rydher + Username)

DTV and Xtube.....what a mix.
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:21 pm

PostSun May 15, 2011 2:42 am » by Daemonfoe


rydher wrote:This whole thermite has been beyond debunked. I have zero clue why you guys keep thinking its plausible. To those I haven't responded to in the thread before, actually take the time to look and read up on the other side of the story. The ones that don't use crazy speculation, the ones that use facts from that day. I will say this on thermite....

Two byproducts, aluminum oxide and barium nitrate, that would have to be present were NOT found in any amounts at the WTC. As for nano-thermite, I have been unable to locate anywhere if those byproducts are also part of that but I would guess some would have to be. Even that one Norwegian scientist didn't look for or even mention what the byproducts of nano-thermite is. Does it really matter? At first it was thermite, then thermate, then nano-thermite, now this. If not this it will be something else.

Just take a look at all these people that come out with these theories. Their motivation is plain as day to see. $$$$$ and fame to perpetuate the absurd theory of explosives planted into the WTC buildings. There is so much more out there that explains exactly how the towers came down from countless people that don't speculate on 'secret technology' or rely completely on the unknowns of that day, which there are some.


Hey rhyder. Hrmmm... Just a question. Sure no byproducts of thermate and such, but how do you explain the tiny iron spheres? How are those formed via jetfuel fire temperatures? What are they and why are they found all over the dust samples?
The two choices we have are something starting from nothing, or something existing infinitely. These are both paradoxes. The existence of everything is therefore a paradox. -daemonfoe


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook